World Health Organization (WHO) · Publications

Robson classification: implementation manual

World Health Organization
View original document

The full text is hosted by the publishing organisation. lawenc.com indexes the metadata and links to the official source.

Full text

Robson Classification: Implementation Manual ISBN 978-92-4-151319-7 © World Health Organization 2017 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC- SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing. Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user. General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use. Introduction01 Purpose and target audience of this manual Frequent questions on how to classify women Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 02 03 04 05 The Robson Report Table06 How to interpret the Robson Classification data Barriers and Facilitators to implement the Classification 07 08 References09 The Robson Classification 3 7 9 21 28 32 35 48 50 Table of Content Example of Robson Report Table with Interpretation available at: www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/

01. Introduction “RISING CS RATES ARE A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN” Introduction Over the last decades, there has been a progressive increase in the rate of deliveries by caesarean section (CS) in most countries but the drivers for this trend are not completely understood (1, 2). Rising CS rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates due to potential maternal and perinatal risks associated with this increase, inequity in access and cost issues (3-7). In order to understand the drivers of this trend and to propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where needed, it is necessary to have a tool to monitor and compare CS rates in a same setting over time and between different settings. Traditionally, at facility level, we have monitored CS rates using the overall percentage of deliveries by CS. Variations in this “overall CS rate” between different settings or over time are difficult to interpret and compare because of intrinsic differences in hospital factors and infrastructure (e.g. primary versus tertiary level), differences in the characteristics of the obstetric population (“case-mix”) served (e.g. percent of women with previous CS) and differences in clinical management protocols (e.g. conditions for induction or pre-labour CS). Ideally, there should be a classification system to monitor and compare CS rates at facility level in a standardized, reliable, consistent and action-oriented manner (3, 8-10). 3 This classification system should be applicable internationally and it should also be useful for clinicians, facility administrators, public health authorities and women themselves. Such a system should be simple, clinically relevant, accountable, replicable and verifiable (10, 11). The lack of such an internationally- recognized system has helped to fuel controversies and to maintain common myths about the causes for increasing CS rates as well as potential risks and benefits of increasing CS rates. Figure 1: Latest available data on caesarean section rates by country (from 2005 and later). From: The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014 (1). 4 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 5Since this system can be used prospectively and its categories are totally inclusive and mutually exclusive, every woman who is admitted for delivery can be immediately classified, based on a few basic characteristics which are usually routinely collected by obstetric care providers worldwide. The classification is simple, robust, reproducible, clinically relevant, and prospective. It allows the comparison and analysis of CS rates within and across these groups of women. Even before official endorsement by an international institution or formal guidelines recommending its use in 2015, the Robson Classification had been rapidly and increasingly used by many countries all over the world. In 2014 WHO conducted another systematic review to gather the experience of the users of the Robson Classification, to assess the pros and cons of its adoption, implementation and interpretation, and to identify barriers, facilitators and potential adaptations (11). This review included 73 publications from 31 countries that reported on the use of Robson Classification between 2000-2013. According to users, most of whom were care providers, the main strengths of this classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility (11). However, users also reported that missing data, misclassification of women, and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification were challenges in its implementation and use. Different authors have created and proposed several types of CS classification systems for use at facility level for different purposes, with the overall aim of providing a consistent and standardized framework to look at CS (10). In 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a systematic review that identified 27 different systems to classify CS. These classifications looked at “who” (woman-based), “why” (indication-based), “when” (urgency-based), as well as “where”, “how” and “by whom” a CS was performed (10). This review concluded that women-based classifications in general, and the 10-Groups classification in particular (9), were in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs. The 10-Groups classification (also known as the “TGCS-Ten Groups Classification System” or the “Robson Classification”) was created to prospectively identify well-defined, clinically relevant groups of women admitted for delivery and to investigate differences in CS rates within these relatively homogeneous groups of women (9). Unlike classifications based on indications for CS, the Robson Classification is for “all women” who deliver at a specific setting (e.g. a maternity or a region) and not only for the women who deliver by CS. It is a complete perinatal classification. IntroductionROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL “WHO proposes the Robson Classification system as a global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing caesarean section rates within healthcare facilities over time, and between facilities”. WHO statement on Robson Classification In October 2014, WHO convened a panel of experts. After reviewing the evidence, the panel proposed the use of the Robson Classification at facility level in order to establish a common point for comparing maternal and perinatal data within facilities over time and between facilities (3, 8). The panel also decided to adopt the “Robson Classification” as the official name for this classification. 6 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 02. Purpose and target audience of this manual “THIS MANUAL WAS CREATED TO ASSIST HEALTHCARE FACILITIES” This manual was created to assist healthcare facilities in adopting and using the Robson Classification. It is targeted at health professionals responsible for the care of women admitted for delivery and at administrators responsible for the management of healthcare facilities where births occur. 7 It presents a standard approach to implement and interpret this classification. Hanna-Truscott/Midwives for Haiti, Photoshare Purpose and target audience of this manual WHO expects that the use of the Robson Classification will help health care facilities to: • Identify and analyze the groups of women which contribute most and least to overall CS rates. • Compare practice in these groups of women with other units who have more desirable results and consider changes in practice. • Assess the effectiveness of strategies or interventions targeted at optimizing the use of CS. • Assess the quality of care and of clinical management practices by analyzing outcomes by groups of women. • Assess the quality of the data collected and raise staff awareness about the importance of this data, interpretation and use. WHAT can the Robson Classification do for you? This manual: • Helps you to understand and implement the Robson Classification and build the Report Table using your own data • Explains the variables and definitions used and how to produce and interpret the Report Table • Highlights challenges that you may encounter and shares useful experiences and examples from users • Presents frequently asked questions and answers when classifying women 8 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 03. The Robson Classification “EVERY WOMAN ADMITTED TO DELIVER IN ANY FACILITY CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO ONE OF THE 10 GROUPS” The system classifies all women admitted for delivery into one of 10 groups that are mutually exclusive and totally inclusive. This means that, based on a few basic obstetric variables, every woman admitted to deliver in any facility can be classified into one, and only one, of the 10 groups and no woman will be left out of the classification. 9 The Robson Classification is for “all women” who deliver at a specific setting and not only for the women who deliver by CS. WHO/Yoshi Shimizu The Robson Classification 3.1 The 10 groups of the Robson Classification 10 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 3.2 Definition of core variables Table 1: Obstetric variables for the Robson Classification The 10 groups are based on six basic obstetric variables; these are the only information needed to classify each woman (Table 1). Obstetric variables Parity • Nullipara • Multipara Previous CS • Yes (one or more) • No Onset of labour • Spontaneous • Induced • No labour (pre-labour CS) Number of fetuses • Singleton • Multiple Gestational age • Preterm (less than 37 weeks) • Term (37 weeks or more) Fetal lie and presentation • Cephalic presentation • Breech presentation • Transverse lie In principle, since these variables are routinely collected and used in the clinical management of women admitted for delivery, you should be able to obtain this data from each woman’s medical record. 11 The Robson Classification 3.2 Definition of core variables Table 2: Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Parity* Number of previous deliveries upon admission for delivery. Birth of infant weighing ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks**, alive or dead, with or without malformations, by any route. The number of previous abortions/ miscarriages does not count. Nullipara No previous delivery. This is not necessarily equivalent to Primigravida. For example, a woman in her 4th pregnancy with 3 prior miscarriages (G4 P0 A3) will be a nulliparous woman and belongs in this group. Multipara At least one previous delivery. Delivery of infant weighing ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks**, alive or dead, with or without malformations, by any route. Previous CS * Number of previous CS upon admission for delivery. Other types of uterine scars (e.g. myomectomy) should not be considered and not included as a prior CS when classifying women. None All previous deliveries were vaginal. One or more At least one previous delivery by CS but may have one or more vaginal deliveries in addition. 12 * The definition does not consider the current delivery. The woman should be classified before she delivers. For example, a woman who is admitted to deliver her first baby should be classified as a “Nullipara”, even if the forms are filled after she has already delivered; she should not be classified as a multipara. Similarly, a woman who has two previous vaginal deliveries and is admitted for an elective CS should be classified as having “No previous CS”, even if the forms are filled after the delivery of her third baby. ** This definition may vary in different settings (see Box below). Users of the classification should specify their definition for “birth” (minimum gestational age and birthweight) if this differs from the one proposed here and report this as a footnote in their Report Table (see below). It is not encouraged but if the users decide to exclude stillborn and malformed fetuses from the classification, this should also be reported in the footnote. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Onset of labour How labour and delivery started in the current pregnancy, regardless of how delivery was planned originally. This should be based on the history, physical examination and decision by health professional upon admission to the labour/delivery ward. Spontaneous Prior to delivery, the woman was in spontaneous labour . Nulliparous or multiparous women with a scheduled (prelabour) CS who arrive in spontaneous labour belong to this group. This group also includes women who entered labour spontaneously and then received oxytocin or had an amniotomy performed for augmentation (acceleration) of labour. Induced Upon admission to the labour ward, the woman was not in labour and was then induced. Any method of induction is valid including amniotomy, misoprostol, oxytocin, intracervical Foley balloon, laminaria or other. Women who enter labour spontaneously and then receive oxytocin or have an amniotomy to correct dystocias or augment (accelerate) labour do not belong in this group but should be classified as “Spontaneous” onset of labour. Pre-labour CS Woman not in labour when admitted for delivery and a decision was taken to deliver by CS. Cases of induction or spontaneous labour who ultimately were delivered by CS do not belong here . 13 Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Table 2 (Continued): Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Number of fetuses Number of fetuses upon admission for delivery. Including fetal deaths diagnosed after 22 weeks or 500 g**. Singleton One fetus. Twin pregnancies with fetal demise prior to 22 weeks or 500 g should be counted as a singleton pregnancy Multiple More than one fetus. Including cases of multiples where one or more fetuses died after 22 weeks or 500 g**. ** This definition may vary in different settings (see Box below). Users of the classification should specify their definition for “birth” (minimum gestational age and birthweight) if this differs from the one proposed here and report this as a footnote in their Report Table (see below). It is not encouraged but if the users decide to exclude stillborn and malformed fetuses from the classification, this should also be reported in the footnote. The Robson Classification Fetal lie and presentation The final fetal lie/presentation before a decision for delivery or before a diagnosis of labour is made. Women admitted with a breech fetus who undergo external version and then deliver a cephalic fetus should be considered as cephalic. Women with a dead fetus in transverse lie who undergo internal version before delivery should be considered breech. Cephalic Fetal head is the presenting part. Vertex, face or brow, or compound head presentations (hand prolapse) should go here. Breech Fetal buttocks or one foot or two feet are the presenting part. All types of breech (frank, complete and footling). Transverse or Oblique lie Fetal long axis is perpendicular or oblique in relation to the mother´ s long axis. The fetal shoulder or arm are presenting or there is no presenting part. 14 Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Table 2 (Continued): Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Gestational age Gestational age upon admission for current delivery. Based on best estimate (menstrual or earliest ultrasound) or neonatal exam or definitions used in your setting. Term 37 weeks or more. Preterm Less than 37 weeks. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL The Robson Classification should be considered as a common starting point for a perinatal classification system that can be further developed. Each of the 10 groups may need to be subdivided or some groups may need to be combined. In addition, more details such as indications for caesarean sections or neonatal morbidity can be added and analysed within the different groups . Other events and outcomes related to labour and delivery can also be analysed within the group (e.g. oxytocin or epidemiological variables such as age or body mass index). Moreover, there are several key obstetrical definitions, protocols or procedures which are not included in the classification but should be considered when interpreting the results. These may be specific to each health facility and sometimes standard across countries. They include for example, the criteria used for diagnosis of labour (cervical effacement and dilatation), the guidelines used for management of labour including artificial rupture of membranes, oxytocin regimen used for augmentation (acceleration) and induction, diagnosis and treatment of arrest of labour and dystocia, fetal monitoring techniques, analgesia and one to one care in labour. 