Take the time to get and read your records.  You may find that your “emergency” cesarean was no rush at all.

Medical Records Copying Charges by State

Want to know if your doctor has been subject to a board hearing or disciplinary note? 

Here is a link to the State Board sites for all 50 states.

Wow is this article amazing for being published in the post-2004 “anti-VBAC per ACOG” era, by two MDs no less! If your OB gives you the third degree about VBAC, you might want to give him a copy of this article. The tide against VBAC might be turning!

Dated February 2008, not only does it openly and explicitly encourage VBAC, but it also:

• declares VBAC as the “safest option”
• encourages efforts to “minimize the primary cesarean delivery rate”
• asserts that cesareans increase the risk of “placenta accreta, increta and percreta” which “may be particularly difficult to address in a rural community hospital setting”
• puts the high cesarean rate squarely on the shoulders of OBs: “Physician specific practices influence cesarean delivery rates”
• notes that OB attitudes towards cesareans is the “largest stumbling block” in lowering the rate
• concludes that, “An important ingredient in reducing cesarean delivery, either in nulliparous or parous women, is to place value on vaginal delivery”
• supports “labor management strategies to reduce cesarean rates in the Native American population in the Oklahoma Area and nationwide”
• questions why smaller hospitals state they can’t accommodate VBAC, yet offer maternity services, when there are other emergencies that occur during non-VBAC labors at a greater rate than uterine rupture
• encourages hospitals to revaluate their policies and support VBAC
• asserts that VBAC is successful 75% of the time
• reaffirms that spontaneous VBAC labors are more successful (80.6%) than VBAC labors that are induced (67.4%) or augmented (73.9%)
• reaffirms that women who are more than 4 centimeters dilated upon admission have greater VBAC success (83.8% vs. 66.8%)
• found VBAC success can be had among women with “larger babies” (over 4000 grams or 8 lb, 12 oz) (62%) and women who are ‘overdue’ as defined as 41 weeks or more (64.8%).  I would personally take these odds over the 0% chance of VBAC success if you have a scheduled repeat cesarean!

Maybe the pendulum is finally swinging the other way and this will be the beginning of VBAC support for all women.

The emphasis below is mine.  Note that VBAC is referred to as ‘trial of labor after cesarean’ or TOLAC.

Leeman, Larry, MD, MPH and Eve Espey, MD, MPH. “Concern for rising Cesarean rates in Native American populations.” CCC Corner 6.2 (February 2008)

Concern for rising Cesarean rates in Native American populations

By Larry Leeman MD, MPH and Eve Espey MD, MPH

Editorial Note : The following is in response to a Point / Counterpoint discussion of trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in rural hospitals, December CCC Corner*

We appreciate the willingness to engage in discussion about trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) availability and the approach to cesarean delivery at W. W. Hastings Hospital. Every facility faces unique factors in the decision to offer TOLAC services. However, we fear that the high total cesarean rate and lack of TOLAC services will ultimately result in worse perinatal outcomes considered from a population level.

Not only is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) highly desired by many women, but it is preferable to a repeat cesarean delivery in certain women, including those with a single cesarean delivery who have had a successful vaginal birth before or after their cesarean delivery. Evidence suggests that such women should be encouraged to have a TOLAC particularly if they plan to have additional children. Given these data, anesthesia staff should be strongly encouraged to change their policy and offer 1 VBAC services in accordance with guidelines similar to those developed in the Northern New England Perinatal Quality Improvement Network (NNEPQIN). Ethically, it is difficult to justify withholding TOLAC when it is the safest option. If services were offered to this group of women, obstetrical and anesthesia staff could develop greater comfort with TOLAC and expand the local eligibility criteria.

Annual cesarean rates at some Indian Health facilities in Oklahoma are > 37% and short term rates over 40%, hence are above the recently published 2006 national rates for the total U.S population (31.1%), the Oklahoma state population (33.3%), and the US Native American population (27.5%) 2 We note that the Native American cesarean rate increased 1.5% from 2005 to 2006, almost double the 0.8% increase for the total US population. The rising cesarean rate is likely a reflection of both rising primary cesarean delivery rates and decreased vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

Given the limited availability of TOLAC services for women in the Oklahoma service area, efforts should be made to minimize the primary cesarean delivery rate. The decision to lower the threshold for primary cesarean delivery as evidenced by an acceptance of the high rate and an unwillingness to look at physician specific factors will result in higher adverse outcomes in future pregnancies 3, particularly when combined with the lack of TOLAC services. Women in the Hastings area with primary cesareans can be anticipated to have cesareans in all future births placing them at increased risk for placenta accreta, increta and percreta 5. These complications of abnormal placentation may be particularly difficult to address in a rural community hospital setting.

