2010 C Section Rates for Hospitals in Washington

kristalovesjared · July 2011

A friend who is a doula posted this chart on Facebook, so I thought I'd share here. Notice how some of the hospitals with high c section rates don't have high complication rates... I just thought it was good to know!

https://www.kimjames.net/wa-cesarean-rates.aspx

cmcmillan · July 2011

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I deliver at Providence (snohomish co.) it's nice to see their number isn't very high and about even with complicated births. I also wonder how it would break down with repeat c/s after a necessary one?

kristalovesjared · July 2011

I also wonder how it would break down with repeat c/s after a necessary one?

That would be really interesting to see! I was thinking about it would be nice to see how many of those c sections were scheduled and how many were due to complications with a vaginal birth.

It would be nice if we could see these rates for our doctors too, because ultimately they usually are the ones who decide, right?

jcyahne · July 2011

So putting my health care administrator hat on, be careful in analyzing data like this. You would expect some hospitals to have higher complication and c section rates, because they are large medical centers with specialists in high risk births. So it does not surprie me to see places like UW and Swedish high on the list for both C sections and complications.

The other thing to understand about this data is that it covers both c sections and vaginal deliveries in the % complicated deliveries column based at the footnotes at the bottom of the page. I find this a bit misleading as the table title simply says Washington State Cesarean Rates

chibipoe · July 2011

jcyahne:
So putting my health care administrator hat on, be careful in analyzing data like this. You would expect some hospitals to have higher complication and c section rates, because they are large medical centers with specialists in high risk births. So it does not surprie me to see places like UW and Swedish high on the list for both C sections and complications.

The other thing to understand about this data is that it covers both c sections and vaginal deliveries in the % complicated deliveries column based at the footnotes at the bottom of the page. I find this a bit misleading as the table title simply says Washington State Cesarean Rates

I love your health care administrator hat.

Interesting to see Skagit so high on the list though, I wasn't expecting that.

Zista · July 2011

Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

kristalovesjared · July 2011

chibipoe:
jcyahne:
So putting my health care administrator hat on, be careful in analyzing data like this. You would expect some hospitals to have higher complication and c section rates, because they are large medical centers with specialists in high risk births. So it does not surprie me to see places like UW and Swedish high on the list for both C sections and complications.
The other thing to understand about this data is that it covers both c sections and vaginal deliveries in the % complicated deliveries column based at the footnotes at the bottom of the page. I find this a bit misleading as the table title simply says Washington State Cesarean Rates
I love your health care administrator hat.

Interesting to see Skagit so high on the list though, I wasn't expecting that.

Seattle_JiLLn · July 2011

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

My guess is that some/many of those E Washington hospitals are very small and transfer complicated cases somewhere else. Or people with more high risk pregnancies voluntarily go elsewhere.

I also must comment on this "go" attitude... Like somehow just the idea of having fewer c-sections is something to be so proud of. C-sections are not terrible. Dead babies are. Healthy babies, no matter how they come out are what should be applauded. It does not matter if you push it out your vagina or you have surgery. In the end, everyone has to do what is the safest and healthiest alternative for their own birth. There are no "bonus points" for doing it vaginally. I just hate how people act like they're big heroes for avoiding a c-section or look down on people who have them. What does it matter to you how I birthed my children? I had c-sections. And although my first was breech so it was "necessary", I was secretly (or not so) hoping for one anyway. I know it seems bizarre, but that's my life, my issues, etc... and to be made to feel ashamed of having a c-section is ridiculous. (And I'm not in any way ashamed FWIW)

jcyahne · July 2011

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

I noticed that as well. One explanation could be that there are more limited non-hospital options for child birth in much of eastern washington such as birth centers and homebirths. So the hospital gets a higher proportion of these low risk births that in western wa are outside the hospital.

Also if somebody lives in a rural town and has a high risk pregnancy, they may still be referred to a larger hospital to give birth. Notice how larger hospitals in Spokane and Pullman are higher on the list for C section rates.

It is also possible that they have less access to anestheologists in these areas and therefore less access to epidurals which can potentially lead to higher c section rates.

