The association between trial of labor after cesarean in obese patients and adverse maternal outcomes.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that among obese patients with a history of cesarean birth, a TOLAC is associated with decreased composite maternal adverse outcomes (CMAO) compared to planned repeat low transverse cesarean section (RLTCS). METHODS: In this population-based cross-sectional study using the National Birth Certificate database from 2016 to 2020, we compared obese patients who attempted TOLAC at term (≥ 37 weeks estimated gestational age) to planned RLTCS. The primary outcome was a CMAO, defined as delivery complications, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, uterine rupture, unplanned hysterectomy, or maternal blood transfusion. RESULTS: Overall, 794,278 patients met inclusion criteria for the study; 126,809 underwent a TOLAC, and 667,469 had a planned RLTCS. The overall CMAO was significantly higher for patients undergoing TOLAC (9.0 per 1000 live births) compared to RLTCS (5.3 per 1000 live births; aRR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53-1.75). CONCLUSION: This data demonstrate that in obese patients with prior cesarean birth, a trial of labor is associated with increased maternal morbidity when compared to a planned repeat cesarean birth.

Quality Improvement to Address Surgical Burden of Disease at a Large Tertiary Public Hospital in Peru.

BACKGROUND: In resource-limited settings, there is a unique opportunity for using process improvement strategies to address the lack of access to surgical care. By implementing organizational changes in the surgical admission process, we aimed to decrease wait times, increase surgical volume, and improve patient satisfaction for elective general surgery procedures at a public tertiary hospital in Lima, Peru. METHODS: During the first phase of the intervention, Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were performed to ensure the surgery waitlist included up-to-date clinical information. In the second phase, Lean Six Sigma methodology was used to adapt the admission and scheduling process for elective general surgery patients. After six months, outcomes were compared to baseline data using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: At the conclusion of phase one, 87.0% (488/561) of patients on the new waitlist had all relevant clinical data documented, improved from 13.3% (2/15) for the pre-existing list. Time from admission to discharge for all surgeries improved from 5 to 4 days (p<0.05) after the intervention. Median wait times from admission to operation for elective surgeries were unchanged at 4 days (p=0.076) pre- and post-intervention. There was a trend toward increased weekly elective surgical volume from a median of 9 to 13 cases (p=0.24) and increased patient satisfaction rates for elective surgery from 80.5 to 83.8% (p=0.62), although these were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The process for scheduling and admitting elective surgical patients became more efficient after our intervention. Time from admission to discharge for all surgical patients improved significantly. Other measured outcomes improved, though not with statistical significance. Main challenges included gaining buy-in from all participants and disruptions in surgical services from bed shortages.