Although Healthy People 2010 does not include a recommendation for the total cesarean rate due to varying patient factors, it recommends that efforts be made to decrease the primary cesarean rate to 15% in women who are giving birth for the first time 6. ACOG similarly recommends that comparative cesarean delivery rates for populations, hospitals, or physicians should be based on the subgroup of nulliparous women with term singleton vertex gestations 7. We would be interested in seeing the rate for this population at those affected facilities in Oklahoma Area.

We worked in at the Gallup Indian Medical Center (GIMC) and Zuni-Ramah Hospitals in the 1990s and continue to work with Native populations in Albuquerque and New Mexico. Our study of the population based CS rate in Zuni-Ramah in the 1990s demonstrated a 7.3% cesarean rate despite an incidence of diabetes and hypertensive disorders well above national rates 8. Physician specific practices influence cesarean delivery rates 9. We believe that the cesarean delivery review initiated at GIMC in the early 1990s was important in identifying factors in patient management that can result in a high cesarean rate.

An important ingredient in reducing cesarean delivery, either in nulliparous or parous women, is to place value on vaginal delivery. The attitude that “None of the physicians in our department are concerned with our cesarean delivery rate” may prove the largest stumbling block in developing strategies more consistent with national goals.

We suggest that the maternity care providers in Hastings present the evidence for improved maternal outcomes in women with prior vaginal delivery to their anesthesia colleagues and make TOLAC available at least for this group of women. Addressing the high total (and presumably) primary cesarean rates will require analysis of the indications and physician specific patterns. Given the increasing evidence for adverse outcomes with multiple repeat cesareans and the limited ability of community hospitals to address problems with placenta accreta, increta and percreta, we support labor management strategies to reduce cesarean rates in the Native American population in the Oklahoma Area and nationwide.

OB/GYN CCC Editorial comment:

An argument for better teamwork: Trial of labor after cesarean in Indian Country

First, I want to thank the leaders of the Indian Health Midwives listserv for raising these important issues, as this discussion was originally begun in the Midwives Corner feature. Though the current discussion revolves around Indian Health facilities, it is reflective of most small rural hospitals and increasingly some larger urban facilities.

Next, the availability of the trial of labor after cesarean option is really a ‘systems’ issue not just a problem confined to midwives or physicians. To decrease the long term morbidity and mortality associated with cesarean rates that now exceed 40%, we need to approach this issue systematically. Specifically, how can we engage our Indian Health administrative staff to foster an environment whereby anesthesia, pediatric, and nursing services work together with the provider staff to decrease excess morbidity in Native women.

Should you offer vaginal birth after cesarean delivery at your facility?

Should your referral facility be offering VBAC?

Let’s put some of the above issues into perspective.

What are just a few of the risks that you should currently handle very well:

In all but one of the above cases the incidence of these obstetric emergencies is actually increasing each year.

If you can’t provide VBAC because of the 0.5% risk of uterine rupture, then should your facility be offering intrapartum care at all? [emphasis theirs]

If you work at a facility that can not develop a rapid response for a clinical issue like symptomatic uterine rupture in a VBAC setting, which happens ~0.5 percent of the time, then your facility, should re-evaluate its ability to manage obstetric intrapartum care.

Taken on their own individual merit, most of the above common urgencies and emergencies occur more frequently than 0.5 percent. Taken as an aggregate, the risks above far outweigh the risks of VBAC. Now seeing the above risks, if you feel you need to re-evaluate offering obstetric intrapartum care because the above risks, then please contact me as soon as possible.

For those facilities that feel they are able to continue to offer obstetric intrapartum care within the risk environment above, then I would suggest a program of emergency obstetric drills, pan-ALSO** certification for all nurses and providers, and an ongoing quality assurance.