15 The definition of a “birth” may vary between countries and settings. While most high-income countries count births as infants weighing at least 500 g or with a gestational age at least 20 or 22 weeks, many countries use other cut-offs. For example, the threshold of viability in many countries is birth weight ≥ 1000 g and gestational age ≥ 28 weeks. In order to compare Robson Report Tables between countries and within countries over time, it is important that the users of the classification give a clear definition of what were the weight and gestational age cutoffs used in their population. This should be added as a footnote in their Robson Report Table. HOW to define a birth The Robson Classification 3.3 Subdivisions for the 10 groups Many users of the Robson Classification have suggested subdivisions in the 10 Robson groups (12). Subdivisions of certain groups (e.g. Groups 2, 4 or 5) may prove to be more meaningful than others, but this can vary from site to site. The objective of the subdivisions is to further increase the uniformity and homogeneity of the groups by stratifying women within that group according to certain relevant characteristics. This can be especially useful when planning the implementation of clinical interventions in specific subgroups. The importance and potential usefulness of these subdivisions will depend on the size of the groups within the specific setting where the classification will be used. However, it is important to remember that the analyses of any subdivision by itself may be misleading if no attention is given to what has been left out. For this reason it is recommended that before looking at subgroups users become accustomed to first analyse the 10 groups. Otherwise, the data may be misinterpreted. Table 3 presents the Robson Classification with the most common subdivisions. 16 WHO/PAHO ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Table 3. The Robson Classification with subdivisions 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups Group Obstetric population 1 Nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labour 2 Nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation who had labour induced or were delivered by CS before labour 2a Labour induced 2b Pre-labour CS 3 Multiparous women without a previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labour 4 Multiparous women without a previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation who had labour induced or were delivered by CS before labour 4a Labour induced 4b Pre-labour CS 5 All multiparous women with at least one previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation 5.1 With one previous CS 5.2 With two or more previous CSs 6 All nulliparous women with a single breech pregnancy 7 All multiparous women with a single breech pregnancy including women with previous CS(s) 8 All women with multiple pregnancies including women with previous CS(s) 9 All women with a single pregnancy with a transverse or oblique lie, including women with previous CS(s) 10 All women with a single cephalic pregnancy < 37 weeks gestation, including women with previous CS(s) 17 The Robson Classification Groups 2 and 4 subdivisions: 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups These groups refer to nulliparous and multiparous women without previous CS, respectively, with a singleton, term fetus in cephalic presentation who did not enter labour spontaneously (See Table 3). These groups include two distinct and mutually exclusive subcategories, namely: 2a or 4a Nulliparous or multiparous women, respectively, who had their labour induced (using any method, such as misoprostol, oxytocin, amniotomy or intracervical Foley catheter or other) and went on to deliver vaginally or by CS 2b or 4b Nulliparous or multiparous women, respectively, who were admitted and delivered by pre-labour CS. Since all the women in these subgroups will have a CS, the rates of CS in these subgroups will always be 100%. Since Groups 2 and 4 may represent a large proportion of the obstetric population in many hospitals, these subcategories are important to understand how differences in clinical practice (rates of induced labour or pre-labour CS) contribute to the rates of CS in nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous CS, as well as the overall CS rates in different hospitals. 18 Additionally, the rate of CS in Subgroups 2a and 4a (induced nulliparous and multiparous women, respectively) can also be used to assess and compare the success of induction guidelines in different hospitals or in the same hospital over time. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Group 5 subdivisions: 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups Group 5 includes all multiparous women with at least one previous CS carrying a singleton, term fetus in cephalic presentation. In current obstetric practice, Group 5 can be very important in many settings because there is a growing number of women with previous CS and therefore the size of this group may be quite significant. Since the rate of CS in this group is usually high, Group 5 may be an important contributor to the total number of CS in these settings. However, Group 5 includes two distinct and mutually exclusive subcategories, namely: 5.1 Multiparous women with only one previous CS 5.2 Multiparous women with two or more previous CS. Given the differences in clinical management of these two types of women, these common subcategories should be reported separately in the classification, as 5.1 and 5.2. The usefulness of these subcategories will depend on the actual size of Group 5 in a specific setting. In many high- and middle-income countries where the size of Group 5 is becoming substantial, the proposed subcategories will be more useful and appreciated than in places where Group 5 represents only a small proportion of the obstetric population. 19 The Robson Classification 3.4 Cases with missing variables (Unclassifiable Cases) The 10 groups are based on basic obstetric characteristics that are routinely collected in most pregnancies at admission and on delivery. In cases where the information on one or more of the core variables is missing or illegible in the patient record, it will not be possible to classify the woman in any of the 10 groups. This “unclassifiable group” of women should be reported as part of the Robson Classification Report Table but preferably placed as a footnote at the bottom of this table. It is very important to report this group and its size (absolute N and % over total deliveries) because it is an indicator of the quality of the data available in any hospital. It is also important to explore which are the exact variables that are missing in this group of women, in order to improve future data collection. 20 In 2017, hospital A had a total of 2500 deliveries and 250 (10%) could not be classified in any of the Robson groups. Upon reviewing these specific records, it was seen that the missing information was mostly fetal presentation (n=200/250 cases). In this hospital, it will be relatively simple to reduce the number of “unclassifiable cases” by properly filling the information on fetal presentation, which is easily available in all patient records. On the other hand, in hospital B, which has 7500 deliveries per year, there were 225 records that were unclassifiable (3%) and the most frequently missing variable was onset of labour and delivery (i.e. including pre-labour CS) (n=218/225 cases). It would seem that the managers of hospital B will probably need to invest less efforts to improve data collection as the unclassifiable group is smaller than in hospital A. However, the information missing in Hospital B (onset of labour and delivery) is less objective than the information missing in Hospital A (fetal presentation). To reduce the number of unclassifiable cases due to missing information on labour onset, the clinicians could consider adding a new field in their admission forms to collect this specific information in all cases. For example at one point in the data collection prior of the delivery, all women must have one of the following three options collected: spontaneous labour, induced labour or pre-labour CS. The midwifery and obstetric staff would have to agree on the hospital s´ definition of what constitutes spontaneous labour and ensure that all health care providers understand and implement this definition when filling this field. USEFULNESS of quantifying and exploring Unclassifiable Cases ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 21 04. Frequent questions on how to classify women QUESTIONS ABOUT… In the next pages you will find answers to common questions on how to classify women in the Robson groups. Frequent questions on how to classify women Q 1: I just performed a CS because of fetal distress on a nullipara who arrived in labour (8 cm) with a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at term. Should I classify this case in Group 1 or Group 5? A 1: This woman should be classified as Group 1. The classification does not take into account the current delivery. Therefore, this woman is a nullipara and not a multipara with a previous CS. Q 3: How do I classify a woman in her fourth pregnancy, with 3 previous miscarriages (at 8, 12 and 14 weeks), who is admitted at 38 weeks in spontaneous labour with a single cephalic fetus? Does she belong to Group 1 or 3? A 3: She belongs in Group 1 because she is a nullipara (i.e. she never delivered an infant weighing at ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks gestation). Q 4: A nullipara with a history of previous myomectomy two years ago is admitted for a pre-labour CS at 38 weeks, with a singleton cephalic fetus. Should she be classified in Group 2 or in Group 5? A 4: This woman belongs to Group 2 (Group 2b). Only women with uterine scars due to one (or more) CS should be classified in Group 5. Q 2: How should I classify a woman with 5 previous term deliveries who delivers a cephalic stillborn infant at 26 weeks, weighing 620 g? In my country, we register liveborn infants weighing at least 500 g but we do not register stillborn infants weighing less than 1000g. A 2: This woman would belong in Group 10. However, you can decide not to include this case in the Robson Classification because of the definitions used in your setting. In this case, at the bottom of the Robson Classification Report Table you should add a footnote specifying what were the criteria that you used for “birth”. For example, you could state in the footnote “We included only liveborn infants weighing ≥ 500g and stillborn infants weighing ≥ 1000g.” 22 Questions about parity ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 5: How do I classify a woman admitted for induction of labour at 41 weeks who has one previous vaginal delivery? I would tend to classify her as Group 1 because in my country, we call her a primipara; we use the word ‘multipara’ only for women who have had at least two previous deliveries. A 5: For the Robson Classification, all women with one or more previous births are classified as “Multiparous women”. Therefore, this woman belongs in Group 4. 23 Questions about onset of labour Q 1: I admitted a nullipara with a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at 40 weeks with ruptured membranes 4 hours ago and regular contractions for the last hour. Upon admission she was 2 cm cervical dilated, 80% effaced with moderate contractions every three minutes, which corresponds to the hospital´s definition of spontaneous labour. Four hours after admission, she is still 2 cm dilated and I give her oxytocin to augment (accelerate) labour. Should I classify her in Group 1 or Group 2? A 1: This woman belongs in Group 1, since she is a nullipara with spontaneous onset of labour. (according to your definition of spontaneous labour). The use of oxytocin in this case is for labour augmentation (acceleration) and not for induction. Therefore she does not belong to Group 2 which is exclusively for women who were admitted and diagnosed not in spontaneous labour and are induced using any method (pharmacological or mechanical). Q 2: I admit a 41 year old obese multipara (3 previous vaginal deliveries) at 40 weeks with a single, cephalic fetus, in spontaneous labour with 4 cm cervical dilation. She has gestational diabetes, the fetus is macrosomic and she was scheduled for an elective CS fetus on the following day. Should she be in Group 3 or Group 4b? A 2: She belongs in Group 3 because onset of labour was spontaneous and the classification always considers how labour started in the current pregnancy, regardless of how delivery was planned. Frequent questions on how to classify women 24 Q 1: If I have a woman who has a twin pregnancy and the first baby is in a transverse lie, should I classify this case in Group 8 or Group 9? A 1: She belongs in Group 8, since it includes “All women with multiple pregnancies”. Group 9 is for only for women with a singleton pregnancy with a fetus in transverse or oblique lie. Q 2: A nullipara was diagnosed with a triplet pregnancy at 14 weeks. At 22 weeks, there was only one live fetus on ultrasound examination and the other two dead fetuses had estimated weights of < 500 g. She presents at 39 weeks in spontaneous labour, the live fetus is in cephalic presentation. How should I classify this woman: in Group 8 or in Group 1? A 2: This case belongs to Group 1. The classification does not apply to pregnancies/fetuses with estimated fetal weight less than 500 g or gestational age less than 22 weeks. Questions about multiple pregnancies ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 3: A 42 year old multipara (2 previous CS) was diagnosed by ultrasound with a twin pregnancy at 10 weeks. At 31 weeks, she is admitted because of severe preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction, with both fetuses alive. On the second day, one of the fetuses dies. She is immediately taken to the labour ward for a pre-labour CS. The presenting fetus is breech and dead. The surviving fetus is cephalic. How should I classify this woman: in Group 5.2, Group 7 or Group 8? A 3: This case belongs to Group 8. The fetal demise occurred after 22 weeks (or after > 500 g of fetal weight), therefore this pregnancy is still considered a multiple. She does not belong to Group 5 because only women at term with a single, cephalic fetus should be included in this group. She does not belong in Group 7 because it is only for singleton breeches. Q 4: I have a total of 3000 women who delivered in my hospital in 2015; 60 of these women delivered twins and 1 woman delivered triplets. Therefore, my total number of babies delivered in 2015 was 3062. When I construct the main Robson Report Table for my hospital in 2015, my total number (last line in Column 2) should be 3000 or 3062? A 4: The total number of the Robson Classification Report Table refers to the total number of WOMEN delivered in a setting and not the total number of babies. Therefore, the correct total number is 3000. The Robson Classification refers to the women who deliver in a setting and not to the babies 25 Frequent questions on how to classify women 26 Questions about presentation Q 1: How should I classify a nullipara in spontaneous labour at 38 weeks, 8 cm dilated, with a face presentation? A 1: This woman belongs in Group 1. All face, brow or compound cephalic presentations should be categorized in Group 1. As long as the presenting part is the fetal head, this is considered a cephalic presentation. Q 2: I admit a woman with 3 previous vaginal deliveries in spontaneous labour at 39 weeks, 5 cm dilated, with ruptured membranes, and a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation with a hand alongside the head. Should I classify her in Group 3 or in Group 9? A 2: This woman should be in Group 3. As long as the presenting part is the fetal head, this is considered a cephalic presentation. Group 9 is only for women in transverse or oblique lie possible with a prolapsed arm which is not the case here. Q 3: I admit a nullipara with a singleton breech fetus at 37 weeks, not in labour. She is submitted to a successful external version and is induced immediately after. Within 12 hours she delivers a fetus in cephalic presentation by the vaginal route. How do I classify this woman: in Group 6 or in Group 2a? A 3: This woman should be classified in Group 2a. The Robson Classification uses the final fetal presentation/lie before a decision for delivery or before a diagnosis of labour is made. In this case, the presentation at onset of induction was cephalic, therefore she belongs in Group 2a. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 1: A nulipara arrives at 32 weeks, fully dilated, with a live singleton cephalic fetus and umbilical cord prolapse. Should this woman be classified in Group 1, 10 or Group 9? A 1: She belongs to Group 10 because it includes all preterm singleton, cephalic pregnancies. Group 1 is not for her because her pregnancy is not at term (37 weeks or more) and Group 9 is only for transverse or oblique lies, which is not her case. 27 Questions about gestational age, fetal demise and fetal malformations Q 2: A multipara with 2 previous CS is admitted at 30 weeks, with severe pre- eclampsia, not in labour, with a dead fetus in breech presentation. Should this woman be included in the Robson Classification at all since her fetus is dead? If we classify her, does she belong in Group 5, Group 7 or Group 10? A 2: The Robson Classification does not exclude stillbirths; therefore, this woman should be included in the classification. She belongs in Group 7 because it includes “All multiparous women with a single breech including those with previous CS”. She does not belong in Group 5 or Group 10 because the fetus is breech and these groups only include cephalic presentations. Q 3: A nulliparous woman with an anencephalic fetus is admitted at 24 weeks for induction. The fetus is dead and in a cephalic presentation. Should we classify her at all in the Robson Classification? If we classify her, should she be categorized in Group 2 or Group 10? A 3: The Robson Classification does not exclude malformed or dead fetuses; therefore, this woman should be included in the classification. She belongs in Group 10, which includes all women with a single cephalic preterm fetus; the fact that the fetal head has a malformation does not change the fact that the presentation is still cephalic. Group 2 is for term, cephalic presentation, which is not the case here. Frequent questions on how to classify women 05. Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups “YOU DO NOT NEED A TEAM OF INFORMATION SPECIALIST” There are different ways that you can use to classify each woman into one of the 10 Groups. It can be as simple as going manually through each patient record looking for the core variables and adding a manual note with a pencil to the cover of the patient record with the number of the Robson group. On the other hand, it can be as complex as asking a team of information specialists to create a software which picks the core variables in the electronic patient record and automatically assigns the specific Robson group to each record, based on pre-established formulas. The flow chart in the next page provides guidance about the order in which the categorization can be most easily performed. Cases with missing data (no information in one or more of the six core variables) should be categorized as “Unclassifiable” and the missing variable should be noted to facilitate analyses of these cases. 28 Jonathan Torgovnik Ways of classifying women in the Robson groupsROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 29 Source: Adapted from Nassar LF, Sancho HD. Instrucción de Robson . v.0.1-1. 2015/06/08. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) Figure 2: Flow chart for the classification of women in the Robson Classification Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 30 5.1 Manually 5.2 Using a spreadsheet or an automatic calculator Each woman can be classified manually into one of the 10 groups by reviewing and collecting data from each individual record or directly from delivery room registers (log books) if they provide the required variables listed in Table 1 or using the definitions presented in Table 3 . Once the woman is classified, her specific group can be marked in her record or in a newly created column in the delivery room log book. This marking can be used to facilitate periodic (e.g. monthly) calculations of the number of women in each group. To facilitate the classification of each woman, you can print a copy of the flow chart presented in the previous page (Figure 2) and follow the steps provided in it. This form of classification is possibly superior to the manual collection as it reduces human errors in deciding to which group each woman belongs. However, it requires that each of the basic variables for each woman be typed into an electronic spreadsheet. You could for example set up a spreadsheet table (see Table 4 in the next page) where each row corresponds to a woman and each column corresponds to one of the basic variables with specific possible answers for each variable. You then create an additional last (or first) column called “Group Number” where, by the means of electronic formulas with the rules for classification, each woman would automatically be assigned to a Robson group. The table in the next page can be useful for information specialists in your hospital to create the electronic formulas to classify all women into one of the 10 Robson groups, based on the six core variables. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 31 Table 4: Summary of specifications for variables in each Robson group Group Parity Previous CS Number of fetuses Fetal presentation or lie Gestational age (weeks) Onset of labour 1 0 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Spontaneous 2 0 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Induced or CS before labour 3 ≥ 1 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Spontaneous 4 ≥ 1 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Induced or CS before labour 5 ≥ 1 Yes 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Any 6 0 No 1 Breech Any Any 7 ≥ 1 Any 1 Breech Any Any 8 Any Any ≥ 2 Any Any Any 9 Any Any 1 Transverse or Oblique Any Any 10 Any Any 1 Cephalic < 37 Any 5.3 Via electronic records If your hospital uses electronic patient records, we suggest that you contact the information support team, show them the basic obstetric variables needed to classify women in one of the 10 groups (Table 4 above) and the Flow Chart used for manual classification (Figure 2) and ask them to create the necessary formulas to automatically classify all women who are admitted for delivery. They can also use this to create the Robson Report Table. 5.2 Using a spreadsheet or an automatic calculator Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 32 06. The Robson Classification Report Table “THE DATA IS BEST REPORTED IN A STANDARDIZED WAY” In order to make the most of the information provided by the Robson Classification in local settings and to allow comparisons between settings, the data is best reported in a standardized way (the “Robson Classification Report Table”). WHO/Christopher Black ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 33 The Report Table consists of seven columns as follows: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Group name and/or number and definition (with subdivisions for Groups 2, 4 and 5, if these are of interest to the users) Total number of CS in each group Total Number of women delivered in each group Relative group size to overall facility population. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage CS rate in each group. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage Absolute group contribution to overall CS rate. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage Relative contribution of each of the 10 groups to overall CS rate. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage We suggest that you start by filling in Columns 2 and 3 (total number of CS and total number of women in each of the 10 groups) to then perform all the percent calculations. The Robson Classification Report Table 34 Table 5: The Robson Classification Report Table 06. The Robson Classification Report Table Setting name: Hospital ABC period: January 2016 to December 2016 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Group Number of CS in group Number of women in group Group Size1 (%) Group CS rate2 (%) Absolute group contribution to overall CS rate3 (%) Relative contribution of group to overall CS rate4 (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total* Total number CS Total number women delivered 100% Overall CS rate Overall CS rate 100% Unclassifiable: Number of cases and % [Number unclassifiable cases / (Total Number women delivered classified + unclassified) X 100] * These totals and percentages come from the data in the table. 1. Group size (%) = n of women in the group / total N women delivered in the hospital x 100 2. Group CS rate (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of women in the group x 100 3. Absolute contribution (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of women delivered in the hospital x 100 4. Relative contribution (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of CS in the hospital x 100 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 35 07. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table “HELPS TO UNDERSTAND THE TYPE OF POPULATION SERVED BY THE HOSPITAL” The interpretation of the Robson Classification Report Table can lead to useful insights into the quality of data collection, the type of population served by the hospital, the CS rates of each group and how each of the individual 10 groups contributes to the overall rate of CS in your setting, and the overall philosophy of care of in a maternity unit. United Nations Photo How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table The main three reasons for differences in sizes of groups or events and outcomes within groups are the following: • Poor data quality (incorrect information in the patient records or errors in retrieving information from the records) • Differences in significant epidemiological characteristics of the populations (age, BMI, etc...) • Differences in clinical practice. Only consider differences in practice after you have evaluated quality and epidemiological variables. GENERAL PRINCIPLES of Interpretation of Robson Report Tables Readers should remember that in settings with low volumes of delivery, the interpretation should take into account the effect of small changes in numbers on the percentages. One of the principles behind the Robson Classification is that no women are excluded from it and before investigating in more detail any one particular group, it is important to assess the sizes of all the 10 groups to ascertain the balance and makeup of the whole obstetric population. Doing this will usually identify any obvious data collection problems (validation) and also identify unique populations. No individual group should be interpreted unless the whole 10 groups are analysed first. The interpretation of the data provided in the Robson Classification Report Table can be facilitated by following a series of steps that we have divided into three main domains: 1) data quality, 2) type of population and 3) caesarean section rates. In the “Data Quality” domain (Table 6) we have a few simple steps that will help to check if you need to improve your data collection. The steps in the “Type of Population” domain (Table 7) will help you understand better the characteristics of the women delivered in your hospital. This information can be used for trend analyses, i.e. to help you see if this population is stable or has been changing over the course of months or years. In the “CS rates” domain (Table 8) you will find steps that will help you to understand and compare the CS rates of each of your 10 groups and identify which groups contribute most to the overall CS rates in your hospital. 36 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 37 This type of information can be used to analyze changes over time, compare differences between hospitals and to help modify clinical practice to optimize CS rates in specific groups while ensuring good maternal and perinatal outcomes. Safety and quality of care in labour and delivery are ultimately related to maternal and perinatal outcomes, as well as to maternal satisfaction. Ideally, all perinatal outcomes should be analyzed using a standard perinatal classification system and no outcome should be judged in isolation. The Robson Classification can be used as a tool to judge care rather than to recommend care. It is up to the hospital itself to decide what is appropriate care, based on its results and other available evidence (12, 13). The examples in interpretation shown in Tables 6-8 are based on two sources; one was developed by Michael Robson based on his international experience applying the classification since 1990 (9, 14, 15) and the second source is the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO MCS) (16, 17). It should be emphasized that neither of these sources has been formally validated and the CS rates by group presented in this table have not been linked to improved outcomes. In particular, please note that the rates of CS in each of the Robson groups in the WHO MCS refer to an average obtained from over 60 health facilities in low- and middle-income countries and therefore cannot and should not be taken as a recommendation to be followed by everyone around the world. The WHO MCS was a cross- sectional study implemented in over 300 health facilities in 29 countries and included over 314,000 women from Africa, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean region, and Latin America (17, 18). Using data from this survey, a “reference population” was created; this consisted of all the facilities with low CS rates and low intra-partum perinatal mortality. These facilities were assumed to have few unnecessary CS and good maternal and perinatal outcomes (16, 19). The “reference population” included 42,637 women from 66 health facilities in 22 countries. The Multicountry Survey Box presents more detailed information on the WHO MCS and the “reference population”. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table The steps suggested below use the order of the columns presented in Table 5. These rules should be used only after fully reading and understanding the classification. If your data distribution (size of the groups) looks strange, first suspect poor data quality or the possibility of a unique population. No hospital continuously collects completely accurate data. Used on a continuous basis, this system can help to point out errors and ultimately improve the quality of data collection. In the next pages, we present the steps for interpretation of the Robson Classification Report Table The WHO MCS was a cross-sectional study implemented in 359 health facilities in 29 countries. Countries, provinces and health facilities were randomly selected to participate in the WHO MCS through a stratified, multistage cluster sampling strategy. Health facilities were only eligible if they had at least 1000 deliveries per year and had the capacity to provide CS. Between May 2010 and December 2011, 314,623 women from Africa, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean region, and Latin America were recruited (17, 18). For the creation of the “reference population” it was considered that the intra- partum related perinatal mortality (i.e. intrapartum stillbirth plus neonatal deaths that took place in the first postpartum day) was a reasonable indicator of quality of care around the time of birth. It was also assumed that health facilities with low CS rates and low intra-partum perinatal mortality had few unnecessary CS and good maternal and perinatal outcomes and thus this population was selected to serve as “reference” (16). The facilities that had both CS rates and intrapartum perinatal mortality below the percentile 50 in the WHO MCS sample of facilities constituted the “reference population”. This specific cut-off (i.e. percentile 50) was selected because the median is commonly used as a reference for defining what is low or high in sufficiently large samples. Among all the facilities in the WHO MCS, the median (50th percentile) for CS rate was 30% and the median (50th percentile) for the intrapartum related perinatal deaths was 6.8 deaths per 1000 livebirths. Health facilities below these values (i.e. facilities with less than 30% of caesarean births and less than 6.8 intrapartum-related perinatal deaths per 1000 births) constituted the “reference population” that included 42,637 women from 66 health facilities in 22 countries. We used the women delivering in these facilities to construct the Robson Report Table in this section (16). MULTICOUNTRY SURVEY on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO MCS) 38 Assessment of quality of data Assessment of type of obstetric population Assessment of caesarean section rates ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 39 Table 6: Steps to assess quality of data using the Robson Classification Report Table.* 7.1 Steps to assess quality of data Step Interpretation by Robson Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the total numbers of CS and of women delivered in your hospital (last lines of Column 2 and Column 3) These numbers should be identical to the total number of CS and of women delivered in your hospital. NA If these numbers do not match, then data is missing or incorrect. Some women may not have been classified in the Robson groups because of missing variables or were incorrectly classified as to type of delivery. Sometimes multiple pregnancies are counted as babies rather than mothers # 2. Look at the size of Group 9 (Column 4) Singletons in transverse or oblique lie It should be less than 1%. 0.4% If this is > 1%, it is probable that women with breech (or other) presentations have been misclassified as transverse /oblique lie and allocated to this group. As the classification includes all women who have delivered, if any one group is smaller or bigger, look to the other groups which sometimes will show where the misclassification is. 3. Look at the CS rate of Group 9 (Column 5): It should be 100% by convention. 88.6% By convention, if the woman gives birth vaginally by internal version, it should be classify as either cephalic or breech. The CS rate in Group 9 should be 100% * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 40 Table 7: Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* 7.2 Steps to assess type of population Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the size of Groups 1 + Group 2 (Column 4)- Nulliparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic This usually represents 35-42% of obstetric population of most hospitals. 