Decreasing C-section Rates

Maternal morbidity and mortality are still on the rise in the United States. Severe maternal morbidity has risen over 200% in the United States from 1993 to 2014 (CDC, 2019). There are some known reasons for this increase: increases in maternal age, pre-pregnancy obesity, preexisting chronic medical conditions, and cesarean delivery (Queenan, 2015). Cesarean sections (c-sections) are one probable cause of maternal morbidity, and these rates have drastically increased in the United States. The other variables of morbidity and mortality, such as age, obesity, and preexisting medical conditions, are difficult, if not impossible, to change. In order to improve maternal outcomes, the cesarean section rate must be decreased.

Through the years, the cesarean section rate has continued to climb. Primary cesarean rates account for 50% of the overall increased rate. There are a few causes for this increased rate. More of the reasons for primary c-sections are for non-reassuring fetal status and arrest of dilation than more objective indications such as malpresentation, maternal-fetal, and obstetric conditions, as seen in a woman who has delivered a baby vaginally before a c-section (Barber et al., 2011). Malpresentation, maternal-fetal, and obstetric reasons cannot be argued. Some conditions require c-sections, such as a woman with active herpes, a placental abruption, cardiac disease, a cord prolapse, a fetus with certain birth defects, or a breech or transverse baby. Non-reassuring fetal heart rate is a reason for a cesarean if it is truly non-reassuring. Concerns of medical malpractice have led to quicker decisions for c-sections.

Labor dystocia is one reason for c-section that needs to be improved. Labor dystocia is a generic term used to describe labor that is not following a “normal” curve. Friedman published the original labor curve in the 1950s. It was not until the 1990s that this labor curve was questioned. Obstetricians and midwives have not completely moved their practice to this new labor curve. Not all patients, especially with changes in patient demographics, such as age, weight, and co-morbidities, fall into a curve. Labor arrest is another term that can describe labor that is not effective. A woman having her first baby is no longer considered in labor until she is at least 6cm dilated. Therefore, the arrest of labor cannot be diagnosed prior to 6cm. The arrest of descent is defined as a fully dilated woman (10cm) and pushing, but the head is not descending to deliver.

Karacam, Walsh, & Bugg conducted a systematic review of labor dystocia (Karacam et al., 2014). The findings were that low-risk nulliparous women appear to labor for longer, possibly related to higher BMI and larger babies; epidural anesthesia may enable women to tolerate labor longer, and that labor progress is variable from woman to woman. This makes the diagnosis of labor dystocia difficult to make and vague. One study showed that the number of cesareans performed for the arrest of descent over time remained stable, but the number performed for the arrest of dilation increased each year (Barber et al., 2011). This means that more providers are letting the woman labor longer and reach 10 cm, or fully dilated, but then performing a c-section because the baby has not descended, or “come down the pelvis” to deliver. One study showed that delayed admission until the onset of active labor, continuous supportive care, avoiding epidural analgesia, supporting adequate hydration, use of upright positions, and less use of amniotomy and oxytocin during labor all have some biologic plausibility for facilitating vaginal birth via support for physiological labor (King, 2012). Another study showed that preventing the first cesarean is complex and requires teamwork among the physicians, midwives, nurses, and patients. Low intervention management of labor can encourage labor progress (Cox & King, 2015).

Obstetricians and midwives work all hours of the day. Sometimes they want to get home, which may influence their decision to do a cesarean section. The electronic fetal heart tracing may be questionable. Even with the improvement in the fetal heart after interventions, the obstetrician may continue to worry about the tracing. If the nurse caring for that patient keeps questioning the doctor, that doctor may also be more likely to perform a cesarean because they start to worry more. Another reason for a c-section could be that a doctor may have been sued because of a bad outcome, leading them to perform a c-section quicker because they worry more. There are many reasons why doctors and midwives may decide on a c-section. It is always easy to see why they should not have done the c-section when reviewing the case, but that does not look at the big picture of what the doctor and midwife are dealing with at the time of the c-section.

There are many reasons for cesarean sections. Changes in patient demographics, such as age and co-morbidities, are why doctors, nurses, and midwives cannot change. Many variables can be changed. Labor support and low interventions have both been proven to lower the rate. Nurses can give more labor support. Labor dystocia is one area that needs to be addressed. Women today cannot have their labor compared with women of the 1950s who were younger, lighter, and possibly healthier. Most importantly, teamwork and communication are the best ways to decrease the c-section rate. Doctors, midwives, and nurses all need to discuss each patient and develop the best plan of care.

Hospital-level policies may be a powerful tool for reducing medically unnecessary c-sections. Performance improvement committees can review all primary c-sections performed and require the doctor to present the case. This may discourage doctors from performing unnecessary c-sections. Identifying individual physician c-section rates at a department meeting is another means of discouraging it. It is vital to demonstrate the importance of lowering the c-section rate to all providers.