Each of the last three national Indian Women’s Health and MCH Conferences has devoted significant blocks of lecture time and workshops to improve systems of care and specific content updates. (Link to Meeting Lecture notes below)

Lastly, there seems to be some confusion as some providers at times combine the risk of a TOLAC sequela vs the relative success of a vaginal birth in TOLAC. These are two separate issues that need to be discussed with our patients separately for a fully informed consent.

1.) Success of vaginal delivery

Overall the rate of successful vaginal delivery in TOLAC is actually quite high, often in the range of 75% in the general population, and much higher success rate in the AI/AN population at 85-90% over the years.

A previous successful VBAC is probably the best predictor of future success; about 90 percent of such women deliver vaginally with trial of labor. By comparison, women delivered abdominally for dystocia are least successful, although approximately two-thirds are delivered vaginally.

Among the previous dystocia group, the success rate is higher if cesarean delivery was performed in the latent phase of labor and lower if performed after full dilatation. Within the former group, 79% of women who originally had surgery while still in the latent phase of labor had a successful trial of labor, compared with 61% of patients who had an arrest of dilation in the active phase of labor and 65% of those who had an arrest of descent. (Duff et al Obstet Gynecol 1988 Mar;71 (3 Pt 1):380-4.)

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified as predictive of TOL success: previous vaginal delivery (OR 3.9; 95% CI 3.6-4.3), previous indication not being dystocia (CPD/FTP) (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-1.8), spontaneous labor (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.5-1.8), birth weight <4000 g (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.8-2.3), and Caucasian race (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6-1.9) (all P < .001).

The overall TOL success rate in obese women (BMI > or = 30) was lower (68.4%) than in nonobese women (79.6%) (P < .001), and when combined with induction and lack of previous vaginal delivery, successful VBAC occurred in only 44.2% of cases. (Landon et al The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;193(3 Pt 2):1016-23. )

The combination of previous cesarean for dystocia, no previous vaginal delivery, and induced labor had a particularly poor prognosis in the Flamm system, e. g., fewer than 50 percent of such women achieved a successful TOL.

A decision analysis model favored TOL if the chance of success was >50 percent and if the desire for additional pregnancies was 10 to 20 percent. (Mankuta et al Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003 Sep;189(3):714-9.)

Trial of labor success rates: obstetrical and historical factors

All overall P values are <.001; for categorical characteristics, only the comparison of birth weight <2500 g to 2500 to 3999 is not significant (P=.33).
CI: confidence interval; CD: cesarean delivery; VBAC: vaginal birth after CD; NRFWB: nonreassuring fetal well-being.
* Women with this characteristic served as the reference group.
Modified from: Landon, MB, Leindecker, S, Spong, CY, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193:1016.

Flamm scoring system tool

FTP: failure to progress.
Data from: Flamm, BL, Geiger, AM. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90:907.

2.) Risks:

Numerous risk factors have been cited for uterine rupture during labor in women with a previous CD. However, these risk factors are not consistent across studies, which are generally hampered by small numbers of patients with uterine rupture. Unfortunately, no single factor or combination of risk factors is sufficiently reliable to be clinically useful for prediction of uterine rupture.

Purported risk factors include maternal age greater than 30 years, induction of labor, more than one prior CD, postpartum fever, interdelivery interval less than 18 to 24 months, dysfunctional labor, and one layer uterine closure. Within this framework of incomplete data the New England Perinatal Quality Improvement Network (NNEPQIN) has developed a system to appropriately manage the risks.

Low Risk Patient:

• 1 prior low transverse cesarean delivery
• Spontaneous onset labor
• No need for augmentation
• No repetitive FHR abnormalities
• Patients with a prior successful VBAC are especially low risk.
  (However, their risk status escalates the same as other low risk patients)

Medium Risk Patient:

• Induction of labor
• Pitocin augmentation
• 2 or more prior low transverse cesarean deliveries*
• < 18 months between prior cesarean delivery and current delivery

High Risk Patient:

• Repetitive non-reassuring FHR abnormalities not responsive to clinical intervention. /li>
• Bleeding suggestive of abruption
• 2 hours without cervical change in the active phase despite adequate labor

* NB: ‘Two prior uterine scars and no vaginal deliveries’ is listed as a circumstance under which trial of labor should not be attempted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 54, ‘Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery’.

