Article Sidebar
Received:
Jun 20, 2012Accepted:
Dec 29, 2012Published:
Dec 29, 2012DOI:
10.4314/thrb.v14i4.1Keywords:
Article Details
Projestine S. Muganyizi, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS)
Department of Obstetrics & GynecologyMain Article Content
How rational are indications for emergency caesarean section in a tertiary hospital in Tanzania?
Mselenge H. Mdegela
Projestine S. Muganyizi
Andrea B. Pembe
Daudi O. Simba
Jos van Roosmalen
Abstract
The rate of caesarean section (CS) at Muhimbili National Hospital (MNH) in Tanzania has been on progressive increase for past three decades. Concerns have been raised if this increase is justified by rational decisions but no study so far has investigated this problem. The aim of the study was to find out whether decisions made for CS comply with a set of locally made standards, with an assumption that if the standards are met, then the increase in CS rate seen at MNH is genuine. The five most common indications for CS were identified from the obstetric electronic data base. Most common indications included obstructed labour, cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD), failure to progress, repeat CS and foetal distress. Criteria for the best practice for each indication were developed based on the National guidelines and local expert consensus. Information extracted from the case notes, antenatal cards and partographs were compared to the standard audit criteria and the decision judged as standard or substandard. Three hundred forty five women had a decision made for emergency CS. Repeat CS was the most frequent indication (30.2%), followed by obstructed labour (14.4%) and foetal distress (13.6%). Audit of 324 women’s files showed that 30% of women had substandard decisions for CS mostly in the foetal distress group (59.1%) and least in the repeat CS group (9.1%). Among the 324 mothers with decision for emergency CS, 279 (86.1%) delivered by CS as decided and 45 (13.9%) delivered vaginally before CS could be performed. Women who delivered vaginally after decision for CS and the nulliparous women had significantly more substandard decisions compared to those delivered by CS and parous women respectively. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of decisions for emergency CS made in the hospital is substandard and may contain women in whom surgical intervention could be avoided. This calls for a need to improve quality of assessment and decision before performing CS.
Donate
AJOL is a Non Profit Organisation that cannot function without donations. AJOL and the millions of African and international researchers who rely on our free services are deeply grateful for your contribution. AJOL is annually audited and was also independently assessed in 2019 by E&Y.
Your donation is guaranteed to directly contribute to Africans sharing their research output with a global readership.
- Once off donations here:
- For annual AJOL Supporter contributions, please view our Supporters page.
Tell us what you think and showcase the impact of your research!
Please take 5 minutes to contribute to our survey so that we can better understand the contribution that African research makes to global and African development challenges. Share your feedback to help us make sure that AJOL's services support and amplify the voices of researchers like you.
AJOL Stakeholder Survey
We will share a selection of stories of impact on our website for millions of users to see.
Journal Identifiers
eISSN: 1821-9241
print ISSN: 1821-6404