Lots of possibilities...see you've got me going.

jcyahne · July 2011

Seattle_JiLLn:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

My guess is that some/many of those E Washington hospitals are very small and transfer complicated cases somewhere else. Or people with more high risk pregnancies voluntarily go elsewhere.

I also must comment on this "go" attitude... Like somehow just the idea of having fewer c-sections is something to be so proud of. C-sections are not terrible. Dead babies are. Healthy babies, no matter how they come out are what should be applauded. It does not matter if you push it out your vagina or you have surgery. In the end, everyone has to do what is the safest and healthiest alternative for their own birth. There are no "bonus points" for doing it vaginally. I just hate how people act like they're big heroes for avoiding a c-section or look down on people who have them. What does it matter to you how I birthed my children? I had c-sections. And although my first was breech so it was "necessary", I was secretly (or not so) hoping for one anyway. I know it seems bizarre, but that's my life, my issues, etc... and to be made to feel ashamed of having a c-section is ridiculous. (And I'm not in any way ashamed FWIW)

Amen! I've had two c sections myself and couldn't agree with you more.

jcyahne · July 2011

jcyahne:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

I noticed that as well. One explanation could be that there are more limited non-hospital options for child birth in much of eastern washington such as birth centers and homebirths. So the hospital gets a higher proportion of these low risk births that in western wa are outside the hospital.

Also if somebody lives in a rural town and has a high risk pregnancy, they may still be referred to a larger hospital to give birth. Notice how larger hospitals in Spokane and Pullman are higher on the list for C section rates.

It is also possible that they have less access to anestheologists in these areas and therefore less access to epidurals which can potentially lead to higher c section rates.

Lots of possibilities...see you've got me going.

Oh and one more thought. This is all data from CHARS, which means it is based on billing data. Normally in order to capture the highest reimbursement, a hospital tries to bill out at the highest DRG possible. So they will try to tag all births that qualify under that complicated flat because the reimbursement is better. Larger hospitals in metropolitan areas may be better able to do this due to access to better billing systems, more administrative resources, and the availability of more experienced workforce than hospitals in rural areas.

ttgcole · July 2011

Seattle_JiLLn:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

My guess is that some/many of those E Washington hospitals are very small and transfer complicated cases somewhere else. Or people with more high risk pregnancies voluntarily go elsewhere.

I also must comment on this "go" attitude... Like somehow just the idea of having fewer c-sections is something to be so proud of. C-sections are not terrible. Dead babies are. Healthy babies, no matter how they come out are what should be applauded. It does not matter if you push it out your vagina or you have surgery. In the end, everyone has to do what is the safest and healthiest alternative for their own birth. There are no "bonus points" for doing it vaginally. I just hate how people act like they're big heroes for avoiding a c-section or look down on people who have them. What does it matter to you how I birthed my children? I had c-sections. And although my first was breech so it was "necessary", I was secretly (or not so) hoping for one anyway. I know it seems bizarre, but that's my life, my issues, etc... and to be made to feel ashamed of having a c-section is ridiculous. (And I'm not in any way ashamed FWIW)

Thank you Jill, I have been feeling like I should feel "guilty" or something because I actually requested a repeat C-Section. There is such a huge message about C-Sections being evil or something, at least that's how my pregnancy hormones are making me feel Wink

Seattle_JiLLn · July 2011

ttgcole:
Seattle_JiLLn:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

My guess is that some/many of those E Washington hospitals are very small and transfer complicated cases somewhere else. Or people with more high risk pregnancies voluntarily go elsewhere.