Here is a suggested management system per NNEPQIN

Low risk

Notify Pediatrics, Anesthesia, and operating room crew of admission
OB/GYN on campus during active phase
Perinatal Guidelines of Care, ACOG, observed

Medium risk

Notify Pediatrics, Anesthesia, and operating room crew of admission
Operating room on campus in active phase or other plan if crew is busy

High risk

OB/GYN, Anesthesia, and Pediatrics available
No other acute care responsibilities
Rapid decision to incision

Please see the Midwives Corner and Oklahoma Perspective, below, for further discussion on this topic. A complete discussion of risk, benefits, and systems issues is available in the Perinatology Corner module: Vaginal Birth after cesarean http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/M/PNC/VB01.cfm

Other Resources:

Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in rural hospitals Counterpoint: David Gahn, M.D.

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/M/obgyn1207_Feat.cfm#MidWives

New England Perinatal Quality Improvement Network (NNEPQIN)

http://www.nnepqin.org/

Indian Health Meeting lecture notes

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/F/lecNotes.cfm

OB Emergency Drills in Indian Country

http://www.ihs.gov/medicalprograms/mch/F/documents/OBEmergDrills.ppt

2007 Indian Health Data Summary (Deliveries, VBAC rates, etc…)

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/F/documents/DataTally81107.doc

** ALSO = Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/cme/aafpcourses/clinicalcourses/also.html

Leeman and Espey References:

1 Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, ADibo AO, Pelpert JF, et al. Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195:1143-7.

2 Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 56 no 7. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2007.

3 Kennare R, Tucker G, Heard A, Chan A. Risks of adverse outcomes in the next birth after a first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109:270-6.

4 Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226–32.

5 Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu HM, Ananth CV. Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:771–8.

6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2000.

7 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates. Evaluation of cesarean delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2000.

8 Leeman L, Leeman R. A Native American community with 7% cesarean delivery rate: Case mix analysis, risk factors and operative indications. Ann Fam Med. 2003;1:36-43.

9 Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW, Leininger C. Physician contribution to a cesarean delivery risk model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:1579-85

Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, ADibo AO, Pelpert JF, et al. Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195:1143-7.

A midwife responded in the February 2008 edition of the same publication. Below find my favorite sections and below that is her entire piece.

Lisa Allee, CNM sums up ACOG and hospital VBAC policies so beautifully,

The change from pro-VBAC thinking to pro-repeat cesarean delivery occurred when ACOG came out with a recommendation (not a requirement) that physicians (doesn’t specify anesthesia) should be immediately available (no definition supplied).

Dr. Gahn, the author of Hastings’ statement, defended its cesarean rate of 37%,

I propose that every time a healthy mom walks out of the hospital with a healthy baby, we have succeeded in our mission.  Is our cesarean delivery rate too high?  Until I see the definition of “too high”, I’ll argue with you.

Ms. Allee suggests,

As a department, or even better as an interdisciplinary team or service unit, review the World Health Organization and USPHS Healthy People 2010 recommendations for cesarean delivery rates. Both of these respected and esteemed organizations have clearly and repeatedly recommended cesarean delivery rates in the 10-15% range. This clearly answers the question about whether a cesarean delivery rate of 37%, which is more than double to triple these recommendations, is too high and gives a very good indication as to what is too high for a cesarean delivery rate.

She also specifies how a woman should be counseled on VBAC vs. repeat CS,

Re-evaluate how VBAC counseling is done. To provide true informed consent the numbers need to be presented clearly. The data consistently shows a uterine rupture rate of 0.5-3%–it is important to explain that this means 97-99.5 women out of 100 will not have a uterine rupture and out of the few that do, not all will have problems. It is, of course, important to discuss the risk of uterine rupture to mother and baby, but to put it in this perspective of being rare and review the high-quality, careful care we provide to women who are VBACing to help prevent problems. It is also very important to review the differences in postpartum morbidity and risk between a vaginal birth and cesarean delivery, (be sure to include the oft ignored higher rates of breastfeeding and orgasm difficulties post cesarean delivery.) If, in contrast, providers only make a recommendation of repeat cesarean delivery and an institution has a policy that only allows for repeat cesarean delivery, then they have effectively negated a woman’s right to make an informed decision in a situation where there is a choice.

