• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
NumberResearch recommendation
RR 28What factors influence the decision-to-delivery interval when there is a category 1 level of urgency for CS?

Factors to be investigated could include:
  • staff grade/level of experience
  • skill mix within the multidisciplinary team
  • task allocation
  • methods of communication
  • time of day
  • availability of ongoing staff training about emergency procedures and levels of attendance.
The research could be conducted using simulation methods and video observation to determine what factors influence the decision-to-delivery interval for category 1 CS. The videos could also be used to train staff.

Why this is important

‘Crash’ CS is a psychologically traumatic event for women and their partners and is also stressful for clinical staff. Staff and resources may have to be obtained from other areas of clinical care. This should be undertaken as efficiently and effectively as possible, minimising anxiety and ensuring the safety of the mother and her baby.

For category 1 CS there is a recognised urgency to deliver as quickly as is reasonably possible. The majority of research in this area is quantitative and looks at the impact of the decision-to-delivery interval on various aspects of fetal and maternal outcomes rather than the interplay of factors that can affect this time period itself. Much of this evidence is retrospective. Although some work has been conducted in the UK to examine where the systematic delays lie and how to avoid them (Tuffnell et al., 2001), more work is needed to determine how to optimise the decision-to-delivery interval. This work should use qualitative as well as quantitative research methods to assess which factors influence the decision-to-delivery interval for a category 1 CS. Evaluation of these factors could be used to inform future NICE guidance, for example specific guidance for management of category 1 CS. Such information could also be used by hospitals for maternity services planning and at a team level would assist with audit and ongoing evaluation and training of the multidisciplinary team.

A large amount of NHS and other state funding is used to provide continuing care for infants who are disabled as a result of birth asphyxia and in providing lifelong support for the child and their family. In addition, large sums of public money are spent on litigation and compensation in some of these cases through the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST). If research helped to minimise the impact of birth asphyxia this would reduce the costs of continuing care to the state and the burden to the child, their family and the wider community.

More realistic and more relevant expectations for the decision-to-delivery interval based on evidence would inform debate in the legal system and may help to reduce the cost to the state of related litigation.
RR 29A prospective study to determine whether the decision-to-delivery interval has an impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes when there is a category 2 level of urgency for CS.

Important primary outcomes would be
  • fetal wellbeing (such as cord blood gases, Apgar score at 5 minutes, hypoxic encephalopathy, neonatal respiratory problems, unanticipated admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), duration of stay in the NICU)
  • maternal wellbeing (such as haemoglobin levels on day 2, need for blood transfusion, duration of hospital stay controlled for prolonged neonatal stay and general health/wellbeing).
Valuable secondary outcomes could include:
  • fetal trauma at delivery
  • iatrogenic maternal bladder or bowel injury
  • postoperative maternal infectious morbidity
  • establishment of breast-feeding
  • psychological outcomes for women, such as the development of postnatal depression/post-traumatic stress disorder.
Why this is important

This research is important to inform the ongoing debate about the management of category 2 CS. The ‘continuum of risk’ in this setting has been recognised. However, the majority of work in this area, looking at maternal and fetal outcomes, generally considers unplanned caesarean sections as a whole group without making any distinction between degrees of urgency. Furthermore much of this work is retrospective. The majority of women who undergo intrapartum CS fall into the category 2 level of urgency (Thomas et al., 2001) and therefore specific information for this group could affect and benefit many women and contribute to the delivery of equity of care.

Delay in delivery with a compromised fetus may result in major and long-term harm including cerebral palsy and other major long-term disability. The immediate and long-term effect on a family of the birth of a baby requiring life-long specialised care and support is enormous. If such harm could be avoided by appropriate haste this would be an important improvement in outcome. However, if such haste is of no benefit then any related risk of adverse maternal outcome needs to be minimised.

A large amount of NHS and other state funding is used to provide continuing care for infants who are disabled as a result of delay in delivery and in providing lifelong support for the child and their family. In addition, large sums of public money are spent on litigation and compensation in some of these cases through the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST). If research helped to minimise the impact of delay in delivery this would reduce the costs of continuing care to the state and the burden to the child, their family and the wider community.

More realistic and more relevant expectations for the decision-to-delivery interval based on evidence would inform debate within the legal system and may help to reduce the cost to the state of related litigation.
RR 30Repeat of the National Caesarean Section Sentinel Audit

The original CS guideline included a set of ‘auditable standards’. It would be a straightforward task to produce an updated set of auditable standards based on the important topics covered in the updated guideline. These could include:
  • consent
  • indications (including maternal request)
  • procedural aspects
  • maternal and fetal outcomes.
Many of the outcomes documented in a new CS audit would relate directly to recommendations in this CS guideline update. Researchers may also want to consider categorising different reasons underlying maternal request for CS such as previous poor childbirth experience, longstanding fear of childbirth, belief that CS is safer for the baby etc.

An additional useful feature of the audit would be to record key related data, such as the proportion of CS for a breech presentation that had an attempted external cephalic version.

Why this is important

During the 10 years since the National Caesarean Section Sentinel Audit was undertaken (2000–2001), many of the findings may have changed significantly. The audit examined who was having a CS and why, as well as the views of women having babies and the obstetricians looking after them. The audit found that a 20% CS rate was considered too high by 51% of obstetricians. UK CS rates now average about 25%.

A repeat of the CS Sentinel Audit would reveal any changes in indications and the views of women and obstetricians. The current literature does not adequately address the issue of maternal request for CS and this is one aspect the audit may address. Women's views on maternal request for CS for when there are no obstetric indications are particularly relevant. Such requests may be on the rise and the reasons are not always clearly expressed or documented.

The methodology of the audit is established, making a repeat feasible. This should be given high priority because the benefit to the NHS would be significant.

From: 7, Procedural aspects of caesarean section

Cover of Caesarean Section
Caesarean Section.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 132.
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK).
London: RCOG Press; 2011 Nov.
Copyright © 2011, National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK [www.cla.co.uk]. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.