I also must comment on this "go" attitude... Like somehow just the idea of having fewer c-sections is something to be so proud of. C-sections are not terrible. Dead babies are. Healthy babies, no matter how they come out are what should be applauded. It does not matter if you push it out your vagina or you have surgery. In the end, everyone has to do what is the safest and healthiest alternative for their own birth. There are no "bonus points" for doing it vaginally. I just hate how people act like they're big heroes for avoiding a c-section or look down on people who have them. What does it matter to you how I birthed my children? I had c-sections. And although my first was breech so it was "necessary", I was secretly (or not so) hoping for one anyway. I know it seems bizarre, but that's my life, my issues, etc... and to be made to feel ashamed of having a c-section is ridiculous. (And I'm not in any way ashamed FWIW)

Thank you Jill, I have been feeling like I should feel "guilty" or something because I actually requested a repeat C-Section. There is such a huge message about C-Sections being evil or something, at least that's how my pregnancy hormones are making me feel

Yup, I did too. My doc would have let me do a VBAC if I had wanted to, but I said no thank you. When my water broke at 34 weeks though I did ask him if it would be better for the baby (Cooper) to go vaginally as I had heard it can help their lungs. He said no it wouldn't make a difference - I had had steroid shots already for his lungs - so we didn't change the plan.

itskacie · July 2011

Seattle_JiLLn:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

My guess is that some/many of those E Washington hospitals are very small and transfer complicated cases somewhere else. Or people with more high risk pregnancies voluntarily go elsewhere.

I also must comment on this "go" attitude... Like somehow just the idea of having fewer c-sections is something to be so proud of. C-sections are not terrible. Dead babies are. Healthy babies, no matter how they come out are what should be applauded. It does not matter if you push it out your vagina or you have surgery. In the end, everyone has to do what is the safest and healthiest alternative for their own birth. There are no "bonus points" for doing it vaginally. I just hate how people act like they're big heroes for avoiding a c-section or look down on people who have them. What does it matter to you how I birthed my children? I had c-sections. And although my first was breech so it was "necessary", I was secretly (or not so) hoping for one anyway. I know it seems bizarre, but that's my life, my issues, etc... and to be made to feel ashamed of having a c-section is ridiculous. (And I'm not in any way ashamed FWIW)

I wanted one too... but there was no medical reason, so Dr said no. I really dont see what the big deal is. The one who has it is the one who has to recover from it- no one elses business.

kristalovesjared · July 2011

Sorry to make anyone feel bad about having a C Section. I definitely don't think there is any difference in the end as long as mom and baby are healthy!

I know there are a million different ways this info could be shown and I'm sure there is another chart similar that could show something completely different coming from a different source. I just thought it was interesting to read.

blueLu25 · July 2011

I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.

No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

MrsAmyB · July 2011

Seattle_JiLLn:
ttgcole:
Seattle_JiLLn:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

My guess is that some/many of those E Washington hospitals are very small and transfer complicated cases somewhere else. Or people with more high risk pregnancies voluntarily go elsewhere.

I also must comment on this "go" attitude... Like somehow just the idea of having fewer c-sections is something to be so proud of. C-sections are not terrible. Dead babies are. Healthy babies, no matter how they come out are what should be applauded. It does not matter if you push it out your vagina or you have surgery. In the end, everyone has to do what is the safest and healthiest alternative for their own birth. There are no "bonus points" for doing it vaginally. I just hate how people act like they're big heroes for avoiding a c-section or look down on people who have them. What does it matter to you how I birthed my children? I had c-sections. And although my first was breech so it was "necessary", I was secretly (or not so) hoping for one anyway. I know it seems bizarre, but that's my life, my issues, etc... and to be made to feel ashamed of having a c-section is ridiculous. (And I'm not in any way ashamed FWIW)

Thank you Jill, I have been feeling like I should feel "guilty" or something because I actually requested a repeat C-Section. There is such a huge message about C-Sections being evil or something, at least that's how my pregnancy hormones are making me feel

Yup, I did too. My doc would have let me do a VBAC if I had wanted to, but I said no thank you. When my water broke at 34 weeks though I did ask him if it would be better for the baby (Cooper) to go vaginally as I had heard it can help their lungs. He said no it wouldn't make a difference - I had had steroid shots already for his lungs - so we didn't change the plan.

I agree with you about higher-risk patients not going to the E. WA hospitals. I was not even allowed to travel east to my parents house during my pregnancy because I had to be within 1 hour of a Level III NICU.

