Thursday
Apr012010
New Jersey Cesarean Rates by Hospital, 2009
Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:23AM
| ALL BIRTHS | % OF C/S |
% OF PRIMARY C/S |
|
| MEADOWLANDS HOSPITAL | 724 | 52.6 | 34.8 |
| HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY | 5893 | 49.1 | 30.0 |
| CENTRASTATE MEDICAL CENTER | 1741 | 48.9 | 26.9 |
| ST BARNABAS MEDICAL CENTER | 5781 | 48.6 | 27.6 |
| VIRTUA-WEST JERSEY | 5498 | 47.0 | 29.5 |
| RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER | 1447 | 46.3 | 25.7 |
| THE VALLEY HOSPITAL | 3228 | 46.3 | 27.2 |
| JERSEY CITY MEDICAL CENTER | 1594 | 46.0 | 27.4 |
| SAINT CLARE’S HOSPITAL | 1567 | 45.8 | 28.0 |
| CHRIST HOSPITAL | 1207 | 44.7 | 28.3 |
| COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER | 1696 | 44.6 | 26.1 |
| OVERLOOK HOSPITAL | 2483 | 44.5 | 26.3 |
| LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER | 847 | 43.1 | 23.5 |
| VIRTUA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | 2131 | 43.0 | 24.4 |
| MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL | 3926 | 42.7 | 25.5 |
| SOMERSET MEDICAL CENTER | 1241 | 42.3 | 23.7 |
| HOLY NAME HOSPITAL | 1428 | 42.2 | 27.1 |
| HOBOKEN UNIVERSITY | 1497 | 41.7 | 24.6 |
| SHORE MEMORIAL | 1295 | 41.7 | 25.9 |
| CHILTON MEMORIAL | 937 | 41.0 | 22.9 |
| ST. JOSEPH’S REGIONAL | 3807 | 40.8 | 21.9 |
| JERSEY SHORE UNIVERSITY | 1579 | 40.6 | 28.6 |
| HUNTERDON MEDICAL CENTER | 1120 | 40.5 | 23.4 |
| SOUTHERN OCEAN COUNTY HOSPITAL | 305 | 40.3 | 25.2 |
| NEWARK BETH ISRAEL | 3708 | 40.2 | 22.6 |
| UMDNJ/UNIVERSITY | 1566 | 40.2 | 25.3 |
| ST MARYS HOSPITAL | 954 | 39.9 | 19.1 |
| THE MOUNTAINSIDE HOSPITAL | 1062 | 39.8 | 21.8 |
| CLARA MAASS MEDICAL CENTER | 1999 | 39.5 | 23.5 |
| JFK MEDICAL CENTER | 2759 | 39.5 | 23.4 |
| ATLANTICARE REGIONAL | 2594 | 39.1 | 22.4 |
| RWJ HOSPITAL - HAMILTON | 1400 | 39.1 | 23.1 |
| ST PETERS UNIVERSITY | 6121 | 38.9 | 24.6 |
| MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | 292 | 38.4 | 21.6 |
| CAPE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER | 565 | 38.2 | 23.7 |
| KENNEDY MEMORIAL | 1277 | 37.3 | 20.1 |
| UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER | 1968 | 36.4 | 20.9 |
| UNDERWOOD MEMORIAL | 1077 | 35.5 | 20.6 |
| RWJ HOSPITAL - NEW BRUNSWICK | 2226 | 34.2 | 19.8 |
| ENGLEWOOD HOSPITAL | 2105 | 34.1 | 19.4 |
| OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL | 1360 | 34.1 | 20.6 |
| NEWTON MEMORIAL | 586 | 33.8 | 17.6 |
| CAPITAL HEALTH REGIONAL | 2346 | 33.5 | 21.1 |
| TRINITAS HOSPITAL | 2383 | 32.7 | 20.0 |
| PALISADES MEDICAL CENTER | 1485 | 31.2 | 17.0 |
| RARITAN BAY MEDICAL CENTER | 1170 | 31.2 | 16.8 |
| OCEAN MEDICAL CENTER | 1020 | 31.1 | 17.1 |
| HACKETTSTOWN REGIONAL | 766 | 30.4 | 18.4 |
| SOUTH JERSEY HOSPITAL | 2471 | 30.1 | 16.0 |
| COOPER HOSPITAL | 2239 | 28.6 | 15.2 |
| MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER | 4363 | 27.6 | 18.7 |
| ATLANTIC CITY | 4 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| KIMBALL MEDICAL CENTER | 1522 | 20.8 | 9.8 |
| WEST JERSEY HEALTH SYSTEM | 3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| STATE TOTAL | 106364 | 40.0 | 23.0 |
More unbelievable statistics from the New Jersey Center for Health Statistics (via ICAN of New Jersey):
C-section rate by NICU Hospital VBAC Rates
New Jersey’s cesarean rate, which has been among the highest in the United States for several years, was documented in the recent CDC National Center for Health Statistic’s report on U.S. cesarean delivery trends as having increased 60 percent from 1996 to 2007.
