Hidden costs associated with the universal application of risk management in maternity care
Meredith J. McIntyre A D , Ysanne Chapman B and Karen Francis C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Nursing & Midwifery, Monash University, Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
B School of Nursing & Midwifery, Central Queensland University, Mackay Campus, PO Box 5606, Mackay Mail Centre, QLD 4741, Australia.
C School of Nursing & Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Northways Road, Churchill, VIC 3842, Australia. Email: ysanne.chapman@monash.edu; karen.francis@monash.edu
D Corresponding author. Email: meredith.mcintyre@monash.edu
Australian Health Review 35(2) 211-215 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH10919
Submitted: 17 May 2010 Accepted: 30 September 2010 Published: 25 May 2011
Abstract
This paper presents a critical analysis of risk management in maternity care and the hidden costs associated with the practice in healthy women. Issues of quality and safety are driving an increased emphasis by health services on risk management in maternity care. Medical risk in pregnancy is known to benefit 15% or less of all pregnancies. Risk management applied to the remaining 85% of healthy women results in the management of risk in the absence of risk. The health cost to mothers and babies and the economic burden on the overall health system of serious morbidity has been omitted from calculations comparing costs of uncomplicated caesarean birth and uncomplicated vaginal birth. The understanding that elective caesarean birth is cost-neutral when compared to a normal vaginal birth has misled practitioners and contributed to over use of the practice. For the purpose of informing the direction of maternity service policy it is necessary to expose the effect the overuse of medical intervention has on the overall capacity of the healthcare system to absorb the increasing demand for operating theatre resources in the absence of clinical need.
What is known about this topic? Australia is experiencing an increase in unexplained caesarean section births in healthy populations of women at a time when risk management is an accepted practice in maternity care irrespective of clinical need. The effect of this increase on health services has been cushioned in the belief that caesarean section is cost neutral when compared with uncomplicated vaginal birth.
What does this paper add? This article shows that caesarean section is not cost neutral when compared with uncomplicated vaginal birth. Hidden costs in terms of serious morbidity affecting women’s future health and fertility associated with caesarean delivery in the absence of medical risk need to be calculated into the overall cost burden. Practitioners have been misled in this regard, thereby contributing to overuse of the practice.
What are the implications for practitioners? The importance of changing the index measurement of safety and quality of maternity care to include serious morbidity following unexplained caesarean section birth rates and normal births.
Additional keywords: birth trends, caesarean section, childbirth, cost analysis, maternity services policy, obstetric outcomes.
References
[1] Improving Maternity Services in Australia: the report of the maternity services review. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/msr-report [verified 29 April 2011].[2] Improving Maternity Services in Australia: a discussion paper from the Australian Government. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2008. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/2BAF08EE5C0ECDA3CA2575640000CFAC/$File/Improving_Maternity_Services_In_Australia.pdf [verified 29 April 2011].
[3] Jordan RG, Murphy PA. Risk assessment and risk distortion: finding the balance. J Midwifery Women’s Health 2009; 54 191–200.
| Risk assessment and risk distortion: finding the balance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Coleman VH, Lawrence H, Schulkin J. Rising cesarean delivery rates: the impact of cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009; 64 115–9.
| Rising cesarean delivery rates: the impact of cesarean delivery on maternal request.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19159495PubMed |
[5] Liu S, Heaman M, Joseph KS, Liston RM, Huang L, Sauve R, et al Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 836–42.
| Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15802414PubMed |
[6] Lee AS, Kirkman M. Disciplinary discourses: rates of cesarean section explained by medicine, midwifery, and feminism. Health Care Women Int 2008; 29 448–67.
| Disciplinary discourses: rates of cesarean section explained by medicine, midwifery, and feminism.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18437594PubMed |
[7] Young D. ‘Cesarean delivery on maternal request’: was the NIH conference based on a faulty premise? Birth 2006; 33 171–4.
| ‘Cesarean delivery on maternal request’: was the NIH conference based on a faulty premise?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16948716PubMed |
[8] Monari F, Di Mario S, Facchinetti F, Basevi V. Obstetricians’ and midwives’ attitudes toward cesarean section. Birth 2008; 35 129–35.
| Obstetricians’ and midwives’ attitudes toward cesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18507584PubMed |
[9] Loy CS, Warton RB, Dunbar JA. Workforce trends in specialist and GP obstetric practice in Victoria. Med J Aust 2007; 186 26–30.
| 17229030PubMed |
[10] Laws PJ, Li Z, Sullivan EA. 2010. Australia’s mothers and babies 2008. Perinatal statistics series no. 24. Cat. no. PER 50. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2010.
[11] Roberts CL, Ford JB, Algert CS, Bell JC, Simpson JM, Morris JM. Trends in adverse maternal outcomes during childbirth: a population-based study of severe maternal morbidity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9 7
| Trends in adverse maternal outcomes during childbirth: a population-based study of severe maternal morbidity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19243578PubMed |
[12] Plante LA. Public health implications of cesarean on demand. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2006; 61 807
| Public health implications of cesarean on demand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17107630PubMed |
[13] Bernstein PS. Patient-choice on cesarean delivery: really a choice? Birth 2007; 34 89–90.
| Patient-choice on cesarean delivery: really a choice?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Miesnik SR, Reale BJ. A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2007; 36 605–15.
| A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17973706PubMed |
[15] Waldenström U. Normal childbirth and evidence based practice. Women Birth 2007; 20 175–80.
| Normal childbirth and evidence based practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17913612PubMed |
[16] World Health Organization Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2 436–7.
| 2863457PubMed |
[17] Worley KC, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The prognosis for spontaneous labor in women with uncomplicated term pregnancies: implications for cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 812–6.
| 19305324PubMed |
[18] Janssens S, Wallace KL, Chang AMZ. Prepartum and intrapartum caesarean section rates at Mater Mothers’ Hospital Brisbane 1997–2005. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 48 564–9.
| Prepartum and intrapartum caesarean section rates at Mater Mothers’ Hospital Brisbane 1997–2005.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19133044PubMed |
[19] Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30 235–41.
| Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17011392PubMed |
[20] Skinner J. Risk: let’s look at the bigger picture. Women Birth 2008; 21 53–4.
| Risk: let’s look at the bigger picture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18455489PubMed |
[21] Zupancic JAF. The economics of elective cesarean section. Clin Perinatol 2008; 35 591–9.
| The economics of elective cesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18952025PubMed |
[22] McCandlish R. Meeting maternal request for caesarean section – paving the road to hell? Midwifery 2006; 22 204–6.
| Meeting maternal request for caesarean section – paving the road to hell?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16920508PubMed |
[23] Kamath BD, Todd JK, Glazner JE, Lezotte D, Lynch AM. Neonatal outcomes after elective cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 1231–8.
| 19461417PubMed |
[24] Lee YM, D’Alton ME. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal complications. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20 597–601.
| 18989137PubMed |
[25] Michaluk CA. Cesarean delivery by maternal request: what neonatal nurses need to know. Neonatal Netw 2009; 28 145–50.
| 19451075PubMed |
[26] Visco AG, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN, Wechter ME, Gartlehner G, Wu JM, et al Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 1517–29.
| Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17138788PubMed |
[27] Taylor LK, Simpson JM, Roberts CL, Olive EC, Henderson-Smart DJ. Risk of complications in a second pregnancy following caesarean section in the first pregnancy: a population-based study. Med J Aust 2005; 183 515–9.
| 16296964PubMed |
[28] Corry MP. Transforming maternity care: action steps toward a high-quality, high-value maternity care system. Womens Health Issues 2010; 20 S2–3.
| Transforming maternity care: action steps toward a high-quality, high-value maternity care system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20123181PubMed |
[29] Gilliam M. Cesarean delivery on request: reproductive consequences. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30 257–60.
| Cesarean delivery on request: reproductive consequences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17011396PubMed |
[30] Fenwick J, Gamble J, Mawson J. Women’s experiences of caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarian: a Birthrites initiative. Int J Nurs Pract 2003; 9 10–7.
| 12588615PubMed |
[31] Robson S, Carey A, Mishra R, Dear K. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women’s decision-making. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 48 415–20.
| Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women’s decision-making.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18837848PubMed |
[32] McGrath P, Ray-Barruel G. The easy option? Australian findings on mothers’ perception of elective caesarean as a birth choice after a prior caesarean section. Int J Nurs Pract 2009; 15 271–9.
| The easy option? Australian findings on mothers’ perception of elective caesarean as a birth choice after a prior caesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19703043PubMed |
[33] Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Baskett TF. Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 549–55.
| Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16946214PubMed |
[34] Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 1458–61.
| Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15902137PubMed |
[35] Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: wise use of finite resources? A view from the trenches. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30 305–8.
| Cesarean delivery on maternal request: wise use of finite resources? A view from the trenches.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17011403PubMed |
[36] Sword W, Watt S, Krueger P, Thabane L, Landy CK, Farine D, et al The Ontario Mother and Infant Study (TOMIS) III: a multi-site cohort study of the impact of delivery method on health, service use, and costs of care in the first postpartum year. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9 16
| The Ontario Mother and Infant Study (TOMIS) III: a multi-site cohort study of the impact of delivery method on health, service use, and costs of care in the first postpartum year.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19397827PubMed |
[37] Kazandjian VA, Chaulk CP, Ogunbo S, Wicker K. Does a cesarean section delivery always cost more than a vaginal delivery? J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 13 16–20.
| Does a cesarean section delivery always cost more than a vaginal delivery?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17286718PubMed |
[38] Palencia R, Gafni A, Hannah ME, Ross S, Willan AR, Hewson S, et al The costs of planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth in the Term Breech Trial. CMAJ 2006; 174 1109–13.
| The costs of planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth in the Term Breech Trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16606959PubMed |
[39] Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Farrell SA, Baskett TF. Economic implications of method of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 192–7.
| Economic implications of method of delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16021078PubMed |
[40] Bost BW. Cesarean delivery on demand: what will it cost? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 1418–21.
| Cesarean delivery on demand: what will it cost?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12824972PubMed |
[41] Tracy SK, Tracy MB. Costing the cascade: estimating the cost of increased obstetric intervention in childbirth using population data. BJOG 2003; 110 717–24.
| Costing the cascade: estimating the cost of increased obstetric intervention in childbirth using population data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12892682PubMed |
[42] Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral H, Evans R, Kotelchuck M, Simon C, Weiss J, Heffner LJ. Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary caesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 669–77.
| Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary caesarean births compared with planned vaginal births.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17329519PubMed |
[43] Robson SJ, Laws P, Sullivan EA. Adverse outcomes of labour in public and private hospitals in Australia: a population-based descriptive study. Med J Aust 2009; 190 474–7.
| 19413516PubMed |
[44] MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an ‘intention-to-treat’ model. Birth 2008; 35 3–8.
| Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an ‘intention-to-treat’ model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18307481PubMed |
[45] Smith GCS, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003; 362 1779–84.
| Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14654315PubMed |
[46] Xu X, Ivy JS, Patel DA, Patel SN, Smith DG, Ransom SB, et al Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Women’s Health 2010; 19 147–60.
| Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[47] Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007; 34 53–64.
| Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17324180PubMed |