Also, agree with you on not getting a medal just for a vaginal birth. I had Meg vaginally and the trio via c-section. Maybe it was our awesome doctor, but my c-secion birth and recovery was 10x easier than the vaginal one and I had the same outcome; healthy baby/babies. Miss Katie wouldn't have survived a vaginal birth since she had a velamentous cord.

keri1013 · July 2011

blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

Well said Leanne, and I think another reason the data is important is that C-sections cost so much more, which of course gets passed on to all of us eventually, and do have a higher rate of complications. NOT saying that we shouldn't have any C-Sections or that there aren't valid reasons for wanting/having one, just that it's worth looking at what's happening.

Seattle_JiLLn · July 2011

blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

I was more reacting to the "Go Eastern Washington" and the fact that they "must be doing something" that their c-section rates were low. That's what really stuck out as making it out like c-sections are bad things.

I dont' know how the "complicated birth" statistics are made up. I had a necessary c-section because Ben was breech. Was that counted as "complicated"? I would doubt it. So I don't really think that the stats show that.

And even still, I still don't see the point of "unecessary" c-sections being an epidemic. I would think that about 99% of boob jobs are "unnecessary" and no one calls that an "epidemic". People have elective surgery every day. Why are we made to fee like it's shameful or something to be squelched just because it's a c-section?

Alli923 · July 2011

I'm curious to know also what constitutes a "complication". The ICD-9 codes they have linked all seem to refer to pre-mature birth/low-birth weights...however, there are many more complications that result in c-section. The data listed can be interpreted in so many ways because it seems that the information they are providing isn't the whole story.

I'll be the first to say that I HATED my c-section and do not want to have another. However, I know that it was necessary for the birth of my daughter and I am in NO way ashamed of having one. I wish I'd been one of those women who said I loved my c-section and the recovery was easy, but it sucked. I also equally wish I could have had a water birth with no meds. Regardless, I have a healthy happy kiddo and that is what is most important.

I think this just goes to show that each woman needs to find a support system for the birth of her baby that she feels comfortable with and is informed about.

MrsEditorJax · July 2011

jcyahne:

Zista:
Wow, go E. Washington in general, though... even controlling for a higher number of high risk births in the Seattle metropolitan area, surely they are just doing something differently.

Also if somebody lives in a rural town and has a high risk pregnancy, they may still be referred to a larger hospital to give birth. Notice how larger hospitals in Spokane and Pullman are higher on the list for C section rates.

Pullman is NOT a large hospital. It's a tiny regional one. Serious cases are sent up to Spokane. However, whomever said that they would guess that a lot of the super high-risk, complicated situations are sent to the west side is correct. One of my best friends is a nurse at the biggest hospital in Spokane and she has said that they routinely airlift obstetrical patients in such situations over to Swedish or UWMC.

ttgcole · July 2011

kristalovesjared:
Sorry to make anyone feel bad about having a C Section. I definitely don't think there is any difference in the end as long as mom and baby are healthy!
I know there are a million different ways this info could be shown and I'm sure there is another chart similar that could show something completely different coming from a different source. I just thought it was interesting to read.

ttgcole · July 2011

kristalovesjared:

Sorry to make anyone feel bad about having a C Section. I definitely don't think there is any difference in the end as long as mom and baby are healthy!

I know there are a million different ways this info could be shown and I'm sure there is another chart similar that could show something completely different coming from a different source. I just thought it was interesting to read.

It is interesting, and in no way did you posting this article make me feel bad personally. Just wanted to make sure you knew that! Smile

Seattle_JiLLn · July 2011

ttgcole:
kristalovesjared:

Sorry to make anyone feel bad about having a C Section. I definitely don't think there is any difference in the end as long as mom and baby are healthy!

I know there are a million different ways this info could be shown and I'm sure there is another chart similar that could show something completely different coming from a different source. I just thought it was interesting to read.

It is interesting, and in no way did you posting this article make me feel bad personally. Just wanted to make sure you knew that!

Same here.

blueLu25 · July 2011

Seattle_JiLLn:
blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

I was more reacting to the "Go Eastern Washington" and the fact that they "must be doing something" that their c-section rates were low. That's what really stuck out as making it out like c-sections are bad things.
I dont' know how the "complicated birth" statistics are made up. I had a necessary c-section because Ben was breech. Was that counted as "complicated"? I would doubt it. So I don't really think that the stats show that.
And even still, I still don't see the point of "unecessary" c-sections being an epidemic. I would think that about 99% of boob jobs are "unnecessary" and no one calls that an "epidemic". People have elective surgery every day. Why are we made to fee like it's shameful or something to be squelched just because it's a c-section?

I think that its a totally different realm than boob jobs though. I am meaning unnecessary, as in it is the dr.'s fault when they could have and WANTED to go natural/ and or vaginal. A LOT of women are getting c-sections because of too many interventions, etc., dr.s pressuring women to do things in labor that they dont want, but arent listened to when they say "no," etc. Your situation is exactly why they have c-sections- there's no other way he could have come out! But unfortunately not everyone is lucky enough to have a good, respectful dr., and a lot of OBs have never even seen natural birth, depending on the area you live in (not just WA, but in USA in general).

JodiLinn503 · July 2011

1. This chart is really interesting. Thanks for posting it! I'm shocked that the c-section %ages are so high. I had no idea.

2. Jill, I agree that all women should, in the end, be allowed to feel proud to have a healthy baby however s/he was delivered. For me....I had a c-section and hated it. I felt (and still feel) like my body failed me. I'm sad to have not delivered vaginally and still think about it a LOT. That's not based on others making me feel guilty or less-successful, it's just my true feelings about how I wanted to deliver vs. the reality of the situation.

keri1013 · July 2011

blueLu25:
Seattle_JiLLn:
blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

I was more reacting to the "Go Eastern Washington" and the fact that they "must be doing something" that their c-section rates were low. That's what really stuck out as making it out like c-sections are bad things.
I dont' know how the "complicated birth" statistics are made up. I had a necessary c-section because Ben was breech. Was that counted as "complicated"? I would doubt it. So I don't really think that the stats show that.
And even still, I still don't see the point of "unecessary" c-sections being an epidemic. I would think that about 99% of boob jobs are "unnecessary" and no one calls that an "epidemic". People have elective surgery every day. Why are we made to fee like it's shameful or something to be squelched just because it's a c-section?
I think that its a totally different realm than boob jobs though. I am meaning unnecessary, as in it is the dr.'s fault when they could have and WANTED to go natural/ and or vaginal. A LOT of women are getting c-sections because of too many interventions, etc., dr.s pressuring women to do things in labor that they dont want, but arent listened to when they say "no," etc. Your situation is exactly why they have c-sections- there's no other way he could have come out! But unfortunately not everyone is lucky enough to have a good, respectful dr., and a lot of OBs have never even seen natural birth, depending on the area you live in (not just WA, but in USA in general).

Also, if I have breast implants, I pay for them. If I have a C-section, insurance pays. This is a good thing, I'm not at all saying insurance shouldn't pay, just that they aren't entirely comparable.

StellaZ · July 2011

Amen Jill.

I too find the statistics interesting - but as always, no study is done in a bubble. Like people said, larger cities/hospitals are always going to have more critical cases. The term "unnecessary c-sections" is misleading to me. "Unplanned" versus "planned" for sure...but that's a lot of info to fit on a little chart.

I think looking back the majority who had an "unplanned" c might be 'bummed' but would agree it was necessary at the time (like myself). And then again, they're bummed perhaps without having to actually HAVE a vaginal delivery. No offense, but the idea might be sweeter than the reality? My mom had 6 vaginal deliveries and she is a MESS down there. Granted, 6..holy hell, but still. About my c-section she sighed wistfully saying she wished it were more common in her day...go figure...and she's an RN. Bear in mind she also delivered me herself so that perception might be skewed a bit, LOL.

Elective c-sections are becoming more common. My thought is - your body, your choice. My co-worker was terrified of a vaginal delivery. She told me she wished she could have a c-section. I told her she could, it's called elective surgery - and if your doc says no find someone else. She did and was SO happy.