The upward trend is also visible in this graph of New Jersey cesarean rates from 1990 to 2009.
Reader Comments (11)
If New Jersery can make their 2009 rates public...why is it that the CDC has not yet even released the 2008 rates for the country???
Last year the 2007 rates were released in mid-March, which has historically been when the rates have been announced. Well it is April now, and there has been no announcement. Frankly, I find it absurd that we are still waiting for the 2008 numbers, and I think it is more than reasonable to think that the CDC should be announcing 2009 numbers right now. Actually, I'd like to see them make quarterly announcements about cesarean rate, just like we get quarterly data about our nation's financial picture.
Thanks Jill for exposing my state's hospitals to public shame! If they are capable of being ashamed, which I question.
It really is worth the click-through to the "more unbelieveable statistics" section. Hospitals where 1/3 of births are induced. Hospitals where 45% of women get episiotomies. Etc. Also - they've done an excellent analytical refutation of the idea that hospitals with level 3 NICUs have higher c/s rates.
Did you take into consideration all of the women that HAD to have a c-section? My son was a month early. My water broke all over my friends living room carpet, and I was rushed to the hospital. They put me on the monitors, and although I wasn't feeling contractions, I was having them. They talked about inducing me because my son had to be delivered within 24 hours, and I was not dialated. At all. They doctors decided to monitor me for a little while longer, as his blood pressure was slightly elevated. However when my sons heartbeat COMPLETELY STOPPED during a contraction, that I was still not feeling, the doctors ran in and told me I was having an Emergeny C-Section. I asked if it was necessary, and the main surgeon turned around and said to me "It is if you don't want to loose your baby." Fortunatly My baby was healthy and strong, so he was under close observation and did not have to spend time it the NICU.
Now I am not saying that people should be getting c-sections. If anything i think people that choose to get them willingly are lazy and ultimately EXTREMELY stupid, as recovery time is prolonged, and it is a major surgery. I in no way shape or form wanted them to cut me in half to deliver my baby. I wanted to deliver him. But at the same time, there was no way in the world that I was going to loose him.
I was jsut curious if these statistics that you have posted up here take into consideration all the women that would put into an alternative situation. I think ANY mother when faced with the fact that her baby has a very strong chance of dying would do anything and everything she possibly could to make sure that doesn't happen. Just saying.
Hi Jess,
I disagree that women who choose c-sections are lazy and stupid. That's a pretty harsh judgment, whereas a list of cesarean rates is devoid of judgment beyond "Wow, that's a really high c-section rate."
Back in the early 90's, some of the same politically involved doctors that today say that there should be no limit to or policing of the cesarean rate were quoted as calling the then 22% national cesarean rate "too high." The World Health Org uses the 10-15% range for an optimal c-section rate. Jersey's rate is much higher than twice the upper end of that range. It is safe and reasonable to say that there are many, many unnecessary cesareans performed on the women of New Jersey.