38.1% In settings with high proportion of women who have only one child rather than more than one child, the group of nulliparous women i.e. Groups 1 and 2 tends to be larger. In settings where the opposite is true, the size of Groups 1 + Group 2 will be smaller since most of the population will be represented by multiparous women 2. Look at the size of Groups 3 + 4 (Column 4)- Multiparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic, without previous CS This usually represents about 30% of women. 46.5% In settings with high proportion of women with more than one child rather than only one child, the size of Groups 3 + Group 4 will be higher than 30% (provided they have delivered vaginally). Another reason for a low size of Groups 3 and 4 could be that the size of Group 5 is very high which would be accompanied by a very high overall CS rate. 3. Look at the size of Group 5 (Column 4) Multiparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic with previous CS It is related to the overall CS rate. The size of Group 5 is roughly usually about half of the total CS rate. In settings with low overall CS rates, it is usually under 10%. 7.2% The size of Group 5 is usually related to the overall CS rate. If the size of this group is larger, it means that there has been a high CS rate in the past years in that hospital and mainly in Groups 1 and 2. In places with high CS rates, the size of this group could be > 15%. 4. Look at the size of Groups 6 + 7 (Column 4) Breeches in nulliparous & multiparous women It should be 3-4% 2.7% If the total is much over 4%, the most common reason is usually a high rate of preterm deliveries or a higher proportion of nulliparous women. Therefore look at size of Group 10 (Column 4). If that is over 4-5%, this hypothesis could be true. * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 41 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 5. Look at the size of Groups 8 (Column 4)- Multiples It should be 1.5 -2% 0.9% If it is higher, the hospital is probably tertiary (high risk, referral) or runs a fertilization program. If lower, probably a lot of the twins are referred out especially if the remaining twins have a low caesarean section rate 6. Look at the size of Groups 10 (Column 4)- Preterm cephalic singletons It should be less than 5% in most normal risk settings. 4.2% If it is higher, the hospital is probably tertiary (high risk, referral) or there is a high risk of preterm births in the population that the hospital serves. If, in addition, the CS rate is low in this group, it could represent a preponderance of spontaneous preterm labour. If the CS rate in this group is high, it could suggest more provider initiated pre-labour CS for fetal growth restriction or pre-eclampsia and other pregnancy or medical complications. Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 42 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 7. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 1 versus Group 2 (Divide the size of Group 1 by the size of Group 2, Column 4) Nullipara term cephalic singletons spontaneous labour / Nullipara term cephalic singletons Induced or pre-labour CS It is usually 2:1 or higher Ratio 3.3 If it is lower, suspect poor data quality: nulliparous women who received oxytocin for augmentation (acceleration) of labour (and should be in Group 1) may have been misclassified as “induction” (and incorrectly classified as Group 2). If data collection is correct, a lower ratio may indicate that you have a high induction/prelabour CS issue which may indicate a high risk population in nulliparous women and are likely therefore to have a high CS rate. Additional information on pre-labour stillbirths would be the next question to ask. On the contrary, if the ratio is very high, you may want to look at your pre-labour stillbirth rate in this population which may indicate that you are not inducing enough. Or alternatively you may have a very low risk population Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 43 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 8. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 3 versus Group 4. (Divide the size of Group 3 by the size of Group 4, Column 4): Multipara without previous CS, term cephalic singletons spontaneous labour / Multipara without previous CS, term cephalic singletons induced or pre-labour CS It is always higher than the ratio of Group 1/Group 2 in the same institution, i.e, larger than 2:1. This is very reliable finding in confirming data quality and culture of the organization. Ratio 6.3 If it is lower, suspect poor data quality: multiparous women who received oxytocin for “augmentation” of labour (and should be in Group 3) may have been misclassified as “induction” (and incorrectly classified as Group 4). A low ratio (due to large Group 4b) may suggest a poor previous maternal experience in vaginal delivery and a request for pre-labour CS in multiparous women. Another explanation may be pre-labour CS done to perform tubal ligation (common in settings where family planning is not easily available). 9. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 6 versus Group 7. (Divide the size of Group 6 by the size of Group 7, Column 4) Nullipara breech / Multipara breech It is usually a 2:1 because breeches are more frequent in nulliparous women than in multiparous women. Ratio 0.8 If the ratio is different, suspect either unusual nullipara/multipara ratio or inaccurate data collection. Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates In the next page we present some suggestions on the steps to follow in order to interpret the CS rates in the Robson Report Table. Please keep in mind the CS rates mentioned in the next pages have not been validated against outcomes and should not be taken as a recommendation. Merely analyzed in relation to other hospitals, CS rates in each group will vary in different hospitals and settings depending on their capacity / level of complexity, the epidemiological characteristics of the population served and the local clinical management guidelines, among other factors. Ultimately, the use of the classification over time will help each individual hospital or setting identify the CS rate (or range of CS rates) that is associated with the best outcomes in each of the 10 groups. 44 WHO/PAHO ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 45 Table 8: Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the CS rate for Group 1 (Column 5) Rates under 10% are achievable 9.8% This rate can only be interpreted accurately when you have considered the ratio of the sizes of Groups 1 and 2. In principle, the higher the ratio of size of Groups 1:2, the higher the likelihood of both the CS rate in Group 1 and 2 being individually higher. However, the overall CS rate in Groups 1 and 2 combined may still be low or the same. 2. Look at the CS rate for Group 2 (Column 5): Consistently around 20-35% 39.9% CS rates in Group 2 reflect the size and rates in 2a and 2b. If size of Group 2b is large, the overall CS rates in Group 2 is also going to be large. If Group 2b is relatively small, then high rates of CS in Group 2 may indicate poor success rates for induction or poor choice of women to induce and consequently a high rate of CS in Group 2a. Remember the general principle of not interpreting one single subgroup on its own without knowing what is left out. The interpretation of group 2a requires knowing the relative sizes of Groups 1 and 2b. 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 46 Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 3. Look at the CS rate for Group 3 (Column 5) Normally, no higher than 3.0%. 3.0% In units with higher CS rates in this group, this may be due to poor data collection. It is possible that women with previous scars (Group 5) were incorrectly classified as Group 3. Other possible reasons for high rates could be for example to do tubal ligation in settings with poor access to contraception, or maternal request. 4. Look at the CS rate for Group 4 (Column 5) It rarely should be higher than 15% 23.7% CS rates in Group 4 reflect the size and rates in 4a and 4b. If size of Group 4b is large, the overall CS rates in Group 4 is also going to be high. If Group 4b is relatively small, then high rates of CS in Group 4 may indicate poor success rates for induction or poor choice of women to induce and consequently a high rate of CS in Group 4a. Poor data collection could also be a reason for high CS rates in Group 4; for example due to inclusion of women with previous scars in this group (when they should be in Group 5). Lastly, a high CS rate in Group 4 may reflect a high maternal request for CS even if these women have delivered their first pregnancy vaginally. This may be because of a previously traumatic or prolonged labour or to do tubal ligation in settings with poor access to contraception. Table 8 (Continued): Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 47 Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 5. Look at the CS rate for Group 5 (Column 5) Rates of 50-60% are considered appropriate provided you have good maternal and perinatal outcome. 74.4% If rates are higher, this is possibly due to a large Group 5.2 (women with 2 or more previous CS). This could also be due to a policy of scheduling pre-labour CS for all women with 1 previous scar without attempting a trial of labour. 6. Look at the CS rate for Group 8 (Column 5) It is usually around 60%. 57.7% Variations will depend on the type of twin pregnancy and the ratio of nulliparous/multiparous with or without a previous scar. 7. Look at the CS rate in Group 10 (Column 5): In most populations it is usually around 30% 25.1% If higher than 30%, it is usually due to many cases of high risk pregnancies (e.g. fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia) that will need preterm pre-labour CS. If lower than 30%, it suggests a relatively higher rate of preterm spontaneous labour and hence a lower overall CS rate. Table 8 (Continued): Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* 8. Look at the relative contribution of Groups 1, 2 and 5 to the overall CS rate (add the contribution of each of these groups in Column 7) These three groups combined normally contribute to 2/3 (66%) of all CS performed in most hospitals. These three groups combined contributed to 63.7% of all CS These three groups should be the focus of attention if the hospital is trying to lower the overall CS rate. The higher the overall CS rate, the greater the focus should be in Group 1. 9. Look at the absolute contribution of Group 5 to the overall CS rate (Column 7) This group was responsible for 28.9% of all CS If it is very high, this may indicate that in previous years, CS rates in Groups 1 and 2 have been high and it is worth exploring further. * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 08. Barriers and facilitators to implement the classification “DESIGNATE A PERSON TO BE IN CHARGE OF ORGANIZING DATA COLLECTION” The first step in implementing the classification is to designate a person if possible (clinician, nurse, clerk, manager or other) to be in charge of organizing data collection and producing the Robson Report Tables at weekly or monthly intervals. This person can then work with the staff in the labour and delivery wards and coordinate efforts to ensure that all newly admitted patients have all the necessary obstetric variables collected in their record, to allow their classification into one of the 10 Robson groups. According to users, the main strengths of the classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility. However, missing data, misclassification of women and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification may cause problems (11). 48 UNICEF/Asselin ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 49 The Robson Classification is not free of challenges and difficulties. The main difficulties pointed by users were: Lack of definition or consensus on the core variables used in the classification: For example, it is necessary to reach an agreement on when labour starts and how to clarify the difference between augmentation (acceleration) versus induction of labour. We therefore recommend that each hospital creates a clear written definition (a glossary) of the variables that may vary in different settings (such as spontaneous onset of labour or induction) and add these definitions as a footnote of the Robson Report Table (see Table 5). Quality of the data used to classify women: If the data used is unreliable, the real value of recommendations based on the classification is questionable. Ensuring good quality of the data should not be taken for granted and it can be challenging even in high- resource settings. Misclassification of women in wrong groups: This is a real possibility however you collect your data. In all settings, data collectors need to be carefully trained and audited periodically, for example by another person reviewing and re-classifying a sample of records from women in each of the 10 groups. By looking carefully at the Report Table and following the interpretation rules, users can find important clues about possible misclassification of specific groups. Cases that cannot be classified due to missing data: The size of “Unclassifiable” category is an important indicator of the quality of the data in the individual patient records. The lack of validation of the interpretation rules: A simple set of rules for interpretation was provided by Robson (14) to help users explore all the information provided by this classification, especially when using it to compare data between different settings or changes over time. However, these rules still need to be validated to ensure that the figures proposed (especially regarding expected CS rates per groups) are associated with good maternal and perinatal outcomes. We strongly encourage users of the classification to collect their own data on maternal as well as perinatal morbidity and mortality per Robson group and analyze these data regularly. Barriers and facilitators to implement the Classification References 09. References 51 09. References 1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343. 2. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson Classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. 6. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short- term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC medicine. 2010;8:71. 7. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-19. 8. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. Commentary: WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667- 70 9. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39. 10. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566. 11. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A. Systematic review of the Robson Classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6). 15. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179-94. 17. Souza JP, GülmezogluAM, VogelJ, CarroliG, LumbiganonP, Qureshi Z, et al. Movingbeyondessentialinterventionsfor reductionof maternal mortality(the WHO MulticountrySurveyonMaternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectionalstudy. Lancet. 2013;18(38):1747-55. 12. Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10- Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;131:S23–S27. 16. Souza JP, Betrán AP, Dumont A, de Muncio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123:427–436 18. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, WHOMCS Research Group. The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:286. 3. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (WHO/RHR/15.02). 4. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux- Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprodcutive Health. 2015;12:57. 5. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375:490-9. 19. Robson M. A global reference for CS at health facilities? Yes, but there is work to do. BJOG. 2016;123(3):437. 13. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10- Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;135(2):232-3. 14.Robson M, HartiganL, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best PractRes ClinObstetGynaecol. 2013;27:297-308. References 56Design and layout: Prodigioso Volcán

Robson Classification: Implementation Manual ISBN 978-92-4-151319-7 © World Health Organization 2017 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC- SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing. Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user. General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use. Introduction01 Purpose and target audience of this manual Frequent questions on how to classify women Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 02 03 04 05 The Robson Report Table06 How to interpret the Robson Classification data Barriers and Facilitators to implement the Classification 07 08 References09 The Robson Classification 3 7 9 21 28 32 35 48 50 Table of Content Example of Robson Report Table with Interpretation available at: www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/

01. Introduction “RISING CS RATES ARE A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN” Introduction Over the last decades, there has been a progressive increase in the rate of deliveries by caesarean section (CS) in most countries but the drivers for this trend are not completely understood (1, 2). Rising CS rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates due to potential maternal and perinatal risks associated with this increase, inequity in access and cost issues (3-7). In order to understand the drivers of this trend and to propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where needed, it is necessary to have a tool to monitor and compare CS rates in a same setting over time and between different settings. Traditionally, at facility level, we have monitored CS rates using the overall percentage of deliveries by CS. Variations in this “overall CS rate” between different settings or over time are difficult to interpret and compare because of intrinsic differences in hospital factors and infrastructure (e.g. primary versus tertiary level), differences in the characteristics of the obstetric population (“case-mix”) served (e.g. percent of women with previous CS) and differences in clinical management protocols (e.g. conditions for induction or pre-labour CS). Ideally, there should be a classification system to monitor and compare CS rates at facility level in a standardized, reliable, consistent and action-oriented manner (3, 8-10). 3 This classification system should be applicable internationally and it should also be useful for clinicians, facility administrators, public health authorities and women themselves. Such a system should be simple, clinically relevant, accountable, replicable and verifiable (10, 11). The lack of such an internationally- recognized system has helped to fuel controversies and to maintain common myths about the causes for increasing CS rates as well as potential risks and benefits of increasing CS rates. Figure 1: Latest available data on caesarean section rates by country (from 2005 and later). From: The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014 (1). 4 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 5Since this system can be used prospectively and its categories are totally inclusive and mutually exclusive, every woman who is admitted for delivery can be immediately classified, based on a few basic characteristics which are usually routinely collected by obstetric care providers worldwide. The classification is simple, robust, reproducible, clinically relevant, and prospective. It allows the comparison and analysis of CS rates within and across these groups of women. Even before official endorsement by an international institution or formal guidelines recommending its use in 2015, the Robson Classification had been rapidly and increasingly used by many countries all over the world. In 2014 WHO conducted another systematic review to gather the experience of the users of the Robson Classification, to assess the pros and cons of its adoption, implementation and interpretation, and to identify barriers, facilitators and potential adaptations (11). This review included 73 publications from 31 countries that reported on the use of Robson Classification between 2000-2013. According to users, most of whom were care providers, the main strengths of this classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility (11). However, users also reported that missing data, misclassification of women, and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification were challenges in its implementation and use. Different authors have created and proposed several types of CS classification systems for use at facility level for different purposes, with the overall aim of providing a consistent and standardized framework to look at CS (10). In 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a systematic review that identified 27 different systems to classify CS. These classifications looked at “who” (woman-based), “why” (indication-based), “when” (urgency-based), as well as “where”, “how” and “by whom” a CS was performed (10). This review concluded that women-based classifications in general, and the 10-Groups classification in particular (9), were in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs. The 10-Groups classification (also known as the “TGCS-Ten Groups Classification System” or the “Robson Classification”) was created to prospectively identify well-defined, clinically relevant groups of women admitted for delivery and to investigate differences in CS rates within these relatively homogeneous groups of women (9). Unlike classifications based on indications for CS, the Robson Classification is for “all women” who deliver at a specific setting (e.g. a maternity or a region) and not only for the women who deliver by CS. It is a complete perinatal classification. IntroductionROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL “WHO proposes the Robson Classification system as a global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing caesarean section rates within healthcare facilities over time, and between facilities”. WHO statement on Robson Classification In October 2014, WHO convened a panel of experts. After reviewing the evidence, the panel proposed the use of the Robson Classification at facility level in order to establish a common point for comparing maternal and perinatal data within facilities over time and between facilities (3, 8). The panel also decided to adopt the “Robson Classification” as the official name for this classification. 6 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 02. Purpose and target audience of this manual “THIS MANUAL WAS CREATED TO ASSIST HEALTHCARE FACILITIES” This manual was created to assist healthcare facilities in adopting and using the Robson Classification. It is targeted at health professionals responsible for the care of women admitted for delivery and at administrators responsible for the management of healthcare facilities where births occur. 7 It presents a standard approach to implement and interpret this classification. Hanna-Truscott/Midwives for Haiti, Photoshare Purpose and target audience of this manual WHO expects that the use of the Robson Classification will help health care facilities to: • Identify and analyze the groups of women which contribute most and least to overall CS rates. • Compare practice in these groups of women with other units who have more desirable results and consider changes in practice. • Assess the effectiveness of strategies or interventions targeted at optimizing the use of CS. • Assess the quality of care and of clinical management practices by analyzing outcomes by groups of women. • Assess the quality of the data collected and raise staff awareness about the importance of this data, interpretation and use. WHAT can the Robson Classification do for you? This manual: • Helps you to understand and implement the Robson Classification and build the Report Table using your own data • Explains the variables and definitions used and how to produce and interpret the Report Table • Highlights challenges that you may encounter and shares useful experiences and examples from users • Presents frequently asked questions and answers when classifying women 8 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 03. The Robson Classification “EVERY WOMAN ADMITTED TO DELIVER IN ANY FACILITY CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO ONE OF THE 10 GROUPS” The system classifies all women admitted for delivery into one of 10 groups that are mutually exclusive and totally inclusive. This means that, based on a few basic obstetric variables, every woman admitted to deliver in any facility can be classified into one, and only one, of the 10 groups and no woman will be left out of the classification. 9 The Robson Classification is for “all women” who deliver at a specific setting and not only for the women who deliver by CS. WHO/Yoshi Shimizu The Robson Classification 3.1 The 10 groups of the Robson Classification 10 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 3.2 Definition of core variables Table 1: Obstetric variables for the Robson Classification The 10 groups are based on six basic obstetric variables; these are the only information needed to classify each woman (Table 1). Obstetric variables Parity • Nullipara • Multipara Previous CS • Yes (one or more) • No Onset of labour • Spontaneous • Induced • No labour (pre-labour CS) Number of fetuses • Singleton • Multiple Gestational age • Preterm (less than 37 weeks) • Term (37 weeks or more) Fetal lie and presentation • Cephalic presentation • Breech presentation • Transverse lie In principle, since these variables are routinely collected and used in the clinical management of women admitted for delivery, you should be able to obtain this data from each woman’s medical record. 11 The Robson Classification 3.2 Definition of core variables Table 2: Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Parity* Number of previous deliveries upon admission for delivery. Birth of infant weighing ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks**, alive or dead, with or without malformations, by any route. The number of previous abortions/ miscarriages does not count. Nullipara No previous delivery. This is not necessarily equivalent to Primigravida. For example, a woman in her 4th pregnancy with 3 prior miscarriages (G4 P0 A3) will be a nulliparous woman and belongs in this group. Multipara At least one previous delivery. Delivery of infant weighing ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks**, alive or dead, with or without malformations, by any route. Previous CS * Number of previous CS upon admission for delivery. Other types of uterine scars (e.g. myomectomy) should not be considered and not included as a prior CS when classifying women. None All previous deliveries were vaginal. One or more At least one previous delivery by CS but may have one or more vaginal deliveries in addition. 12 * The definition does not consider the current delivery. The woman should be classified before she delivers. For example, a woman who is admitted to deliver her first baby should be classified as a “Nullipara”, even if the forms are filled after she has already delivered; she should not be classified as a multipara. Similarly, a woman who has two previous vaginal deliveries and is admitted for an elective CS should be classified as having “No previous CS”, even if the forms are filled after the delivery of her third baby. ** This definition may vary in different settings (see Box below). Users of the classification should specify their definition for “birth” (minimum gestational age and birthweight) if this differs from the one proposed here and report this as a footnote in their Report Table (see below). It is not encouraged but if the users decide to exclude stillborn and malformed fetuses from the classification, this should also be reported in the footnote. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Onset of labour How labour and delivery started in the current pregnancy, regardless of how delivery was planned originally. This should be based on the history, physical examination and decision by health professional upon admission to the labour/delivery ward. Spontaneous Prior to delivery, the woman was in spontaneous labour . Nulliparous or multiparous women with a scheduled (prelabour) CS who arrive in spontaneous labour belong to this group. This group also includes women who entered labour spontaneously and then received oxytocin or had an amniotomy performed for augmentation (acceleration) of labour. Induced Upon admission to the labour ward, the woman was not in labour and was then induced. Any method of induction is valid including amniotomy, misoprostol, oxytocin, intracervical Foley balloon, laminaria or other. Women who enter labour spontaneously and then receive oxytocin or have an amniotomy to correct dystocias or augment (accelerate) labour do not belong in this group but should be classified as “Spontaneous” onset of labour. Pre-labour CS Woman not in labour when admitted for delivery and a decision was taken to deliver by CS. Cases of induction or spontaneous labour who ultimately were delivered by CS do not belong here . 13 Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Table 2 (Continued): Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Number of fetuses Number of fetuses upon admission for delivery. Including fetal deaths diagnosed after 22 weeks or 500 g**. Singleton One fetus. Twin pregnancies with fetal demise prior to 22 weeks or 500 g should be counted as a singleton pregnancy Multiple More than one fetus. Including cases of multiples where one or more fetuses died after 22 weeks or 500 g**. ** This definition may vary in different settings (see Box below). Users of the classification should specify their definition for “birth” (minimum gestational age and birthweight) if this differs from the one proposed here and report this as a footnote in their Report Table (see below). It is not encouraged but if the users decide to exclude stillborn and malformed fetuses from the classification, this should also be reported in the footnote. The Robson Classification Fetal lie and presentation The final fetal lie/presentation before a decision for delivery or before a diagnosis of labour is made. Women admitted with a breech fetus who undergo external version and then deliver a cephalic fetus should be considered as cephalic. Women with a dead fetus in transverse lie who undergo internal version before delivery should be considered breech. Cephalic Fetal head is the presenting part. Vertex, face or brow, or compound head presentations (hand prolapse) should go here. Breech Fetal buttocks or one foot or two feet are the presenting part. All types of breech (frank, complete and footling). Transverse or Oblique lie Fetal long axis is perpendicular or oblique in relation to the mother´ s long axis. The fetal shoulder or arm are presenting or there is no presenting part. 14 Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Table 2 (Continued): Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Gestational age Gestational age upon admission for current delivery. Based on best estimate (menstrual or earliest ultrasound) or neonatal exam or definitions used in your setting. Term 37 weeks or more. Preterm Less than 37 weeks. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL The Robson Classification should be considered as a common starting point for a perinatal classification system that can be further developed. Each of the 10 groups may need to be subdivided or some groups may need to be combined. In addition, more details such as indications for caesarean sections or neonatal morbidity can be added and analysed within the different groups . Other events and outcomes related to labour and delivery can also be analysed within the group (e.g. oxytocin or epidemiological variables such as age or body mass index). Moreover, there are several key obstetrical definitions, protocols or procedures which are not included in the classification but should be considered when interpreting the results. These may be specific to each health facility and sometimes standard across countries. They include for example, the criteria used for diagnosis of labour (cervical effacement and dilatation), the guidelines used for management of labour including artificial rupture of membranes, oxytocin regimen used for augmentation (acceleration) and induction, diagnosis and treatment of arrest of labour and dystocia, fetal monitoring techniques, analgesia and one to one care in labour. 15 The definition of a “birth” may vary between countries and settings. While most high-income countries count births as infants weighing at least 500 g or with a gestational age at least 20 or 22 weeks, many countries use other cut-offs. For example, the threshold of viability in many countries is birth weight ≥ 1000 g and gestational age ≥ 28 weeks. In order to compare Robson Report Tables between countries and within countries over time, it is important that the users of the classification give a clear definition of what were the weight and gestational age cutoffs used in their population. This should be added as a footnote in their Robson Report Table. HOW to define a birth The Robson Classification 3.3 Subdivisions for the 10 groups Many users of the Robson Classification have suggested subdivisions in the 10 Robson groups (12). Subdivisions of certain groups (e.g. Groups 2, 4 or 5) may prove to be more meaningful than others, but this can vary from site to site. The objective of the subdivisions is to further increase the uniformity and homogeneity of the groups by stratifying women within that group according to certain relevant characteristics. This can be especially useful when planning the implementation of clinical interventions in specific subgroups. The importance and potential usefulness of these subdivisions will depend on the size of the groups within the specific setting where the classification will be used. However, it is important to remember that the analyses of any subdivision by itself may be misleading if no attention is given to what has been left out. For this reason it is recommended that before looking at subgroups users become accustomed to first analyse the 10 groups. Otherwise, the data may be misinterpreted. Table 3 presents the Robson Classification with the most common subdivisions. 