Seattle_JiLLn · July 2011

blueLu25:
Seattle_JiLLn:
blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

I was more reacting to the "Go Eastern Washington" and the fact that they "must be doing something" that their c-section rates were low. That's what really stuck out as making it out like c-sections are bad things.
I dont' know how the "complicated birth" statistics are made up. I had a necessary c-section because Ben was breech. Was that counted as "complicated"? I would doubt it. So I don't really think that the stats show that.
And even still, I still don't see the point of "unecessary" c-sections being an epidemic. I would think that about 99% of boob jobs are "unnecessary" and no one calls that an "epidemic". People have elective surgery every day. Why are we made to fee like it's shameful or something to be squelched just because it's a c-section?
I think that its a totally different realm than boob jobs though. I am meaning unnecessary, as in it is the dr.'s fault when they could have and WANTED to go natural/ and or vaginal. A LOT of women are getting c-sections because of too many interventions, etc., dr.s pressuring women to do things in labor that they dont want, but arent listened to when they say "no," etc. Your situation is exactly why they have c-sections- there's no other way he could have come out! But unfortunately not everyone is lucky enough to have a good, respectful dr., and a lot of OBs have never even seen natural birth, depending on the area you live in (not just WA, but in USA in general).

well then if that's your definition of unnecessary c sections then your earlier correlation with low complications and high c sections doesn't point to unnecessary c sections. Because the doctors would most certainly say that there were complications that forced them to go to a c section when the mother was trying to go vaginally. even if the real reason was that the epidural slowed them down or labor was too slow and the doctor had dinner reservations. I think your definition of things though is more like unwanted or unplanned c sections.

jcyahne · July 2011

blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.

The way I am reading the footnote at the bottom of the data, the complicated births column includes BOTH C-sections and vaginal births. So I would be careful about making that correlation. In fact as I stated earlier, I think it is misleading to include this column in the data.

Because this data is derived from hospital billing information, "complicated birth" may just mean requiring a longer hospital stay or additional interventions than what would usually be required for a standard vaginal birth or c section. For example with Jillian I ran a fever during delivery so they had to keep me an extra day for monitoring.

scarletii · July 2011

One interesting thing to note about Yakima is that (I think) they are the only hospital in the state that allows a breach baby to be delivered vaginally. I've given birth both ways, and believe that yes some c-sections are necessary. In my case I think if I had approached birth differently and hadn't been so afraid of it, things might have turned out differently the 1st time. But who knows. (And why I so desperately wanted the vbac that I had to fight for and got!)

Regardless, the point of all this data that comes out is to try and learn from it. Why does the US have the highest c-section rates of ALL the industrialized nations? Should our c-section rates be this high? Heck there are some hospitals in our country that have like a 50% c-section rate!!

blueLu25 · July 2011

jcyahne:
blueLu25:
I think I am reading this differently than everyone else... wouldnt high c-section rate and low complicated birth rate at the same hospital = more likely unnecessary c-section? Not trying to start anything, I might be reading it wrong, and also just thought that was the point of showing info like this, because unnecessary c-sections are sort of an "epidemic" right now in this country.
No one is saying anyone's birth preferences are better than another, but it is an issue that shouldnt be ignored, esp. for all those mamas that wanted a natural birth and/or vaginal birth and got pushed into a C by the hospital staff for whatever reason.
The way I am reading the footnote at the bottom of the data, the complicated births column includes BOTH C-sections and vaginal births. So I would be careful about making that correlation. In fact as I stated earlier, I think it is misleading to include this column in the data.
Because this data is derived from hospital billing information, "complicated birth" may just mean requiring a longer hospital stay or additional interventions than what would usually be required for a standard vaginal birth or c section. For example with Jillian I ran a fever during delivery so they had to keep me an extra day for monitoring.

Ok yeah, that's what I was wondering. For some reason I was reading it totally different.

Jill- I guess my other point was just that for the doula who originally posted it, and others like myself who would prefer a vaginal birth, this information is useful to determine whether or not you would feel like you have a good chance of getting the birth you want, since many women end up with a c-section due to dr.'s mistakes/ dr.'s poor judgement/ lack of experience with natural births.

Want a personalized experience?

2010 C Section Rates for Hospitals in Washington

Re: 2010 C Section Rates for Hospitals in Washington

Choose Another Board

Search Boards