If there were statistics that indicated how much each individual woman wanted her cesarean or viewed it as necessary, I think they would be very interesting to post.
Thanks for your comment.
Jill - I would just like to add to your comment by saying it would also be nice to know not only the additional statistics you mentioned, but also the reasoning beyond the statistics as to why those women who do want their cesareans are choosing to do so (is it at the insistence or coercion of their doctors?)... and/or why they viewed it as necessary. How many are forced into surgery because of a prior Cesarean and a VBAC ban?
It sounds to me like the situation Jess was in is one of those truly emergency cesareans... And that is not a situation we want to fight. If a cesarean MUST be performed to save the life of mother or baby or both, so be it. But as has been discussed so many times here (and elsewhere) how many "emergencies" came as a result of babies in distress due to induction (PIT to distress anyone?), failure to progress (aka failure to wait) and other unnecessary interventions? Those are the true crises that we need to fight.
And I agree that lazy and stupid is an unfortunate judgment. I think women not educating themselves (or as in my case, just not educating myself *enough*) and being misguided by *trusted* care providers is more often the issue.
We'll catch up with you yet, New Jersey! *shakes my fist on behalf of Florida, who is in close second*
Mom TFH- Massachusetts just on your heels- let's have a race!
Let'e please not put c-sections on a moral judgment level even though the stats are shocking and disappointing. Maternity care today is like the Big Tobacco Industry back in the late 80's early 90's. It is unsustainable and cannot go on and on like this. Consumers and caring professionals are the key to changing the current climate.
As I said earlier this week after my friend was rushed and I mean rushed to c-section surgery for a placental abruption:"Show me a vaginal birth/home birth/VBAC that can stop this and I will get you a unicorn for Christmas."
It's not a matter of trying to determine who many c-sections were necessary. We KNOW that an optimal c-section rate is 10-15%. Above that, we are putting the lives of women and babies at risk. With a c-section rate of 40%, we know that our rate may be 4 times higher than it should be. It's a combination of many factors (doctors fearful of malpractice, lack of access to VBAC, etc). Many woman who have c-sections want to believe they are necessary for their baby's life. Many of them are and there is no argument or criticism of that! We WANT women whose babies would be endangered by a vaginal birth to have a c-section. If someone told me that her baby had NO heartbeat, I wouldn't question the necessity of a c-section. In fact, it's hard to make a judgment on any birth that I wasn't there for. I can ask questions though. For instance, how do they measure a baby's blood pressure in the womb? Is spontaneous rupture of membranes really an obstetrical emergency that requires a mom to be rushed to the hospital? Is the "24 hour rule" after rupture of membranes really warranted? Would a baby who didn't have a heartbeat at some point during labor be born so healthy that a trip to the NICU wasn't even warranted? I don't know. I can't know because I wasn't there. Was it more likely that the monitor wasn't picking it up? Was it better to have a c-section than to waste time trying to figure out if it was an issue with the monitors? I would certainly not argue with that.... but that can then lead to the argument about whether the routine use of fetal monitoring is a help or hindrance in labor.
When someone questions the c-section rate, it's very common to get defensive remarks from other women who had c-sections. It's not necessary. Most VBACtivists are trying to expose the current state of obstetrics to make sure that women are well informed and making educated decisions. It's not a matter of trying to start an argument with a woman about why she had a c-section. Most VBACtivists are VBACtivists because we've had a c-section and we don't want women going through what we went through unnecessarily. We WANT women to have better information and we want them to know their options for every birth.
I wish this was an april fools joke...
ITA that no one would argue that some C-sections are absolutely necessary, but most estimates put that number at about 10% of deliveries, not 30-40%. Of course we don't want ALL women to have vaginal deliveries in ALL situations. However, I've heard women say they needed to have an emergency C-section for failure to progress but were allowed to sleep for an hour or two before surgery. That's really no emergency and is more of a labor management issue (usually labor induction with unfavorable cervix based on anecdotes I hear).