16 WHO/PAHO ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Table 3. The Robson Classification with subdivisions 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups Group Obstetric population 1 Nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labour 2 Nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation who had labour induced or were delivered by CS before labour 2a Labour induced 2b Pre-labour CS 3 Multiparous women without a previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labour 4 Multiparous women without a previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation who had labour induced or were delivered by CS before labour 4a Labour induced 4b Pre-labour CS 5 All multiparous women with at least one previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation 5.1 With one previous CS 5.2 With two or more previous CSs 6 All nulliparous women with a single breech pregnancy 7 All multiparous women with a single breech pregnancy including women with previous CS(s) 8 All women with multiple pregnancies including women with previous CS(s) 9 All women with a single pregnancy with a transverse or oblique lie, including women with previous CS(s) 10 All women with a single cephalic pregnancy < 37 weeks gestation, including women with previous CS(s) 17 The Robson Classification Groups 2 and 4 subdivisions: 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups These groups refer to nulliparous and multiparous women without previous CS, respectively, with a singleton, term fetus in cephalic presentation who did not enter labour spontaneously (See Table 3). These groups include two distinct and mutually exclusive subcategories, namely: 2a or 4a Nulliparous or multiparous women, respectively, who had their labour induced (using any method, such as misoprostol, oxytocin, amniotomy or intracervical Foley catheter or other) and went on to deliver vaginally or by CS 2b or 4b Nulliparous or multiparous women, respectively, who were admitted and delivered by pre-labour CS. Since all the women in these subgroups will have a CS, the rates of CS in these subgroups will always be 100%. Since Groups 2 and 4 may represent a large proportion of the obstetric population in many hospitals, these subcategories are important to understand how differences in clinical practice (rates of induced labour or pre-labour CS) contribute to the rates of CS in nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous CS, as well as the overall CS rates in different hospitals. 18 Additionally, the rate of CS in Subgroups 2a and 4a (induced nulliparous and multiparous women, respectively) can also be used to assess and compare the success of induction guidelines in different hospitals or in the same hospital over time. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Group 5 subdivisions: 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups Group 5 includes all multiparous women with at least one previous CS carrying a singleton, term fetus in cephalic presentation. In current obstetric practice, Group 5 can be very important in many settings because there is a growing number of women with previous CS and therefore the size of this group may be quite significant. Since the rate of CS in this group is usually high, Group 5 may be an important contributor to the total number of CS in these settings. However, Group 5 includes two distinct and mutually exclusive subcategories, namely: 5.1 Multiparous women with only one previous CS 5.2 Multiparous women with two or more previous CS. Given the differences in clinical management of these two types of women, these common subcategories should be reported separately in the classification, as 5.1 and 5.2. The usefulness of these subcategories will depend on the actual size of Group 5 in a specific setting. In many high- and middle-income countries where the size of Group 5 is becoming substantial, the proposed subcategories will be more useful and appreciated than in places where Group 5 represents only a small proportion of the obstetric population. 19 The Robson Classification 3.4 Cases with missing variables (Unclassifiable Cases) The 10 groups are based on basic obstetric characteristics that are routinely collected in most pregnancies at admission and on delivery. In cases where the information on one or more of the core variables is missing or illegible in the patient record, it will not be possible to classify the woman in any of the 10 groups. This “unclassifiable group” of women should be reported as part of the Robson Classification Report Table but preferably placed as a footnote at the bottom of this table. It is very important to report this group and its size (absolute N and % over total deliveries) because it is an indicator of the quality of the data available in any hospital. It is also important to explore which are the exact variables that are missing in this group of women, in order to improve future data collection. 20 In 2017, hospital A had a total of 2500 deliveries and 250 (10%) could not be classified in any of the Robson groups. Upon reviewing these specific records, it was seen that the missing information was mostly fetal presentation (n=200/250 cases). In this hospital, it will be relatively simple to reduce the number of “unclassifiable cases” by properly filling the information on fetal presentation, which is easily available in all patient records. On the other hand, in hospital B, which has 7500 deliveries per year, there were 225 records that were unclassifiable (3%) and the most frequently missing variable was onset of labour and delivery (i.e. including pre-labour CS) (n=218/225 cases). It would seem that the managers of hospital B will probably need to invest less efforts to improve data collection as the unclassifiable group is smaller than in hospital A. However, the information missing in Hospital B (onset of labour and delivery) is less objective than the information missing in Hospital A (fetal presentation). To reduce the number of unclassifiable cases due to missing information on labour onset, the clinicians could consider adding a new field in their admission forms to collect this specific information in all cases. For example at one point in the data collection prior of the delivery, all women must have one of the following three options collected: spontaneous labour, induced labour or pre-labour CS. The midwifery and obstetric staff would have to agree on the hospital s´ definition of what constitutes spontaneous labour and ensure that all health care providers understand and implement this definition when filling this field. USEFULNESS of quantifying and exploring Unclassifiable Cases ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 21 04. Frequent questions on how to classify women QUESTIONS ABOUT… In the next pages you will find answers to common questions on how to classify women in the Robson groups. Frequent questions on how to classify women Q 1: I just performed a CS because of fetal distress on a nullipara who arrived in labour (8 cm) with a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at term. Should I classify this case in Group 1 or Group 5? A 1: This woman should be classified as Group 1. The classification does not take into account the current delivery. Therefore, this woman is a nullipara and not a multipara with a previous CS. Q 3: How do I classify a woman in her fourth pregnancy, with 3 previous miscarriages (at 8, 12 and 14 weeks), who is admitted at 38 weeks in spontaneous labour with a single cephalic fetus? Does she belong to Group 1 or 3? A 3: She belongs in Group 1 because she is a nullipara (i.e. she never delivered an infant weighing at ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks gestation). Q 4: A nullipara with a history of previous myomectomy two years ago is admitted for a pre-labour CS at 38 weeks, with a singleton cephalic fetus. Should she be classified in Group 2 or in Group 5? A 4: This woman belongs to Group 2 (Group 2b). Only women with uterine scars due to one (or more) CS should be classified in Group 5. Q 2: How should I classify a woman with 5 previous term deliveries who delivers a cephalic stillborn infant at 26 weeks, weighing 620 g? In my country, we register liveborn infants weighing at least 500 g but we do not register stillborn infants weighing less than 1000g. A 2: This woman would belong in Group 10. However, you can decide not to include this case in the Robson Classification because of the definitions used in your setting. In this case, at the bottom of the Robson Classification Report Table you should add a footnote specifying what were the criteria that you used for “birth”. For example, you could state in the footnote “We included only liveborn infants weighing ≥ 500g and stillborn infants weighing ≥ 1000g.” 22 Questions about parity ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 5: How do I classify a woman admitted for induction of labour at 41 weeks who has one previous vaginal delivery? I would tend to classify her as Group 1 because in my country, we call her a primipara; we use the word ‘multipara’ only for women who have had at least two previous deliveries. A 5: For the Robson Classification, all women with one or more previous births are classified as “Multiparous women”. Therefore, this woman belongs in Group 4. 23 Questions about onset of labour Q 1: I admitted a nullipara with a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at 40 weeks with ruptured membranes 4 hours ago and regular contractions for the last hour. Upon admission she was 2 cm cervical dilated, 80% effaced with moderate contractions every three minutes, which corresponds to the hospital´s definition of spontaneous labour. Four hours after admission, she is still 2 cm dilated and I give her oxytocin to augment (accelerate) labour. Should I classify her in Group 1 or Group 2? A 1: This woman belongs in Group 1, since she is a nullipara with spontaneous onset of labour. (according to your definition of spontaneous labour). The use of oxytocin in this case is for labour augmentation (acceleration) and not for induction. Therefore she does not belong to Group 2 which is exclusively for women who were admitted and diagnosed not in spontaneous labour and are induced using any method (pharmacological or mechanical). Q 2: I admit a 41 year old obese multipara (3 previous vaginal deliveries) at 40 weeks with a single, cephalic fetus, in spontaneous labour with 4 cm cervical dilation. She has gestational diabetes, the fetus is macrosomic and she was scheduled for an elective CS fetus on the following day. Should she be in Group 3 or Group 4b? A 2: She belongs in Group 3 because onset of labour was spontaneous and the classification always considers how labour started in the current pregnancy, regardless of how delivery was planned. Frequent questions on how to classify women 24 Q 1: If I have a woman who has a twin pregnancy and the first baby is in a transverse lie, should I classify this case in Group 8 or Group 9? A 1: She belongs in Group 8, since it includes “All women with multiple pregnancies”. Group 9 is for only for women with a singleton pregnancy with a fetus in transverse or oblique lie. Q 2: A nullipara was diagnosed with a triplet pregnancy at 14 weeks. At 22 weeks, there was only one live fetus on ultrasound examination and the other two dead fetuses had estimated weights of < 500 g. She presents at 39 weeks in spontaneous labour, the live fetus is in cephalic presentation. How should I classify this woman: in Group 8 or in Group 1? A 2: This case belongs to Group 1. The classification does not apply to pregnancies/fetuses with estimated fetal weight less than 500 g or gestational age less than 22 weeks. Questions about multiple pregnancies ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 3: A 42 year old multipara (2 previous CS) was diagnosed by ultrasound with a twin pregnancy at 10 weeks. At 31 weeks, she is admitted because of severe preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction, with both fetuses alive. On the second day, one of the fetuses dies. She is immediately taken to the labour ward for a pre-labour CS. The presenting fetus is breech and dead. The surviving fetus is cephalic. How should I classify this woman: in Group 5.2, Group 7 or Group 8? A 3: This case belongs to Group 8. The fetal demise occurred after 22 weeks (or after > 500 g of fetal weight), therefore this pregnancy is still considered a multiple. She does not belong to Group 5 because only women at term with a single, cephalic fetus should be included in this group. She does not belong in Group 7 because it is only for singleton breeches. Q 4: I have a total of 3000 women who delivered in my hospital in 2015; 60 of these women delivered twins and 1 woman delivered triplets. Therefore, my total number of babies delivered in 2015 was 3062. When I construct the main Robson Report Table for my hospital in 2015, my total number (last line in Column 2) should be 3000 or 3062? A 4: The total number of the Robson Classification Report Table refers to the total number of WOMEN delivered in a setting and not the total number of babies. Therefore, the correct total number is 3000. The Robson Classification refers to the women who deliver in a setting and not to the babies 25 Frequent questions on how to classify women 26 Questions about presentation Q 1: How should I classify a nullipara in spontaneous labour at 38 weeks, 8 cm dilated, with a face presentation? A 1: This woman belongs in Group 1. All face, brow or compound cephalic presentations should be categorized in Group 1. As long as the presenting part is the fetal head, this is considered a cephalic presentation. Q 2: I admit a woman with 3 previous vaginal deliveries in spontaneous labour at 39 weeks, 5 cm dilated, with ruptured membranes, and a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation with a hand alongside the head. Should I classify her in Group 3 or in Group 9? A 2: This woman should be in Group 3. As long as the presenting part is the fetal head, this is considered a cephalic presentation. Group 9 is only for women in transverse or oblique lie possible with a prolapsed arm which is not the case here. Q 3: I admit a nullipara with a singleton breech fetus at 37 weeks, not in labour. She is submitted to a successful external version and is induced immediately after. Within 12 hours she delivers a fetus in cephalic presentation by the vaginal route. How do I classify this woman: in Group 6 or in Group 2a? A 3: This woman should be classified in Group 2a. The Robson Classification uses the final fetal presentation/lie before a decision for delivery or before a diagnosis of labour is made. In this case, the presentation at onset of induction was cephalic, therefore she belongs in Group 2a. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 1: A nulipara arrives at 32 weeks, fully dilated, with a live singleton cephalic fetus and umbilical cord prolapse. Should this woman be classified in Group 1, 10 or Group 9? A 1: She belongs to Group 10 because it includes all preterm singleton, cephalic pregnancies. Group 1 is not for her because her pregnancy is not at term (37 weeks or more) and Group 9 is only for transverse or oblique lies, which is not her case. 27 Questions about gestational age, fetal demise and fetal malformations Q 2: A multipara with 2 previous CS is admitted at 30 weeks, with severe pre- eclampsia, not in labour, with a dead fetus in breech presentation. Should this woman be included in the Robson Classification at all since her fetus is dead? If we classify her, does she belong in Group 5, Group 7 or Group 10? A 2: The Robson Classification does not exclude stillbirths; therefore, this woman should be included in the classification. She belongs in Group 7 because it includes “All multiparous women with a single breech including those with previous CS”. She does not belong in Group 5 or Group 10 because the fetus is breech and these groups only include cephalic presentations. Q 3: A nulliparous woman with an anencephalic fetus is admitted at 24 weeks for induction. The fetus is dead and in a cephalic presentation. Should we classify her at all in the Robson Classification? If we classify her, should she be categorized in Group 2 or Group 10? A 3: The Robson Classification does not exclude malformed or dead fetuses; therefore, this woman should be included in the classification. She belongs in Group 10, which includes all women with a single cephalic preterm fetus; the fact that the fetal head has a malformation does not change the fact that the presentation is still cephalic. Group 2 is for term, cephalic presentation, which is not the case here. Frequent questions on how to classify women 05. Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups “YOU DO NOT NEED A TEAM OF INFORMATION SPECIALIST” There are different ways that you can use to classify each woman into one of the 10 Groups. It can be as simple as going manually through each patient record looking for the core variables and adding a manual note with a pencil to the cover of the patient record with the number of the Robson group. On the other hand, it can be as complex as asking a team of information specialists to create a software which picks the core variables in the electronic patient record and automatically assigns the specific Robson group to each record, based on pre-established formulas. The flow chart in the next page provides guidance about the order in which the categorization can be most easily performed. Cases with missing data (no information in one or more of the six core variables) should be categorized as “Unclassifiable” and the missing variable should be noted to facilitate analyses of these cases. 