And she suggests that women be given an accurate picture of what a cesarean is like,

Review the postpartum morbidity and risk differences for women post vaginal birth vs. post cesarean delivery. This will help to dispel the delusion that a woman who has had a cesarean delivery is walking out of the hospital “healthy” and bring a more accurate sense of respect for what is really happening for that woman. She has just had major abdominal surgery and is in recovery from that surgery. She is in pain and is at risk for a number of post-surgical complications. Her future pregnancies have also now taken on a longer list of potential risks. Along with all this she is also a new mother with a newborn to care for and feed every 1-2 hours with an abdominal incision that she is fully aware of each time she moves. This human perspective of the implications of a cesarean delivery might help providers to be concerned with their personal and institutional cesarean delivery rates.

Finally, she says something that is so obvious, yet, remains a foreign concept in obstetrics.  This is what every pregnant woman dreams of hearing from her provider,

Most importantly we need to respect the women we care for as the ones who are giving birth and realize that, therefore, it needs to be up to them where, how, and with whom they will do so. We are here to provide information and care—to serve not to dictate.

We need more care providers like Lisa Allee. 

Below is her entire response.  The emphasis below in the body of the article is mine.

Allee, Lisa, CNM. “Midwives Corner.” CCC Corner 6.2 (February 2008)

Midwives Corner – Lisa Allee, CNM

1.) AI / AN women are really successful at doing this
2.) The evidence supports this
3.) Women want and benefit from this

What is this win³ best practice process?
(a.k.a. win / win / win)

It is vaginal birth after cesarean
(We need to provide them)

The following is in response to the comments of Dr. David Gahn regarding VBACs at Hastings Indian Medical Center that appeared in this column in the December issue of the CCC Newsletter (see link below). This following is a conglomeration of my and other midwives’ responses.

First, here is some overall VBAC information to ponder.

We must all remind ourselves of recent history. The change from pro-VBAC thinking to pro-repeat cesarean delivery occurred when ACOG came out with a recommendation (not a requirement) that physicians (doesn’t specify anesthesia) should be immediately available (no definition supplied).

This recommendation was based on a poorly done study of discharge diagnosis codes that actually demonstrated the same statistics on uterine rupture as previous studies of VBAC, but the authors came to very different conclusions (Lyndon-Rochelle 2001) Unfortunately, much of this country went wildly swinging to the extreme end of the pendulum’s arc and stopped offering VBACs. Luckily, some kept their heads and a plethora of research has been published since which show VBAC to be a safe and reasonable option for the majority of women with a history of cesarean deliveries and many benefits to VBAC over repeat cesarean delivery.

(Please see the many citations that have been reviewed in December Obstetrics section of this publication – link below plus this month’s Abstract of the Month. More citations were supplied by Neil Murphy and Sheila Mahoney on the Indian Health Midwives listserv discussion related to VBACs.)

Among the places that have remained sane and continued to offer VBACs are many of us in the Indian Health Service ( Alaska Native Medical Center even got an award from the American College Nurse Midwifes) and a group in the Northeast, the Northern New England Perinatal Quality Improvement Network (NNEPQIN). (link below) The folks in the New England coalition have come out with useful guidelines on deciding about VBAC and providing quality care. Their work also helped us all face a bigger picture—how we handle emergency surgery in general and how we can improve. Their suggestions include improving teamwork, communications, and skills via drills. This has the potential to improve responses to emergency birth needs beyond the very few situations related to VBACs. Those of us in IHS who have continued VBACs have shown continued success with excellent statistics and outcomes (see 2007 Indian Health Data Tally Sheet below)

Overall, the pendulum is hopefully beginning to swing back towards a more rational approach to VBACs—there was even a quote from an ACOG official that suggested a possible move towards revising their “immediately available” statement (see August 2006 Midwives Corner below)

Second, let’s go over some of the specifics raised by Dr. Gahn. Since, according to Dr. Gahn, none of the physicians or midwives at Hastings are anti-VBAC, I thought I would use the responses from other midwives and myself to formulate some suggestions to help overcome the barriers to VBACs at Hastings which were elucidated by Dr. Gahn. These suggestions can also be used by the few other IHS sites that may be experiencing problems with offering VBAC services.

