Medical Malpractice Liability Exposure and OB/GYN Physician Delivery Decisions.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the effect of physician medical malpractice liability exposure on primary Cesarean and vaginal births after Cesarean (VBACs). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Secondary data on hospital births from Florida Hospital Inpatient File, physician characteristics from American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and physician malpractice claim history from Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. STUDY DESIGN: Our study estimates the effects of physician malpractice liability exposure on Cesareans and VBACs using panel data and a multivariate, fixed effects model. DATA COLLECTION: We merge three secondary data sources based on unique physician license numbers between 1994 and 2010. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find no evidence that the first malpractice claim affects primary Cesarean deliveries. We find, however, that the first malpractice claim decreases the likelihood of a VBAC (conditional on a prior Cesarean delivery) by 1.2-1.9 percentage points (approximately 10 percent relative to mean VBAC incidence). This finding is robust to focusing on obstetrics-related malpractice claims, as well as to considering different malpractice claims (first report, first severe report, and first lawsuit). CONCLUSIONS: Given the increase in both primary and repeat Cesarean deliveries, our results suggest that physician malpractice liability exposure is responsible for a relatively small share of the VBAC decrease.

When Consent Does Not Help: Challenges to Women's Access to a Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section and the Limitations of the Informed Consent Doctrine.

Pregnant women with a prior cesarean delivery face challenges in accessing a vaginal birth due to both hospital and provider preferences and practices. Although the doctrine of informed consent secures women's reproductive rights, it is not a viable legal remedy. Instead, women should champion increased maternity-related education and transparency as well as medical malpractice reform to increase the desired access.

The effect of malpractice claims on the use of caesarean section.

Malpractice fears are believed to influence various aspects of obstetrical practice. They seem to have contributed in small part to the rising primary caesarean section rate, but have also played a considerable role in the downtrend in vaginal birth after caesarean statistics. The rising vaginal birth after caesarean section rate between 1981 and 1995 was interrupted by a spate of lawsuits associated with broadened indications for vaginal birth after caesarean section in conjunction with requirements for immediate clinician availability. These factors dramatically reduced the availability of hospitals and clinicians willing to offer vaginal birth after caesarean section. This reversal, however, has not diminished the demand for vaginal birth after caesarean section from various stakeholders in the name of patient autonomy, clinician beneficence and optimal care. Nevertheless, as long as stringent requirements remain for clinician attendance during vaginal birth after caesarean section, and as long as the spectre of preventable error and the lingering dread of lawsuits retain their hold on obstetrical practice, caesarean section trends are unlikely to change.

VBAC in the trenches: a community perspective.

Is vaginal birth after cesarean in the community a disappearing practice? Since 1996 the rate of trial of labor after cesarean for low-risk women has dropped precipitously. This paper reviews the current literature and summarizes opinions of community obstetricians and midwives. Descriptive data are presented to document the scope of the problem and identify barriers: liability concerns, provider biases, and institutional restrictions. Our perspective draws on experience in our community hospital with a previously high vaginal birth after cesarean rate and a subsequent ban. Strategies to reduce the skyrocketing cesarean rate and encourage trial of labor after cesarean for low-risk women are outlined.

How do we deal with the legal risks?

Do obstetricians as a profession risk losing credibility as cesarean section rates continue to rise to once unimaginable levels? Physician practice style and fear of litigation have contributed to the escalation in abdominal delivery but so have societal expectations and patient perspectives. At the same time, some patients are so motivated for a vaginal delivery that they choose to have a home birth after cesarean section as opposed to submitting to a repeat cesarean delivery. Amid a medical-legal environment that "exerts a chilling effect on a trial of labor," what is the obstetrician to do?

An ethical framework for the informed consent process for trial of labor after cesarean delivery.

In 2010, a National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued updated statements on trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC). This article presents an ethical framework for the informed consent process for TOLAC. Three conclusions are reached. For women with one previous low transverse incision, TOLAC and elective repeat cesarean delivery should be offered. Obstetricians should recommend against TOLAC when a pregnant woman has had a previous classical incision. TOLAC after two previous low transverse incisions may be offered provided that the informed consent process presents the uncertainties of the evidence.

VBAC: a medicolegal perspective.

History has always been a series of pendulum swings, and there is perhaps no better example in obstetrics than that of vaginal birth after cesarean. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates rose steadily in the early 1990s. However, VBAC rates have declined dramatically over recent years, while the cesarean delivery rate has continued to rise unabated. Many physicians and hospitals are no longer offering trial of labor after cesarean, largely because of medicolegal concerns. This article explores the medical and legal risks of trial of labor after cesarean.

Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: views from the private practitioner.

This survey was conducted to assess physician opinion regarding vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) and to examine how physician and hospital characteristics influence the private obstetrical provider's decision to offer or not to offer trial of labor after cesarean delivery. A confidential postal survey of private practicing obstetricians in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Region (n = 774) of North Texas. Of 774 obstetrician-gynecologists, 458 completed and returned the survey for a response rate of 59%. The survey revealed that 52% of respondents offer VBAC to their patients and indicated that the most common reasons for declining use or discontinuation of VBAC were maternal-fetal safety concerns associated with uterine rupture followed by medico-legal liability concerns. Factors associated with physicians not providing VBAC for their patients were physicians in obstetrical practice <10 years, a physician's previous involvement in the care of women with uterine rupture complicated by maternal or neonatal complications, and a physician's previous involvement in cesarean delivery-related medical malpractice litigation.

Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, nationwide rates of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) have decreased sharply and rates of cesarean section have increased sharply. Both trends are consistent with clinical behavior aimed at reducing obstetricians' exposure to malpractice litigation. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of malpractice pressure on rates of VBAC and cesarean section. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, MEASURES: We used state-level longitudinal mixed-effects regression models to examine data from the Natality Detail File on births in the United States (1991-2003). Malpractice pressure was measured by liability insurance premiums and tort reforms. Outcome measures were rates of VBAC, cesarean section, and primary cesarean section. RESULTS: Malpractice premiums were positively associated with rates of cesarean section (beta = 0.15, P = 0.02) and primary cesarean section (beta = 0.16, P = 0.009), and negatively associated with VBAC rates (beta = -0.35, P = 0.01). These estimates imply that a $10,000 decrease in premiums for obstetrician-gynecologists would be associated with an increase of 0.35 percentage points (1.45%) in the VBAC rate and decreases of 0.15 and 0.16 percentage points (0.7% and 1.18%) in the rates of cesarean section and primary cesarean section, respectively; this would correspond to approximately 1600 more VBACs, 6000 fewer cesarean sections, and 3600 fewer primary cesarean sections nationwide in 2003. Two types of tort reform-caps on noneconomic damages and pretrial screening panels-were associated with lower rates of cesarean section and higher rates of VBAC. CONCLUSIONS: The liability environment influences choice of delivery method in obstetrics. The effects are not large, but reduced litigation pressure would likely lead to decreases in the total number cesarean sections and total delivery costs.

Medical negligence lawsuits relating to labor and delivery.

Most allegations in obstetric lawsuits against obstetrician-gynecologists relate in some manner to the management of labor and delivery; few solely involve perceived flaws in prenatal or postpartum care. Although many of these cases accuse the defendant of not having properly monitored the fetus during labor for signs of oxygen deprivation, there is in most cases an underlying allegation regarding proper decision making about the timing and route of delivery. A perspective on accusations relating to the failure to identify or to act on intrapartum asphyxia has been presented elsewhere in this issue. This article focuses on legal allegations that arise from the conduct of labor and the timing of delivery, independent of those related to fetal monitoring.

The relationship of health care delivery system characteristics and legal factors to mode of delivery in women with prior cesarean section: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of health care delivery system characteristics and legal factors to mode of delivery in women with prior cesarean section. METHODS: We identified relevant studies by searching MEDLINE and HealthSTAR (1980 to May 2002), reference lists of pertinent articles, and recommendations of local and national experts. We also searched the online Cochrane systematic reviews and controlled trials registries, Database of Abstracts and Reviews on Effectiveness, and EMBASE databases. RESULTS: Studies of guidelines suggested that opinion leaders influence provider behavior regarding repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor decisions. Studies of hospital and insurance characteristics provided inconsistent results. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the relationship between provider characteristics and delivery outcomes. Legislation and liability-related factors effected limited change. CONCLUSION: Studies of health care system characteristics and other factors focused primarily on rates of delivery modes (vaginal birth after cesarean or repeat cesarean delivery) rather than patient safety or health outcomes. Future studies must account for case mix, time trends, and other potential confounders, especially concerning associations of provider characteristics.