British consultants' attitudes to caesareans
- 1 January 2007
- journal article
- Published by Informa UK Limited in Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Vol. 27 (4), 354-359
- https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610701327354
Abstract
Summary The caesarean rate more than doubled between 1990 and 2004. In this paper, 151 clinical directors give their views about this development. The three main reasons they gave for the rise were: fear of litigation, maternal request and reduced skill of newly appointed consultants and non-consultant staff. However, they provided about 90 reasons overall. Three in five of the consultants thought the local rate was too high; two in five thought it about right; and only one in 74 said it was too low. The major suggestions they gave for reducing the rate were that there should be more consultant input, an increased amount of VBAC, better education of women and discussion at weekly meetings. In addition, three-quarters agreed with ‘no fault compensation’ in the case of brain damage.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- The term breech trial: Are the clinical guidelines justified by the evidence?Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2006
- Reversal of the decision for caesarean section in the second stage of labour on the basis of consultant vaginal assessmentJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2005
- Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trialThe Lancet, 2000
- Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practiceEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 1997
- Caesarean section in Britain and the United States 12% or 24%: Is either the right rate?Social Science & Medicine, 1993
- What is the correct caesarean section rate?BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1993
- Inconsistencies in clinical decisions in obstetricsThe Lancet, 1990