• Have a journal club to present the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports providing VBAC services. Make sure to include the materials from the Northern New England Perinatal Quality Improvement Network and IHS VBAC statistics. Invite (coerce attendance, i.e., pizza or desserts, as needed) all members of the perinatal team including anesthesia and executive staff members who supervise the provider staff. This will help ensure that all involved have the information to begin providing evidence based care and should help to start the efforts to develop a functional interdisciplinary team. This should also help those obstetricians who “are not anti-TOLAC/VBAC”, but are not on board with the VBAC plan to start their process of getting on board.

• Start doing drills for obstetrical emergencies. This will help to improve skills, as well as, teamwork and communication between anesthesia, surgery, midwifery, obstetrics, nursing—your second step in team building. This should help a number of issues. It should help to impress all on-call staff to do what is necessary to improve response time with the goal of your med-staff-rules-and-regulations-required 20 minutes becoming reliable. Maybe this will help folks come to the conclusion of having key personnel located close by—i.e. a call room or on campus housing. This would solve the problem of anesthesia not being available when a VBAC patient is laboring. When the larger picture of response to any emergent surgery is focused upon then the VBAC topic, which represents a very small proportion of the potential emergency surgeries, is automatically included.

• As a department, or even better as an interdisciplinary team or service unit, review the World Health Organization and USPHS Healthy People 2010 recommendations for cesarean delivery rates. Both of these respected and esteemed organizations have clearly and repeatedly recommended cesarean delivery rates in the 10-15% range. This clearly answers the question about whether a cesarean delivery rate of 37%, which is more than double to triple these recommendations, is too high and gives a very good indication as to what is too high for a cesarean delivery rate.

• Re-evaluate how VBAC counseling is done. To provide true informed consent the numbers need to be presented clearly. The data consistently shows a uterine rupture rate of 0.5-3%–it is important to explain that this means 97-99.5 women out of 100 will not have a uterine rupture and out of the few that do, not all will have problems. It is, of course, important to discuss the risk of uterine rupture to mother and baby, but to put it in this perspective of being rare and review the high-quality, careful care we provide to women who are VBACing to help prevent problems. It is also very important to review the differences in postpartum morbidity and risk between a vaginal birth and cesarean delivery, (be sure to include the oft ignored higher rates of breastfeeding and orgasm difficulties post cesarean delivery.) If, in contrast, providers only make a recommendation of repeat cesarean delivery and an institution has a policy that only allows for repeat cesarean delivery, then they have effectively negated a woman’s right to make an informed decision in a situation where there is a choice.

• Review the postpartum morbidity and risk differences for women post vaginal birth vs. post cesarean delivery. This will help to dispel the delusion that a woman who has had a cesarean delivery is walking out of the hospital “healthy” and bring a more accurate sense of respect for what is really happening for that woman. She has just had major abdominal surgery and is in recovery from that surgery. She is in pain and is at risk for a number of post-surgical complications. Her future pregnancies have also now taken on a longer list of potential risks. Along with all this she is also a new mother with a newborn to care for and feed every 1-2 hours with an abdominal incision that she is fully aware of each time she moves. This human perspective of the implications of a cesarean delivery might help providers to be concerned with their personal and institutional cesarean delivery rates.

• Consider IHS as a model for the local standard of care. Since we are not controlled by insurance companies, we in IHS often have more opportunity then our colleagues outside IHS to provide care that is evidence-based. VBAC care is one of those situations and we can proudly stand up in the maternity care community as a model of excellent care.

Most importantly we need to respect the women we care for as the ones who are giving birth and realize that, therefore, it needs to be up to them where, how, and with whom they will do so. We are here to provide information and care—to serve not to dictate.

Please feel free to contact me for any questions or comments and for requests for links to the above mentioned resources atlisa.allee@ihs.gov.

Resources

Midwives Corner December 2007 CCCC

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/M/obgyn1207_Feat.cfm#MidWives

Indian Health Maternity and Women’s Health Data Tally Sheet, 2007

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/F/documents/DataTally81107.doc

Lydon-Rochelle M, et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. NEJM 2001; 345:3-8. (Level III)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11439945?dopt=Abstract

Obstetric Hot Topics December 2007 CCCC

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/M/obgyn1207_HT.cfm#ob

Northern New England Perinatal Quality Improvement Network

http://www.nnepqin.org/

Midwives Corner August 2006 CCCC

http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/MCH/M/obgyn0806_Feat.cfm#MidWives

It’s very telling that when they offered VBAC, only 2 women per year opted for VBAC after being “counseled by a physician.”  Most women who have been “counseled by a physician” on VBAC vs repeat CS can tell you how that conversation goes.  It typically leaves the woman with the impression that VBACs are dangerous and repeat cesareans are not.  Women are lead to believe that if you VBAC, you are putting yourself and your baby at risk, and if you have a repeat cesarean, you and your baby will be fine.