Non-reassuring fetal heart rate cannot always be fixed, but all doctors, midwives, and nurses need to be adequately educated on fetal heart monitoring, speak the same language, and perform interventions when indicated. It is acceptable for obstetricians to consult with other obstetricians when looking at a questionable fetal heart tracing.

The first step to overcoming labor dystocia would be educating the patients about labor and letting them labor longer at home. Midwives are much more likely to have their patients stay home longer. If the patient insists on coming to the office or hospital and is contracting but is not at least 5cm dilated for a nulliparous woman, she should be discharged home. A checklist with labor dystocia guidelines has been shown in one study to help make the diagnosis (Crosland, 2018). Women need to labor longer if the fetal heart tracing is fine. A woman who is less than 6cm should not receive a c-section for the arrest of labor because she is not technically “in labor” (OB Care Consensus, 2014). These women also need to have adequate contractions with oxytocin if needed before they should be considered the arrest of labor. A woman giving birth to her first baby who is pushing and not making progress should not be diagnosed as failure to descend until she has pushed at least 3 hours (and possibly 4 hours if she has an epidural) (Cox & King, 2015).

Women who are at low risk do not need continuous fetal monitoring. Intermittent fetal monitoring is acceptable and even preferred, giving the woman more freedom to move. Telemetry fetal monitoring is another intervention used for women who need continuous fetal monitoring. These monitors allow women the freedom to move around while being monitored without being connected by wires. Many small interventions can impact, but the providers must alter their practices.

Women who have had c-sections may be able to have a vaginal birth. Most women who have had one c-section and did not have a classical uterine incision are candidates for a trial of labor after a c-section. Even women who have had two c-sections without a classical uterine incision may be candidates (Practice Bulletin, 2017).

The rising c-section rate is a concern for all women of child-bearing age in the United States. There are many causes of c-sections. There is no single solution to fix the problem. Nurses, doctors, and midwives all need to be speaking the same language and following the latest evidence-based practice, which includes allowing the woman to labor longer and provide labor support. Nurses can perform the role of labor support when appropriately trained. Low interventions can also help to decrease c-section rates. One low intervention is performing intermittent fetal heart monitoring instead of continuous monitoring. Implementing evidence-based practices into all aspects of labor and delivery should also decrease the rate.

JS, a 24-year old G1P0, 40 weeks gestation, was admitted to the hospital on 11/2 at 0800. She was 3cm dilated. The provider admitted her because it was her due date, and she was tired. Twelve hours later (8 pm), she was 4 cm dilated, and the provider started Pitocin and ordered an epidural for pain relief. The patient received the epidural and then had to stay in bed. She slept through the night, so the RN left her alone. The next morning (11/3) at 8 am, the patient was still 4cm, and the provider decided to perform a c-section for labor dystocia.

1. Was this an appropriate c-section?
2. What else should have been done by the RN for this patient?
3. What risks are there to this patient?

This c-section was not appropriate at this time. JS was not yet in active labor at 4cm. She could have been sent home until she was in active labor. Alternatively, if she wanted to stay, she should have been encouraged to walk, move, get in the shower, and try other techniques to manage pain. Once she got the epidural, the RN should have continued moving the patient and using a peanut ball. This patient has all of the risks of someone who had a c-section. She is only 24, and this is her first baby. Now she has uterine scarring, which could cause future complications.

• Adams ED, Stark MA, Low LK. A Nurse’s Guide to Supporting Physiologic Birth. Nursing for Womens Health. 2016;20(1):76-86. doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2015.12.009.
• Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications Contributing to the Increasing Cesarean Delivery Rate. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2011;118(1):29-38. doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31821e5f65.
• Barrett SJ, Stark MA. Factors Associated With Labor Support Behaviors of Nurses. Journal of Perinatal Education. 2010;19(1):12-18. doi:10.1624/105812410x481528.
• CDC. Severe Maternal Morbidity in the United States | Pregnancy. Accessed December 1, 2019. Visit Source.
• Cox KJ, King TL. Preventing Primary Cesarean Births. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;58(2):282-293. doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000108.
• Crosland A, Wu E, Oakes M, et al. 354: Effects of a labor dystocia checklist: Safely raising the bar with contemporary guidelines. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;218(1). doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.290.
• Karaçam Z, Walsh D, Bugg GJ. Evolving understanding and treatment of labour dystocia. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2014;182:123-127. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.011.
• King TL. Preventing Primary Cesarean Sections: Intrapartum Care. Seminars in Perinatology. 2012;36(5):357-364. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2012.04.020.
• Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;123(3):693-711. doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000444441.04111.1d.
• Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017;130(5). doi:10.1097/00006250-201711000-00051.
• Queenan JT. Protocols for High-Risk Pregnancies: An Evidence-Based Approach. Wiley-Blackwell; 2015.
• Tools to Optimize Outcomes of Labor Safely. BirthTools. Visit Source. Accessed March 23, 2020.