Audit and feedback using the Robson classification to reduce caesarean section rates: a systematic review

A A Boatin, F Cullinane, M R Torloni, A P Betrán, A A Boatin, F Cullinane, M R Torloni, A P Betrán

Abstract

Background: In most regions worldwide, caesarean section (CS) rates are increasing. In these settings, new strategies are needed to reduce CS rates.

Objectives: To identify, critically appraise and synthesise studies using the Robson classification as a system to categorise and analyse data in clinical audit cycles to reduce CS rates.

Search strategy: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS were searched from 2001 to 2016.

Selection criteria: Studies reporting use of the Robson classification to categorise and analyse data in clinical audit cycles to reduce CS rates.

Data collection: Data on study design, interventions used, CS rates, and perinatal outcomes were extracted.

Results: Of 385 citations, 30 were assessed for full text review and six studies, conducted in Brazil, Chile, Italy and Sweden, were included. All studies measured initial CS rates, provided feedback and monitored performance using the Robson classification. In two studies, the audit cycle consisted exclusively of feedback using the Robson classification; the other four used audit and feedback as part of a multifaceted intervention. Baseline CS rates ranged from 20 to 36.8%; after the intervention, CS rates ranged from 3.1 to 21.2%. No studies were randomised or controlled and all had a high risk of bias.

Conclusion: We identified six studies using the Robson classification within clinical audit cycles to reduce CS rates. All six report reductions in CS rates; however, results should be interpreted with caution because of limited methodological quality. Future trials are needed to evaluate the role of the Robson classification within audit cycles aimed at reducing CS rates.

Tweetable abstract: Use of the Robson classification in clinical audit cycles to reduce caesarean rates.

Keywords: Audit and feedback; Robson classification; caesarean section; clinical audit cycle; systematic review; ten-group classification.

© 2017 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Robson classification system. Reproduced with permission from World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates WHO/RHR/15.02. 2015.

References

    1. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0148343.
    1. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL. Non‐clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(6):CD005528.
    1. Hartmann KE, Andrews JC, Jerome RN, Lewis RM, Likis FE, McKoy JN, et al. Strategies to reduce cesarean birth in low‐risk women. AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)‐EHC128‐EF2012.
    1. Shaw D. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Principles for Best Practice in Clinical Audit. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing, 2002.
    1. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence‐based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta‐analysis. Birth 2007;34:53–64.
    1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard‐Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(6):CD000259.
    1. Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Maternal Med Rev 2001;12:23–39.
    1. Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e97769.
    1. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e14566.
    1. World Health Organization . WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. WHO/RHR/15.02; 2015.
    1. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery . Best practice advice on the 10‐group classification system for cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;135:232–3.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264–9, W64.
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta‐analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta‐analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12.
    1. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non‐randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:iii–x 1–173.
    1. Effective Public Health Practice Project . Quality Assessment Tool of Quantitative Studies []. Accessed 11 March 2016.
    1. Scarella A, Chamy V, Sepulveda M, Belizan JM. Medical audit using the Ten Group Classification System and its impact on the cesarean section rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;154:136–40.
    1. Svelato A, Meroni MG, Poli M, Perino A, Spinoso R, Ragusa A. How to reduce caesarean sections in first four Robson's Classes. BJOG 2014;121:91.
    1. Maneschi F, Algieri M, Perrone S, Nale R, Sarno M. Cesarean 10‐group classification: a tool for clinical management of the delivery ward. Minerva Ginecol 2015;67:389–95.
    1. Piffer S, Pederzini F, Tenaglia F, Paoli A, Nicolodi F, Luewink A. The Robson ten group classification of cesarean section in 7 alpine maternity units in an homogenous area. Eur J Epidemiol 2012;27:S122–3.
    1. Aguiar RAP, Gaspar J, Reis ZSN, Santos MR Jr, Correa MD Jr. Implementation of the Caesarean Births Review using the ten group Robson‘s classification and its immediate effects on the rate of caesareans, at a university hospital. Poster presented at the international congress Birth: Clinical Challenges in Labor and Delivery, March 5‐7 2015, Fortaleza, Brazil; p21.
    1. Blomberg M. Avoiding the first cesarean section—results of structured organizational and cultural changes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016;95:580–6.
    1. Ramsay CR, Matowe L, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE. Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19:613–23.
    1. Cook TD, Shadish WR, Wong VC. Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: new findings from within‐study comparisons. J Policy Analysis Manage 2008;27:724–50.
    1. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265:2202–7.
    1. Elferink‐Stinkens PM, Brand R, Amelink‐Verburg MP, Merkus JM, den Ouden AL, Van Hemel OJ. Randomised clinical trial on the effect of the Dutch obstetric peer review system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;102:21–30.
    1. Kiwanuka AI, Moore WMO. Influence of audit and feedback on use of caesarean section in a geographically‐defined population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;50:59–64.
    1. Kazandjian VA, Lied TR. Cesarean section rates: effects of participation in a performance measurement project. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1998;24:187–96.
    1. Main EK. Reducing cesarean birth rates with data‐driven quality improvement activities. Pediatrics 1999;103(1 Suppl E):374–83.
    1. Tay SK, Tsakok FH, Ng CS. The use of intradepartmental audit to contain cesarean section rate. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1992;39:99–103.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir