It’s complicated…: Exploring the missed opportunities and reasons for non-performance of assisted vaginal births in Kenya

Case-note review

The study period of June to November 2020, was chosen to avoid the restrictions surrounding the initial onset of the Coronavirus pandemic and a healthcare providers strike which occurred in December 2020. CS case-notes were selected using a systematic random sampling technique, using either the Kenya Health Information System, where possible, or the hospital maternity registers, as a sampling frame.

A sample size of 300 women who had a SSCS was initially planned, to ensure that the margin of error (MOE) in estimation of the proportion of women for whom an AVB could have been done would not exceed 5.7%. If 10% (or 5%) of women who had a SSCS had an adverse outcome, estimation of this proportion would have a MoE of 3.4% (or 2.5%).

Initial sample size calculations were based on stratified sampling of elective, first stage and SSCS case-notes but due to difficulties in identifying appropriate cases and locating the relevant notes in hospitals, a simple random sample of all emergency CS (first and second stage CS) notes was taken. A target of 90 emergency CS cases per hospital was set for the seven CEmOC hospitals, giving an overall sample of 630 emergency CS cases.

Once case-notes were identified and located, they were copied by hospital staff and sent to a central office in Nairobi. Here they were scanned, given a unique study ID number, and personal identifiable information was electronically redacted. In addition, due to the small number of procedures performed, all AVB cases for the study period, were included in the data collection.

Key informant interviews

For the key informant interviews (KII), purposive sampling was employed to identify nurse-midwives (also sometimes referred to as nurses), medical officers and obstetricians who provided clinical care in each of the eight target hospitals. A range of clinicians who were actively involved in the provision of care to women giving birth were identified, in addition to those with managerial responsibility, such as medical superintendents and midwives in-charge of labour wards. The aim was to identify staff who might be expected to either perform AVB or in a position to influence its use by others.

Using a semi-structured topic guide, the interviews were conducted remotely, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and logistical challenges, via the participants online platform of choice. Potential participants were identified by members of the programme team working with the facilities. These were screened by members of the study team and purposively selected to ensure a spread of cadres and facility representation. Participants were sent an invitation to take part in the study along with the participant information sheet and a consent form. They were given the opportunity to ask any questions of the research team before signing and returning the consent form. A date and time convenient to the participant was then arranged for the interview.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes following SSCS

Due to the small number of SSCS case-notes included in the records retrieved, statistical analysis was limited. However, analysis of the outcomes for the 67 SSCS cases revealed that there were 6 cases (9%) of maternal complications, including 5 (8%) of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) but no maternal deaths (Table 1). Perinatal outcomes among the SSCS showed 2 (3%) neonatal deaths, 4 (6%) stillbirths which would equate to a perinatal mortality rate of 89.6 deaths per 1,000 births. A further 7 (11%) infants had complications needing treatment and/or admission to the neonatal unit (e.g. for convulsions or asphyxia). Overall birthweights ranged from 1705g to 4470g but did not seem to be associated with adverse outcomes for either mother or baby. Apgar scores for infants born alive and where data was available, was similar across all five groups.

The most common reason given for SSCS was failure to progress or delay in second stage (n=36, 54.6%), however, 6 also reported fetal distress or non-reassuring fetal signs. Meconium was also listed as a reason for SSCS in one case although, despite the decision to delivery interval being 2 hours, the baby had Apgar scores of 9 at 1 minute and 10 at 5 minutes. Other reasons given for SSCS included issues with presentation such as arm prolapse, transverse lie and breech, and previous CS including one with a known stillbirth.

AVB cases

Six cases of AVB were reviewed, five of which occurred in sub-county hospitals and only one in a county referral hospital. There were no perinatal or maternal deaths with most procedures being performed for either ‘delay in second stage of labour’ or ‘poor maternal effort’. Four of the cases had good outcomes for the mothers and babies, with Apgar scores at 5 minutes of 9 or 10. The two remaining cases, however, were both referrals from approximately 30 minutes away, who were referred for delay in second stage of labour. One of the referred mothers experienced complications with bleeding postpartum which was managed by vaginal packing. Both infants were approximately 2.5kg in weight and had birth asphyxia with poor Apgar scores (5 and 7 at 5 minutes). One of the asphyxiated infants required admission to the Newborn Baby Unit for 5 days.

Views on AVB

Most of the respondents acknowledged the benefits of AVB, with the avoidance of the attendant abdominal scar and potential complications associated with CS, particularly when performed in the second stage of labour. We asked respondents how they would feel about having an AVB themselves or for their wife/partner. Most said they would be accepting of the procedure providing that the necessary indications were met and that the operator was competent. They recognised the reduced risk of having an AVB rather than a CS.

“If I had the confidence, in whoever is attending to me, I would give a go ahead. Yeah because of instead of going for a caesarean, to nurse the scar when I can be done an AVD and deliver well.” (KII 5, NMW, SCH)

Others had their doubts about the procedure, and one respondent stated that

“I wouldn’t let it get to that, I would have delivered her by caesarean before.” (KII 6, OB, SCH)

Interviewees were also asked about their perceptions of the views of their local community regarding AVB. There were some differences of opinion, but most felt that the local community had no real understanding of about AVB and what it involved.

“Most of them are not learned, they don’t understand these things. Even if you get a consent, you tell them ‘mama I want to use this to help your baby come out, please co-operate’, they don’t understand.” (KII 1, MO, CRH)

Some felt that the recipients would accept whatever was advised by the doctor or would end the pain of labour.

“Most of our ladies when you ask for their consent to do the assisted vaginal delivery, they just tell you, just do anything so that you can take out the baby. Because they are in so much pain at that time, so they will take anything that can be done so they can take out the baby.” (KII 17, MO, SCH)

It was thought that some women would prefer AVB to CS, through fear of going to the operating theatre and a having an anaesthetic, and for others there was the concern of the potential limiting effect CS might have on the size of their family.

“The ones who want to give birth to fifteen children, they want to avoid caesarean section as much as possible because they know that is going to limit the number of children they are going to get. So, if you give them any other option apart from caesarean section they would gladly take it.” (KII 8, MO, CRH)

A few interviewees felt that some women had a fear of the device and the potential damage it might cause to their baby or themselves, or had heard adverse reports from friends.

“Some clients they decline vacuum because of the, just misconceptions. I think maybe the stories in the community that once it’s done maybe the baby will come out with brain injuries.” (KII 3, NMW, CRH)

There seemed to be little, in any, antenatal teaching for the women on different ways of giving birth, with explanations regarding AVB and its implications being provided when women were in advanced labour.

Experience and training

Of the 17 respondents who provided the information, 14 had conducted an AVB at some point in their career, with a few performing regularly, but others had not performed the procedure for two or more years.

Several of the interviewees had undergone EmONC training provided by LSTM, and a few had also done the LSTM Advanced Obstetric Surgical course or other AVB training. Both the standard and advanced LSTM courses cover theoretical and hands-on training on AVB, and overall, interviewees found the courses to be beneficial, particularly the practical aspects.

“Oh, I learnt something, it was helping me a lot. Because actually I did not know how to do it at first, but out of your training I managed to do two, two cases.” (KII 17, MO, SCH)

However, despite most of the respondents having received AVB training previously, the need for additional training was commented on repeatedly. Some interviewees felt that they needed further training provided by external organisations such as LSTM or other NGOs, whilst others thought that on-the-job training would be preferable.

“I’ve done about three [AVB] since the training of [county], but I’ve done many from when I left medical school, but we were using the old equipment, we were not using the Kiwi. The Kiwi one I’ve used on three patients or so. I’m quite competent actually, personally I am okay, only a bit of refresher then everything will fall in place.” (KII 4, OB CRH)

In-house training was reported in a few of the facilities, with accounts of continuing medical education (CME) sessions, where medical interns tended to present on theoretical aspects of a particular subject, with little or no opportunities to practice skills. Although these seemed to be open to all cadres, limited staffing levels meant that in practice staff were sometimes too busy to attend.

Lack of equipment

The lack of operational equipment was a recurring theme, expressed by the interviewees as a reason for not performing AVB. One of the difficulties described in these settings, was that the preferred device for performing AVB, the Kiwi obstetric suction cup device, is designed to be single-use. However, due the cost of replacements and difficulties in procuring new devices, they are often sterilised and re-used.

“We sterilize using high level disinfection and we reuse it… I think it can do up to 12 patients” (KII 11, NMW, CRH)

In some instances, though, this led to problems where the device was no longer functioning properly. On another occasion, an interviewee explained that problems with a dysfunctional device had led to a woman having to undergo a SSCS following a failed AVB, resulting in the loss of the baby.

When asked about the use of obstetric forceps, most respondents said that they either did not have them in their facility or that they were not used. One medical officer stated that they had used them once and a consultant admitted that they had never been trained in their use.

In two of the hospitals, the staff had requested replacement Kiwi devices, but they were not available, and they had been provided with Malmstrom vacuum extractors instead. Although these are reusable, they require two people to operate and were not favoured by the staff interviewed.

Staffing

The levels of staffing were discussed during the interviews, with almost all interviewees reporting inadequate levels. Interviewees commonly described 1-3 nurse-midwives on duty per shift with fewer at night than during the day. These nurse-midwives may have covered only the labour ward in the large County Referral Hospitals but in the smaller facilities, they were also expected to cover the antenatal and postnatal wards.

This shortage of staff was exacerbated in some instances by the rotation of experienced staff to different departments, either as part of the normal medical training process or because of industrial strike action. The frequency of rotation varied from weekly to 6 monthly resulting in a lack of AVB trained staff.

“The problem we have is high turnover of the MOs, so the ones we are having currently, I think they are not trained.” (KII 3, NMW, CRH)

In one instance the rotation of non-specialist medical staff was reported as a reason for non-medically indicated CS, as the rotated doctor was more interested in practising their surgical skills.

The combination of low overall staffing levels and the rotation of trained staff was also reported as leading to a lack of support and on-the-job training opportunities for less experienced colleagues.

Instances were described where a shortage of MOs, lead to a lack of medical cover at times, resulting in the referral of women who developed complications in the second stage of labour.

“So at night it’s always nurses and if we find any difficulty we always refer.” (KII 2, NMW, SCH)

This was also raised as an issue by receiving facilities, where due to delays caused by the women being transferred from one facility to another (up to 2 hours or more), AVB was not even attempted but the patient was taken straight to the operating theatre for caesarean section.

“This mother has travelled all the way more than 2 hours during second stage, I don’t wait, because I know, I just go direct and section this mother.” (KII 1, MO, CRH)

Another reported effect of low staffing levels was the impact of the quality of patient care. Where a small number of nurse-midwives were caring for multiple women in labour, adequate monitoring of interventions such as augmentation of labour with oxytocin infusion was not possible. This resulted in the infusion being stopped, poor progress with failure to reach full dilatation or inadequate contractions and consequently the woman having a CS.

“You as a doctor might start the augmentation but then the nurses will stop it because they can’t just monitor. They will call you after four hours that the patient has not progressed… “(KII 4, OB, CRH)

Where inadequate staffing was experienced, a few healthcare providers described the management of workloads by the juggling of patient care between cadres. Doctors were described as wanting an AVB to be done by the nurse-midwife, to avoid them having to take the patient to theatre, whilst the nurse-midwife wanted the woman to have a CS so that she was one less patient of labour ward.

Confidence

Varying levels of self-confidence were expressed by study respondents. Some were highly confident whilst others were less so. Levels of confidence were sometimes linked to training received and opportunities to practice. Respondents explained that their lack of confidence stemmed from a lack of any training or refresher training in performing AVB. They thought that with the necessary training they would be able to perform the procedure.

Confidence between colleagues was expressed as an issue by some respondents, with a few doctors conveying a lack of trust in some of the nurse-midwives’ ability to monitor the progress of labour whilst some of the nurse-midwives did not trust the doctors to perform an AVB when it was indicated.

A few of the respondents also articulated concerns they perceived colleagues had about potential adverse outcomes relating to the use of AVB, predominantly related to adverse outcomes for the mother and baby, particularly where the procedure was applied inappropriately.

“The thing we fear with the AVDs is the hematoma that sometimes is associated and possible dangers of having brain injuries as you do the AVDs and I think some of these fears are what many practitioners fear… If you follow the correct guidelines on who qualifies for AVDs nobody should fear.” (KII 18, MO, SCH)

Two neonatal deaths were reported following AVB, possibly giving rise to some of the concerns, but it was difficult to determine whether these were because of inappropriate use of AVB itself or as a consequence of the labour complications which necessitated the AVB.

Poor quality of records

Overall, the quality of medical record keeping was poor, with almost a third (32%, n=21) of the cases included in the sample not containing enough information to categorise the appropriateness of the decision for CS. Poor record keeping is not however limited to this study. Similar results have been found in other studies in LMICs including Landry et al [11] who reviewed records from CS performed in facilities in five low-income countries. They found in some sites 20% of records could not be located and key information was missing from files across all sites.

The lack of adequate filing systems and the incomplete or contradictory information that many of the sets of notes in this study contained, is likely to impact efforts to improve the quality of patient care, both directly as complete medical history is not available and through difficulty in conducting clinical audit and research [12]. Reasons for the poor quality of record keeping are likely to be various and a study of nurses’ knowledge, attitudes and barriers to quality record keeping in Burundi [13] found that barriers to good record keeping included lack of training in record keeping, excessive workload, lack of time, demotivation and poor support from administrative polices. Some of the facilities included in this study used a pre-formatted admission sheet which facilitated the systematic recording of important information. The inclusion of a completed partograph in the records was also variable, and unlikely where a woman had been referred from another facility, although no quantitative analysis has been done at this stage. A study carried out by Kleczka et al [14] in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, found that the use of pre-formatted rubber stamp to print templates onto sheets of paper, significantly improved the quality of record keeping in three non-communicable disease clinics (hypertension, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases). The authors concluded that the intervention provided a low cost means of increasing the quality of medical documentation and supported improvement of care quality through standards-based audits.

Evidence and potential consequences of unnecessary SSCS

The number of cases in the group categorised as ‘AVB should have been attempted’ (n=7/67, 10%) suggests that there are women undergoing unnecessary SSCS. If the cases where it was not possible to determine the appropriate method of birth (due to lack of information or delays) are excluded, the proportion becomes even higher (n= 7/29, 24%). In this study, although there were complications following both SSCS and AVB, the small number of AVB performed made it impossible to compare the outcomes from the procedures statistically. Both of the AVB cases where complications occurred, may have been compromised due to the duration of referral following full dilatation and thus delays in actually performing the procedure. Furthermore, based on studies by Nolens et al [6] and Eze et al [8], if SSCS had been carried out rather than AVB, the further delay and complications from the procedure, may have resulted in worse outcomes.

There is no shortage of evidence around the increased risks and poor outcomes associated with unnecessary CS, particularly in LMIC [15],[3],[7],[16], both at the time of the procedure and in subsequent pregnancies. These risks are increased when the CS is carried out in the second stage of labour, after full dilatation of the cervix [8],[17].

There is little doubt about the need to avoid unnecessary CS in low resource settings, particularly SSCS, but there is also a need to ensure that those women who do need a CS, receive one in a timely manner. Arunda et al [14] highlight the demographic factors that impact on the likelihood of women receiving a CS in Kenya and Tanzania, including living in a rural or urban environment, household income and level of education. They advocate for the removal of financial incentives to conduct CS, reduction in unwanted, particularly adolescent pregnancies, and individualised decision making at a facility level, rather than blanket policies, to promote equitable access to necessary obstetric surgery. Factors such as patient referral, postpartum haemorrhage, the need for intensive care and general anaesthesia at CS were significantly associated with increased risk of maternal mortality following CS in Kenya [17].

Interventions to support decision making around CS have included mandatory second opinion [18], as well as the promotion of AVB where appropriate and raising awareness among women of the risks associated with unnecessary CS [20]. Dindi et al [18] advocate the prospective use of the Robson 10-group classification system for categorising CS, as a means of improving the quality of record keeping and underpinning efforts to improve care quality through audit, an intervention promoted by the WHO [21].

Complex reasons for non-performance of AVB

The qualitative findings from the study clearly demonstrated the complexity of the situations in which many doctors and nurse-midwives found themselves. Despite many clinicians expressing support for the performance of AVB, the data collected from the healthcare facilities did not demonstrate this in practice. The barriers to performing AVB described by the interviewees can be categorised at 3 levels, personal (confidence and practice), facility (equipment, on-job-training, leadership) and national (staffing and pre-registration training), illustrated in the conceptual diagram (Figure 2). These levels were not discrete however, with each level potentially having an impact on the other levels and some issues, such as training, being cross-cutting across all three levels.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Conceptual diagram of reasons for non-performance of AVB