Since their VBAC ban, they “recommend a repeat cesarean delivery and tell patients of our policy.  We occasionally have a patient that refuses a recommended c/s (breech, previous c/s, macrosomia, history of shoulder dystocia with permanent injury) and we have them sign a consent form and take care of her very well.  This is all well within the standard of care.”  I wonder how much that “occasional” patient must fight in order to have a VBAC.  If it’s like most hospitals, very hard.

“On a similar topic, we don’t offer women elective primary cesarean delivery even if the patient should decide this is her preferred method of delivery.  In this case, we do refuse to allow women to give birth the way they choose.”  I would hope that if I came in and asked them to remove one of my lungs, without any medical reason, they should deny me as well.  Should they be congratulated for not performing major abdominal surgery without a valid medical reason?

“None of the physicians in our department are concerned with our cesarean delivery rate.  One quote I heard is, ‘My cesarean delivery rate is 100% for everyone who needs a cesarean delivery.’”  And everyone who has had a prior cesarean “needs” another one, right?

Be sure to read the two responses to this piece supporting VBAC and denouncing this VBAC ban.  The first by two MDs and the second by a CNM.

Gahn, David, M.D.. “Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in rural hospitals.” CCC Corner 5.11 (December 2007)

Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in rural hospitals

Counterpoint: David Gahn, M.D.

At Hastings Indian Medical Center, the Ob/Gyn Department decided to stop offering VBAC’s routinely. None of the physicians or midwives is “anti-TOLAC/VBAC” but we considered several factors:

1) Our anesthesia department refuses to participate in a management plan to facilitate VBAC despite any data we may present.  If we request them to be in house during a VBAC, they will refuse.  Then I have to document in the chart that I requested anesthesia and they would not come in.  That is a terrible way to do business.  Our anesthesia department does provide excellent care to our laboring patients and are pros at emergent cesarean deliveries.  They are skilled professionals, but the department is not staffed well enough to provide a CRNA or anesthesiologist dedicated solely to L&D.

2) Even though our Med Staff Rules and Regulations require on call personnel to able to present themselves within 20 minutes, this is not reliable.  Also, we have only one OR crew and only one anesthesia person available in the evening.  We have a protocol for an emergency c/s when the OR crew is already operating, but nothing is workable to do a cesarean hysterectomy with no anesthesia or OR crew.  If you have ever done an emergent c/s under local with a CNM and an L&D nurse, you will appreciate this.

3) We also considered the local standard of practice. The one insurance company that covers physicians in the entire state of Oklahoma will not cover a physician who performs TOLAC/VBAC’s.  Therefore, there are no physicians other than federally employed physicians and Oklahoma University in Oklahoma City 3 hours away (they are self-insured) who will allow TOLAC.  While this doesn’t apply to the Federal Tort Claims Act, it does apply to the physician tort database, our licensing authorities, the physician’s reputation, and the hospitals reputation.  (Tort claims are printed in our local newspaper.)

4) In order for us to offer TOLAC, all 6 of our Ob/Gyn’s need to be on board with the plan and they are not, mainly because anesthesia is not in house.  There is data that supports VBAC without anesthesia present in the hospital, but you don’t know our anesthesia department or how busy we are in the evenings.

5)  Unfortunately, the national data on c/s rates is usually 2-3 years behind, and our hospital has matched those rates.  We deliver about 975 babies per year, and our c/s rate to date for CY 2007 is 37%.  Should we be ashamed of the number or proud of the good outcomes? The balance between risks and benefits in this regard in tenuous.