28 Jonathan Torgovnik Ways of classifying women in the Robson groupsROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 29 Source: Adapted from Nassar LF, Sancho HD. Instrucción de Robson . v.0.1-1. 2015/06/08. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) Figure 2: Flow chart for the classification of women in the Robson Classification Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 30 5.1 Manually 5.2 Using a spreadsheet or an automatic calculator Each woman can be classified manually into one of the 10 groups by reviewing and collecting data from each individual record or directly from delivery room registers (log books) if they provide the required variables listed in Table 1 or using the definitions presented in Table 3 . Once the woman is classified, her specific group can be marked in her record or in a newly created column in the delivery room log book. This marking can be used to facilitate periodic (e.g. monthly) calculations of the number of women in each group. To facilitate the classification of each woman, you can print a copy of the flow chart presented in the previous page (Figure 2) and follow the steps provided in it. This form of classification is possibly superior to the manual collection as it reduces human errors in deciding to which group each woman belongs. However, it requires that each of the basic variables for each woman be typed into an electronic spreadsheet. You could for example set up a spreadsheet table (see Table 4 in the next page) where each row corresponds to a woman and each column corresponds to one of the basic variables with specific possible answers for each variable. You then create an additional last (or first) column called “Group Number” where, by the means of electronic formulas with the rules for classification, each woman would automatically be assigned to a Robson group. The table in the next page can be useful for information specialists in your hospital to create the electronic formulas to classify all women into one of the 10 Robson groups, based on the six core variables. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 31 Table 4: Summary of specifications for variables in each Robson group Group Parity Previous CS Number of fetuses Fetal presentation or lie Gestational age (weeks) Onset of labour 1 0 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Spontaneous 2 0 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Induced or CS before labour 3 ≥ 1 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Spontaneous 4 ≥ 1 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Induced or CS before labour 5 ≥ 1 Yes 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Any 6 0 No 1 Breech Any Any 7 ≥ 1 Any 1 Breech Any Any 8 Any Any ≥ 2 Any Any Any 9 Any Any 1 Transverse or Oblique Any Any 10 Any Any 1 Cephalic < 37 Any 5.3 Via electronic records If your hospital uses electronic patient records, we suggest that you contact the information support team, show them the basic obstetric variables needed to classify women in one of the 10 groups (Table 4 above) and the Flow Chart used for manual classification (Figure 2) and ask them to create the necessary formulas to automatically classify all women who are admitted for delivery. They can also use this to create the Robson Report Table. 5.2 Using a spreadsheet or an automatic calculator Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 32 06. The Robson Classification Report Table “THE DATA IS BEST REPORTED IN A STANDARDIZED WAY” In order to make the most of the information provided by the Robson Classification in local settings and to allow comparisons between settings, the data is best reported in a standardized way (the “Robson Classification Report Table”). WHO/Christopher Black ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 33 The Report Table consists of seven columns as follows: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Group name and/or number and definition (with subdivisions for Groups 2, 4 and 5, if these are of interest to the users) Total number of CS in each group Total Number of women delivered in each group Relative group size to overall facility population. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage CS rate in each group. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage Absolute group contribution to overall CS rate. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage Relative contribution of each of the 10 groups to overall CS rate. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage We suggest that you start by filling in Columns 2 and 3 (total number of CS and total number of women in each of the 10 groups) to then perform all the percent calculations. The Robson Classification Report Table 34 Table 5: The Robson Classification Report Table 06. The Robson Classification Report Table Setting name: Hospital ABC period: January 2016 to December 2016 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Group Number of CS in group Number of women in group Group Size1 (%) Group CS rate2 (%) Absolute group contribution to overall CS rate3 (%) Relative contribution of group to overall CS rate4 (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total* Total number CS Total number women delivered 100% Overall CS rate Overall CS rate 100% Unclassifiable: Number of cases and % [Number unclassifiable cases / (Total Number women delivered classified + unclassified) X 100] * These totals and percentages come from the data in the table. 1. Group size (%) = n of women in the group / total N women delivered in the hospital x 100 2. Group CS rate (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of women in the group x 100 3. Absolute contribution (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of women delivered in the hospital x 100 4. Relative contribution (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of CS in the hospital x 100 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 35 07. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table “HELPS TO UNDERSTAND THE TYPE OF POPULATION SERVED BY THE HOSPITAL” The interpretation of the Robson Classification Report Table can lead to useful insights into the quality of data collection, the type of population served by the hospital, the CS rates of each group and how each of the individual 10 groups contributes to the overall rate of CS in your setting, and the overall philosophy of care of in a maternity unit. United Nations Photo How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table The main three reasons for differences in sizes of groups or events and outcomes within groups are the following: • Poor data quality (incorrect information in the patient records or errors in retrieving information from the records) • Differences in significant epidemiological characteristics of the populations (age, BMI, etc...) • Differences in clinical practice. Only consider differences in practice after you have evaluated quality and epidemiological variables. GENERAL PRINCIPLES of Interpretation of Robson Report Tables Readers should remember that in settings with low volumes of delivery, the interpretation should take into account the effect of small changes in numbers on the percentages. One of the principles behind the Robson Classification is that no women are excluded from it and before investigating in more detail any one particular group, it is important to assess the sizes of all the 10 groups to ascertain the balance and makeup of the whole obstetric population. Doing this will usually identify any obvious data collection problems (validation) and also identify unique populations. No individual group should be interpreted unless the whole 10 groups are analysed first. The interpretation of the data provided in the Robson Classification Report Table can be facilitated by following a series of steps that we have divided into three main domains: 1) data quality, 2) type of population and 3) caesarean section rates. In the “Data Quality” domain (Table 6) we have a few simple steps that will help to check if you need to improve your data collection. The steps in the “Type of Population” domain (Table 7) will help you understand better the characteristics of the women delivered in your hospital. This information can be used for trend analyses, i.e. to help you see if this population is stable or has been changing over the course of months or years. In the “CS rates” domain (Table 8) you will find steps that will help you to understand and compare the CS rates of each of your 10 groups and identify which groups contribute most to the overall CS rates in your hospital. 36 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 37 This type of information can be used to analyze changes over time, compare differences between hospitals and to help modify clinical practice to optimize CS rates in specific groups while ensuring good maternal and perinatal outcomes. Safety and quality of care in labour and delivery are ultimately related to maternal and perinatal outcomes, as well as to maternal satisfaction. Ideally, all perinatal outcomes should be analyzed using a standard perinatal classification system and no outcome should be judged in isolation. The Robson Classification can be used as a tool to judge care rather than to recommend care. It is up to the hospital itself to decide what is appropriate care, based on its results and other available evidence (12, 13). The examples in interpretation shown in Tables 6-8 are based on two sources; one was developed by Michael Robson based on his international experience applying the classification since 1990 (9, 14, 15) and the second source is the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO MCS) (16, 17). It should be emphasized that neither of these sources has been formally validated and the CS rates by group presented in this table have not been linked to improved outcomes. In particular, please note that the rates of CS in each of the Robson groups in the WHO MCS refer to an average obtained from over 60 health facilities in low- and middle-income countries and therefore cannot and should not be taken as a recommendation to be followed by everyone around the world. The WHO MCS was a cross- sectional study implemented in over 300 health facilities in 29 countries and included over 314,000 women from Africa, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean region, and Latin America (17, 18). Using data from this survey, a “reference population” was created; this consisted of all the facilities with low CS rates and low intra-partum perinatal mortality. These facilities were assumed to have few unnecessary CS and good maternal and perinatal outcomes (16, 19). The “reference population” included 42,637 women from 66 health facilities in 22 countries. The Multicountry Survey Box presents more detailed information on the WHO MCS and the “reference population”. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table The steps suggested below use the order of the columns presented in Table 5. These rules should be used only after fully reading and understanding the classification. If your data distribution (size of the groups) looks strange, first suspect poor data quality or the possibility of a unique population. No hospital continuously collects completely accurate data. Used on a continuous basis, this system can help to point out errors and ultimately improve the quality of data collection. In the next pages, we present the steps for interpretation of the Robson Classification Report Table The WHO MCS was a cross-sectional study implemented in 359 health facilities in 29 countries. Countries, provinces and health facilities were randomly selected to participate in the WHO MCS through a stratified, multistage cluster sampling strategy. Health facilities were only eligible if they had at least 1000 deliveries per year and had the capacity to provide CS. Between May 2010 and December 2011, 314,623 women from Africa, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean region, and Latin America were recruited (17, 18). For the creation of the “reference population” it was considered that the intra- partum related perinatal mortality (i.e. intrapartum stillbirth plus neonatal deaths that took place in the first postpartum day) was a reasonable indicator of quality of care around the time of birth. It was also assumed that health facilities with low CS rates and low intra-partum perinatal mortality had few unnecessary CS and good maternal and perinatal outcomes and thus this population was selected to serve as “reference” (16). The facilities that had both CS rates and intrapartum perinatal mortality below the percentile 50 in the WHO MCS sample of facilities constituted the “reference population”. This specific cut-off (i.e. percentile 50) was selected because the median is commonly used as a reference for defining what is low or high in sufficiently large samples. Among all the facilities in the WHO MCS, the median (50th percentile) for CS rate was 30% and the median (50th percentile) for the intrapartum related perinatal deaths was 6.8 deaths per 1000 livebirths. Health facilities below these values (i.e. facilities with less than 30% of caesarean births and less than 6.8 intrapartum-related perinatal deaths per 1000 births) constituted the “reference population” that included 42,637 women from 66 health facilities in 22 countries. We used the women delivering in these facilities to construct the Robson Report Table in this section (16). MULTICOUNTRY SURVEY on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO MCS) 38 Assessment of quality of data Assessment of type of obstetric population Assessment of caesarean section rates ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 39 Table 6: Steps to assess quality of data using the Robson Classification Report Table.* 7.1 Steps to assess quality of data Step Interpretation by Robson Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the total numbers of CS and of women delivered in your hospital (last lines of Column 2 and Column 3) These numbers should be identical to the total number of CS and of women delivered in your hospital. NA If these numbers do not match, then data is missing or incorrect. Some women may not have been classified in the Robson groups because of missing variables or were incorrectly classified as to type of delivery. Sometimes multiple pregnancies are counted as babies rather than mothers # 2. Look at the size of Group 9 (Column 4) Singletons in transverse or oblique lie It should be less than 1%. 0.4% If this is > 1%, it is probable that women with breech (or other) presentations have been misclassified as transverse /oblique lie and allocated to this group. As the classification includes all women who have delivered, if any one group is smaller or bigger, look to the other groups which sometimes will show where the misclassification is. 3. Look at the CS rate of Group 9 (Column 5): It should be 100% by convention. 88.6% By convention, if the woman gives birth vaginally by internal version, it should be classify as either cephalic or breech. The CS rate in Group 9 should be 100% * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 40 Table 7: Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* 7.2 Steps to assess type of population Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the size of Groups 1 + Group 2 (Column 4)- Nulliparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic This usually represents 35-42% of obstetric population of most hospitals. 38.1% In settings with high proportion of women who have only one child rather than more than one child, the group of nulliparous women i.e. Groups 1 and 2 tends to be larger. In settings where the opposite is true, the size of Groups 1 + Group 2 will be smaller since most of the population will be represented by multiparous women 2. Look at the size of Groups 3 + 4 (Column 4)- Multiparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic, without previous CS This usually represents about 30% of women. 46.5% In settings with high proportion of women with more than one child rather than only one child, the size of Groups 3 + Group 4 will be higher than 30% (provided they have delivered vaginally). Another reason for a low size of Groups 3 and 4 could be that the size of Group 5 is very high which would be accompanied by a very high overall CS rate. 3. Look at the size of Group 5 (Column 4) Multiparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic with previous CS It is related to the overall CS rate. The size of Group 5 is roughly usually about half of the total CS rate. In settings with low overall CS rates, it is usually under 10%. 7.2% The size of Group 5 is usually related to the overall CS rate. If the size of this group is larger, it means that there has been a high CS rate in the past years in that hospital and mainly in Groups 1 and 2. In places with high CS rates, the size of this group could be > 15%. 4. Look at the size of Groups 6 + 7 (Column 4) Breeches in nulliparous & multiparous women It should be 3-4% 2.7% If the total is much over 4%, the most common reason is usually a high rate of preterm deliveries or a higher proportion of nulliparous women. Therefore look at size of Group 10 (Column 4). If that is over 4-5%, this hypothesis could be true. * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 41 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 5. Look at the size of Groups 8 (Column 4)- Multiples It should be 1.5 -2% 0.9% If it is higher, the hospital is probably tertiary (high risk, referral) or runs a fertilization program. If lower, probably a lot of the twins are referred out especially if the remaining twins have a low caesarean section rate 6. Look at the size of Groups 10 (Column 4)- Preterm cephalic singletons It should be less than 5% in most normal risk settings. 4.2% If it is higher, the hospital is probably tertiary (high risk, referral) or there is a high risk of preterm births in the population that the hospital serves. If, in addition, the CS rate is low in this group, it could represent a preponderance of spontaneous preterm labour. If the CS rate in this group is high, it could suggest more provider initiated pre-labour CS for fetal growth restriction or pre-eclampsia and other pregnancy or medical complications. Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 42 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 7. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 1 versus Group 2 (Divide the size of Group 1 by the size of Group 2, Column 4) Nullipara term cephalic singletons spontaneous labour / Nullipara term cephalic singletons Induced or pre-labour CS It is usually 2:1 or higher Ratio 3.3 If it is lower, suspect poor data quality: nulliparous women who received oxytocin for augmentation (acceleration) of labour (and should be in Group 1) may have been misclassified as “induction” (and incorrectly classified as Group 2). If data collection is correct, a lower ratio may indicate that you have a high induction/prelabour CS issue which may indicate a high risk population in nulliparous women and are likely therefore to have a high CS rate. Additional information on pre-labour stillbirths would be the next question to ask. On the contrary, if the ratio is very high, you may want to look at your pre-labour stillbirth rate in this population which may indicate that you are not inducing enough. Or alternatively you may have a very low risk population Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 43 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 8. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 3 versus Group 4. (Divide the size of Group 3 by the size of Group 4, Column 4): Multipara without previous CS, term cephalic singletons spontaneous labour / Multipara without previous CS, term cephalic singletons induced or pre-labour CS It is always higher than the ratio of Group 1/Group 2 in the same institution, i.e, larger than 2:1. This is very reliable finding in confirming data quality and culture of the organization. Ratio 6.3 If it is lower, suspect poor data quality: multiparous women who received oxytocin for “augmentation” of labour (and should be in Group 3) may have been misclassified as “induction” (and incorrectly classified as Group 4). A low ratio (due to large Group 4b) may suggest a poor previous maternal experience in vaginal delivery and a request for pre-labour CS in multiparous women. Another explanation may be pre-labour CS done to perform tubal ligation (common in settings where family planning is not easily available). 9. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 6 versus Group 7. (Divide the size of Group 6 by the size of Group 7, Column 4) Nullipara breech / Multipara breech It is usually a 2:1 because breeches are more frequent in nulliparous women than in multiparous women. Ratio 0.8 If the ratio is different, suspect either unusual nullipara/multipara ratio or inaccurate data collection. Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates In the next page we present some suggestions on the steps to follow in order to interpret the CS rates in the Robson Report Table. Please keep in mind the CS rates mentioned in the next pages have not been validated against outcomes and should not be taken as a recommendation. Merely analyzed in relation to other hospitals, CS rates in each group will vary in different hospitals and settings depending on their capacity / level of complexity, the epidemiological characteristics of the population served and the local clinical management guidelines, among other factors. Ultimately, the use of the classification over time will help each individual hospital or setting identify the CS rate (or range of CS rates) that is associated with the best outcomes in each of the 10 groups. 44 WHO/PAHO ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 45 Table 8: Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the CS rate for Group 1 (Column 5) Rates under 10% are achievable 9.8% This rate can only be interpreted accurately when you have considered the ratio of the sizes of Groups 1 and 2. In principle, the higher the ratio of size of Groups 1:2, the higher the likelihood of both the CS rate in Group 1 and 2 being individually higher. However, the overall CS rate in Groups 1 and 2 combined may still be low or the same. 2. Look at the CS rate for Group 2 (Column 5): Consistently around 20-35% 39.9% CS rates in Group 2 reflect the size and rates in 2a and 2b. If size of Group 2b is large, the overall CS rates in Group 2 is also going to be large. If Group 2b is relatively small, then high rates of CS in Group 2 may indicate poor success rates for induction or poor choice of women to induce and consequently a high rate of CS in Group 2a. Remember the general principle of not interpreting one single subgroup on its own without knowing what is left out. The interpretation of group 2a requires knowing the relative sizes of Groups 1 and 2b. 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 46 Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 3. Look at the CS rate for Group 3 (Column 5) Normally, no higher than 3.0%. 3.0% In units with higher CS rates in this group, this may be due to poor data collection. It is possible that women with previous scars (Group 5) were incorrectly classified as Group 3. Other possible reasons for high rates could be for example to do tubal ligation in settings with poor access to contraception, or maternal request. 4. Look at the CS rate for Group 4 (Column 5) It rarely should be higher than 15% 23.7% CS rates in Group 4 reflect the size and rates in 4a and 4b. If size of Group 4b is large, the overall CS rates in Group 4 is also going to be high. If Group 4b is relatively small, then high rates of CS in Group 4 may indicate poor success rates for induction or poor choice of women to induce and consequently a high rate of CS in Group 4a. Poor data collection could also be a reason for high CS rates in Group 4; for example due to inclusion of women with previous scars in this group (when they should be in Group 5). Lastly, a high CS rate in Group 4 may reflect a high maternal request for CS even if these women have delivered their first pregnancy vaginally. This may be because of a previously traumatic or prolonged labour or to do tubal ligation in settings with poor access to contraception. Table 8 (Continued): Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 47 Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 5. Look at the CS rate for Group 5 (Column 5) Rates of 50-60% are considered appropriate provided you have good maternal and perinatal outcome. 74.4% If rates are higher, this is possibly due to a large Group 5.2 (women with 2 or more previous CS). This could also be due to a policy of scheduling pre-labour CS for all women with 1 previous scar without attempting a trial of labour. 6. Look at the CS rate for Group 8 (Column 5) It is usually around 60%. 57.7% Variations will depend on the type of twin pregnancy and the ratio of nulliparous/multiparous with or without a previous scar. 7. Look at the CS rate in Group 10 (Column 5): In most populations it is usually around 30% 25.1% If higher than 30%, it is usually due to many cases of high risk pregnancies (e.g. fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia) that will need preterm pre-labour CS. If lower than 30%, it suggests a relatively higher rate of preterm spontaneous labour and hence a lower overall CS rate. Table 8 (Continued): Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* 8. Look at the relative contribution of Groups 1, 2 and 5 to the overall CS rate (add the contribution of each of these groups in Column 7) These three groups combined normally contribute to 2/3 (66%) of all CS performed in most hospitals. These three groups combined contributed to 63.7% of all CS These three groups should be the focus of attention if the hospital is trying to lower the overall CS rate. The higher the overall CS rate, the greater the focus should be in Group 1. 9. Look at the absolute contribution of Group 5 to the overall CS rate (Column 7) This group was responsible for 28.9% of all CS If it is very high, this may indicate that in previous years, CS rates in Groups 1 and 2 have been high and it is worth exploring further. * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 08. Barriers and facilitators to implement the classification “DESIGNATE A PERSON TO BE IN CHARGE OF ORGANIZING DATA COLLECTION” The first step in implementing the classification is to designate a person if possible (clinician, nurse, clerk, manager or other) to be in charge of organizing data collection and producing the Robson Report Tables at weekly or monthly intervals. This person can then work with the staff in the labour and delivery wards and coordinate efforts to ensure that all newly admitted patients have all the necessary obstetric variables collected in their record, to allow their classification into one of the 10 Robson groups. According to users, the main strengths of the classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility. However, missing data, misclassification of women and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification may cause problems (11). 48 UNICEF/Asselin ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 49 The Robson Classification is not free of challenges and difficulties. The main difficulties pointed by users were: Lack of definition or consensus on the core variables used in the classification: For example, it is necessary to reach an agreement on when labour starts and how to clarify the difference between augmentation (acceleration) versus induction of labour. We therefore recommend that each hospital creates a clear written definition (a glossary) of the variables that may vary in different settings (such as spontaneous onset of labour or induction) and add these definitions as a footnote of the Robson Report Table (see Table 5). Quality of the data used to classify women: If the data used is unreliable, the real value of recommendations based on the classification is questionable. Ensuring good quality of the data should not be taken for granted and it can be challenging even in high- resource settings. Misclassification of women in wrong groups: This is a real possibility however you collect your data. In all settings, data collectors need to be carefully trained and audited periodically, for example by another person reviewing and re-classifying a sample of records from women in each of the 10 groups. By looking carefully at the Report Table and following the interpretation rules, users can find important clues about possible misclassification of specific groups. Cases that cannot be classified due to missing data: The size of “Unclassifiable” category is an important indicator of the quality of the data in the individual patient records. The lack of validation of the interpretation rules: A simple set of rules for interpretation was provided by Robson (14) to help users explore all the information provided by this classification, especially when using it to compare data between different settings or changes over time. However, these rules still need to be validated to ensure that the figures proposed (especially regarding expected CS rates per groups) are associated with good maternal and perinatal outcomes. We strongly encourage users of the classification to collect their own data on maternal as well as perinatal morbidity and mortality per Robson group and analyze these data regularly. Barriers and facilitators to implement the Classification References 09. References 51 09. References 1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343. 2. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson Classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. 6. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short- term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC medicine. 2010;8:71. 7. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-19. 8. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. Commentary: WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667- 70 9. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39. 10. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566. 11. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A. Systematic review of the Robson Classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6). 15. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179-94. 17. Souza JP, GülmezogluAM, VogelJ, CarroliG, LumbiganonP, Qureshi Z, et al. Movingbeyondessentialinterventionsfor reductionof maternal mortality(the WHO MulticountrySurveyonMaternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectionalstudy. Lancet. 2013;18(38):1747-55. 12. Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10- Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;131:S23–S27. 16. Souza JP, Betrán AP, Dumont A, de Muncio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123:427–436 18. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, WHOMCS Research Group. The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:286. 3. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (WHO/RHR/15.02). 4. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux- Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprodcutive Health. 2015;12:57. 5. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375:490-9. 19. Robson M. A global reference for CS at health facilities? Yes, but there is work to do. BJOG. 2016;123(3):437. 13. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10- Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;135(2):232-3. 14.Robson M, HartiganL, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best PractRes ClinObstetGynaecol. 2013;27:297-308. References 56Design and layout: Prodigioso Volcán

Robson Classification: Implementation Manual ISBN 978-92-4-151319-7 © World Health Organization 2017 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC- SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing. Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user. General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use. Introduction01 Purpose and target audience of this manual Frequent questions on how to classify women Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 02 03 04 05 The Robson Report Table06 How to interpret the Robson Classification data Barriers and Facilitators to implement the Classification 07 08 References09 The Robson Classification 3 7 9 21 28 32 35 48 50 Table of Content Example of Robson Report Table with Interpretation available at: www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/

01. Introduction “RISING CS RATES ARE A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN” Introduction Over the last decades, there has been a progressive increase in the rate of deliveries by caesarean section (CS) in most countries but the drivers for this trend are not completely understood (1, 2). Rising CS rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates due to potential maternal and perinatal risks associated with this increase, inequity in access and cost issues (3-7). In order to understand the drivers of this trend and to propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where needed, it is necessary to have a tool to monitor and compare CS rates in a same setting over time and between different settings. Traditionally, at facility level, we have monitored CS rates using the overall percentage of deliveries by CS. Variations in this “overall CS rate” between different settings or over time are difficult to interpret and compare because of intrinsic differences in hospital factors and infrastructure (e.g. primary versus tertiary level), differences in the characteristics of the obstetric population (“case-mix”) served (e.g. percent of women with previous CS) and differences in clinical management protocols (e.g. conditions for induction or pre-labour CS). Ideally, there should be a classification system to monitor and compare CS rates at facility level in a standardized, reliable, consistent and action-oriented manner (3, 8-10). 3 This classification system should be applicable internationally and it should also be useful for clinicians, facility administrators, public health authorities and women themselves. