Caesarean section audit by peer review

Abstract

Objective: To provide activity audit data on 50 consecutive caesarean sections and assess the justification for the decision to perform each caesarean section.

Design: A retrospective audit with peer review.

Setting: Aberdeen Maternity Hospital.

Subjects: Fifty consecutive women undergoing caesarean section. The peer review was undertaken by four consultants and four registrars.

Main outcome measures: The proportions of caesarean sections by indication stratified according to primiparae or multiparae and emergency or elective procedures. The auditors were asked 'do you think caesarean section was reasonable?'

Results: There were 18 (36%) elective caesarean sections and 32 (64%) emergency procedures. Of the 25 (50%) parous women, 14 (56%) had a previous caesarean section and of these 12 (86%) had an elective repeat caesarean section. Foetal distress was the principal indication for emergency caesarean section in 20 (63%) women, with foetal blood sampling performed in only four cases. For emergency caesarean sections the decision to delivery interval ranged from 13 to 160 min (mean 50 min). At least one auditor disagreed with the decision to perform caesarean section in 24 (48%) cases. Between observers the range of disagreement was from 2 to 18 of the decisions. In only 6 (33%) of the 18 elective procedures was there complete agreement. Four (67%) of these women had two previous caesarean sections. There was complete agreement with 20 (63%) of the 32 emergency caesarean sections. Conclusions--Interventions considered as a result of this audit include the introduction of structured diagnostic criteria for caesarean section indications and peer review by the on-call team of the caesarean sections performed in the preceding 24 h.