6) I propose that every time a healthy mom walks out of the hospital with a healthy baby, we have succeeded in our mission.  Is our cesarean delivery rate too high?  Until I see the definition of “too high”, I’ll argue with you.  I disagree with the argument that our rate is what it is because we take care of higher risk patients.  I don’t think that is a reason.  We do have a high teen pregnancy rate, diabetes, massive obesity, hypertension, etc., but we haven’t studied it that closely. We would love to decrease the c/s rate, but obstetrics is a treacherous business and each physician is held responsible for the health of patients, mom and baby. We have to face reality – if a patient does not have a perfect baby, the physician will suffer a tort claim. (And I do mean suffer.)

7) We can’t and don’t force women to have repeat cesarean deliveries, for that would be assault.  We do recommend a repeat cesarean delivery and tell patients of our policy.  We occasionally have a patient that refuses a recommended c/s (breech, previous c/s, macrosomia, history of shoulder dystocia with permanent injury) and we have them sign a consent form and take care of her very well.  This is all well within the standard of care.

On a similar topic, we don’t offer women elective primary cesarean delivery even if the patient should decide this is her preferred method of delivery.  In this case, we do refuse to allow women to give birth the way they choose.

8 ) When we did offer TOLAC, we had about 2 per year.  We take this to mean that the others, after being counseled by a physician, opted for repeat c/s.  Considering this, our c/s rate would not appreciably change if we offered VBACs.

9) Please don’t condemn us for a policy that does not recommend VBAC’s. Recognize that the data and ACOG support both options, and also recognize that the data has to be applied to the hospital.  Because of the number of deliveries we perform, we have reliable data on post-operative infections (half the national average), TTN, transfusions, IUFD’s, etc.  Also know that we have excellent collaboration between our 6 physicians, 7 midwives, and 1 nurse practitioner.  We don’t make policies like this lightly and we examine the data carefully and applied it to our current practice.

So the bottom line is we might be more aggressive with TOLAC/VBACs if we had additional support.  None of the physicians in our department are concerned with our cesarean delivery rate.  One quote I heard is, “My cesarean delivery rate is 100% for everyone who needs a cesarean delivery.”  While this a bit crass, it is germane – the decision to perform a c/s rests solely with the physician charged with the care of the patient and the patient.  I would love for our cesarean delivery rate to be 15%, but not at the expensive of a single injured child or mother. I fully support TOLAC in the right environment. That environment does not exist at Hastings Indian Medical Center. David.Gahn@ihs.gov

She links to another great website: “The Big Push For Midwives, launched on January 24, is a coordinated campaign to advocate for regulation and licensure of Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The website includes a page with links to news articles related to midwifery-related legislative efforts, and a map of states [which I've copied below] where licensure is available or where legislation is pending. Licensure is currently available to CPMs in 22 states.”

There is also a page on The Big Push for Midwives website that lists birth resources for the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  (Might be a good place to look if you want a VBAC and are looking for a VBAC supportive provider.)

The relevance of CPM licensure to VBAC moms?  More legal options.

From Wikipedia:

No state prosecutes mothers for giving birth outside of a hospital. However, midwives who assist at such births may be prosecuted in some areas.

In the early and mid 1900s, physicians pushed to have midwifery banned throughout the United States. Childbirth became very clinical with the mother generally subdued with leather straps and ether. In 37 states it is once again legal to acquire the services of a midwife. Many midwives continue to attend mothers in states where it is illegal, while efforts are underway to change the law.

Practicing as a direct-entry midwife is still (as of May 2006) illegal under certain circumstances in Washington, D.C. and the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming.^[12] However, Certified Nurse Midwives can legally practice in these areas.

People wishing to have a midwife-assisted home birth in the United States should always research the applicable laws in their home state.

I know homebirth sounds like a radical thing, but I have heard story after story of women who would have never considered a homebirth until they started looking for a VBAC supportive OB only to find none and then felt trapped, out of options, and scared.  And so now these women, who would have been quite happy to birth in a hospital, are hiring midwives, regardless of wether it’s legal in their state, and having a homebirth VBAC rather than face the alternative, an unwanted, unnecessary repeat cesarean in a ‘VBAC ban’ hospital.

I hope this is going to be one of the factors that swings the conventional wisdom back to supporting VBAC because when enough women start birthing at home and that an impact is felt in hospital revenues, hospital administrators and OBs might start paying attention.  Unfortunately, by the time that happens, it might be ‘to late’ for the hospitals.  Enough women would have experienced the joy, peace, privacy, and safety of homebirth to never want a hospital birth again.