If in Doubt, Cut It Out

L. Roth
{"title":"If in Doubt, Cut It Out","authors":"L. Roth","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the effects of malpractice on cesarean deliveries in light of historical trends and changes in the standard of care. Nearly one third of births in the US involve a cesarean delivery, and cesareans are usually the first thing that people think about when they think about defensive obstetric medicine. While some popular accounts attribute the rise in cesareans to women’s requests, most maternity care providers and public health experts are skeptical of the idea that “choice” is driving the trend. This chapter highlights the ways that providers respond to three types of risk when they do cesarean deliveries: medical risk, iatrogenic risk, and legal risk. A culture of malpractice fear encourages obstetricians to prioritize legal risk, and they know that patients are more likely to sue them for not doing a cesarean than for doing an unnecessary one. Providers also described expedience, organizational efficiency, and changes in medical training as important causes of medically questionable cesareans. Analyses reveal that the odds of a cesarean are higher in states where providers face more liability risk, but the effect is extremely small. Professional guidelines, which changed over time, also mediate this effect.","PeriodicalId":354942,"journal":{"name":"The Business of Birth","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Business of Birth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter examines the effects of malpractice on cesarean deliveries in light of historical trends and changes in the standard of care. Nearly one third of births in the US involve a cesarean delivery, and cesareans are usually the first thing that people think about when they think about defensive obstetric medicine. While some popular accounts attribute the rise in cesareans to women’s requests, most maternity care providers and public health experts are skeptical of the idea that “choice” is driving the trend. This chapter highlights the ways that providers respond to three types of risk when they do cesarean deliveries: medical risk, iatrogenic risk, and legal risk. A culture of malpractice fear encourages obstetricians to prioritize legal risk, and they know that patients are more likely to sue them for not doing a cesarean than for doing an unnecessary one. Providers also described expedience, organizational efficiency, and changes in medical training as important causes of medically questionable cesareans. Analyses reveal that the odds of a cesarean are higher in states where providers face more liability risk, but the effect is extremely small. Professional guidelines, which changed over time, also mediate this effect.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如果有疑问,那就停止吧
这一章检查了在历史趋势和护理标准的变化光对剖宫产医疗事故的影响。在美国,近三分之一的分娩涉及剖宫产,而剖宫产通常是人们想到防御性产科医学时首先想到的。虽然一些流行的说法将剖腹产的增加归因于女性的要求,但大多数产科护理提供者和公共卫生专家都对“选择”推动这一趋势的观点持怀疑态度。本章重点介绍了提供者在剖宫产时应对三种风险的方式:医疗风险、医源性风险和法律风险。对医疗事故的恐惧促使产科医生优先考虑法律风险,他们知道,患者更有可能因为不做剖腹产而起诉他们,而不是因为做了不必要的剖腹产。提供者还将权宜之计、组织效率和医疗培训的变化描述为医学上可疑的剖宫产的重要原因。分析显示,在提供者面临更多责任风险的州,剖宫产的几率更高,但影响非常小。随着时间的推移而改变的专业指导方针也起到了调节作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Birth Matters Reproductive Regimes What’s the Rush? Choice Matters Myths of Malpractice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1