Abstract
Objective In Kenya, decisions to perform CS are frequently made by unsupported non-specialist doctors, sometimes resulting in sub-optimal decision-making and inappropriate surgery. This study assesses decision-making in CS performed in the first stage of labour by a retrospective case review.
Methods A panel of expert obstetricians reviewed case-notes randomly selected from a series obtained from seven Kenyan referral hospitals, then discussed in pairs and as a group where opinions differed.
Results Of the 87 case-notes reviewed consensus was achieved in 94.3% cases. In 41.3% cases, CS was considered appropriate by all assessors, including 8.9% cases where the CS was necessary but performed too late. The decision to delivery interval was 2 hours or longer in 65.8% cases, including 18 cases done for non-reassuring fetal status. In 10.3% it was considered that further reassessment should have occurred.
In 9.2% the reviewers concluded that the CS was done too soon and alternative measures could have been taken. Insufficient information was available in the records to make a full assessment in 21.8% of cases and in 11.5% the CS was considered to be inappropriate.
Conclusions This review suggests a need for improved support for decision-making, improved record-keeping and more timely surgery when indicated.
Synopsis At least 11.5% of Caesarean Sections in the first stage of labour could be avoided if decision-makers had access to support from more experienced practitioners.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was partly funded under a grant from the UK FCDO (Reducing Maternal & Neonatal Death in Kenya, number 202549) (Charles Ameh), and partly from an award from LSTM (Fiona Dickinson). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was sought prospectively and obtained from the LSTM Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21-041) and the Moi University Institutional Research Ethics Committee (ref: IREC/2021/115). Personal identifiable information concerning staff and patients was electronically redacted to preserve confidentiality and reduce the possibility of any reviewer bias.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
