Cesarean Delivery Rate and Staffing Levels of the Maternity Unit

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2018 Nov 29

PMID 30485335

Citations 12

Authors

Saad Zbiri

Patrick Rozenberg

Francois Goffinet

Carine Milcent

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether staffing levels of maternity units affect prelabor urgent, elective, and intrapartum cesarean delivery rates.

Methods: This population-based retrospective cohort study covers the deliveries of the 11 hospitals of a French perinatal network in 2008-2014 (N = 102 236). The independent variables were women's demographic and medical characteristics as well as the type, organization, and staffing levels for obstetricians, anesthesiologists, and midwives of each maternity unit. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted with multilevel logistic models.

Results: Overall, 23.9% of the women had cesarean deliveries (2.4% urgent before labor, 10% elective, and 11.5% intrapartum). Independently of individual- and hospital-level factors, the level of obstetricians, measured by the number of full-time equivalent persons (i.e., 35 working hours per week) per 100 deliveries, was negatively associated with intrapartum cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 0.55, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.36-0.83, P-value = 0.005), and the level of midwives negatively associated with elective cesarean delivery (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90, P-value < 0.001). Accordingly, a 10% increase in obstetrician and midwife staff levels, respectively, would have been associated with a decrease in the likelihood of intrapartum cesarean delivery by 2.5 percentage points and that of elective cesarean delivery by 3.4 percentage points. These changes represent decreases in intrapartum and elective cesarean delivery rates of 19% (from 13.1% to 10.6%) and 33% (from 10.3% to 6.9%), respectively.

Conclusion: Staffing levels of maternity units affect the use of cesarean deliveries. High staffing levels for obstetricians and midwives are associated with lower cesarean rates.

Citing Articles

Capacity Planning (Capital, Staff and Costs) of Inpatient Maternity Services: Pitfalls for the Unwary.

Jones R Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025; 22(1).

PMID: 39857540 PMC: 11764809. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph22010087.

Exploring the influence of medical staffing and birth volume on observed-to-expected cesarean deliveries: a panel data analysis of integrated obstetric and gynecological departments in Germany.

Stocker A, Pfaff H, Scholten N, Kuntz L Eur J Health Econ. 2025; .

PMID: 39836312 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01749-0.

Mode of delivery and behavioral and neuropsychological outcomes in children at 10 years of age.

Massa A, Yang Z, Tamashiro R, Isik O, Landau R, Miles C J Perinat Med. 2024; 52(9):1010-1019.

PMID: 39378319 PMC: 11552485. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2024-0188.

Office hours and caesarean section: systematic review and Meta-analysis.

Hoxha I, Lama A, Bunjaku G, Grezda K, Agahi R, Beqiri P Res Health Serv Reg. 2024; 1(1):4.

PMID: 39177807 PMC: 11264882. DOI: 10.1007/s43999-022-00002-6.

Staff Resources in Public and Private Hospitals and Their Implication for Medical Practice: A French Study of Caesareans.

Zbiri S, Rozenberg P, Milcent C Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(10).

PMID: 38786416 PMC: 11120882. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12101007.

References

Luthy D, Malmgren J, Zingheim R, Leininger C . Physician contribution to a cesarean delivery risk model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(6):1579-85; discussion 1585-7. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.389. View

Bell J, Campbell D, Graham W, Penney G, Ryan M, Hall M . Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2001; 322(7291):894-5. PMC: 30584. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7291.894. View

Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen I . Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 200(1):48.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.021. View

Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S . Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 15(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1053/beog.2000.0146. View

Iriye B, Huang W, Condon J, Hancock L, Hancock J, Ghamsary M . Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209(3):251.e1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.040. View

Zhao M, Bazzoli G, Clement J, Lindrooth R, Nolin J, Chukmaitov A . Hospital staffing decisions: does financial performance matter?. Inquiry. 2008; 45(3):293-307. DOI: 10.5034/inquiryjrnl_45.03.293. View

Dahlen H, Tracy S, Tracy M, Bisits A, Brown C, Thornton C . Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(5). PMC: 3467614. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001723. View

Lin H, Xirasagar S . Institutional factors in cesarean delivery rates: policy and research implications. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103(1):128-36. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000102935.91389.53. View

Betran A, Ye J, Moller A, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu A, Torloni M . The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2):e0148343. PMC: 4743929. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343. View

10.

Clark A, Milcent C . Public employment and political pressure: the case of French hospitals. J Health Econ. 2011; 30(5):1103-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.07.007. View

11.

Xirasagar S, Lin H, Liu T . Do group practices have lower caesarean rates than solo practice obstetric clinics? Evidence from Taiwan. Health Policy Plan. 2006; 21(4):319-25. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czl015. View

12.

Raisanen S, Lehto S, Nielsen H, Gissler M, Kramer M, Heinonen S . Fear of childbirth in nulliparous and multiparous women: a population-based analysis of all singleton births in Finland in 1997-2010. BJOG. 2014; 121(8):965-70. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12599. View

13.

Fuglenes D, Aas E, Botten G, Oian P, Kristiansen I . Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean? The influence of parity, delivery experiences, and fear. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(1):45.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.043. View

14.

Snowden J, Darney B, Cheng Y, McConnell K, Caughey A . Systems factors in obstetric care: the role of daily obstetric volume. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(4):851-857. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a2dd93. View

15.

Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni M, Gulmezoglu A, Betran A . Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG. 2015; 123(5):745-53. PMC: 5014131. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13592. View

16.

Coulm B, LE Ray C, Lelong N, Drewniak N, Zeitlin J, Blondel B . Obstetric interventions for low-risk pregnant women in France: do maternity unit characteristics make a difference?. Birth. 2013; 39(3):183-91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00547.x. View

17.

Yuen Loke A, Davies L, Li S . Factors influencing the decision that women make on their mode of delivery: the Health Belief Model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:274. PMC: 4506759. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0931-z. View

18.

Tollanes M, Moster D, Daltveit A, Irgens L . Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. J Pediatr. 2008; 153(1):112-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.01.029. View

19.

Althabe F, Belizan J, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, Ramos S . Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 363(9425):1934-40. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16406-4. View

20.

Demsar K, Svetina M, Verdenik I, Tul N, Blickstein I, Velikonja V . Tokophobia (fear of childbirth): prevalence and risk factors. J Perinat Med. 2017; 46(2):151-154. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2016-0282. View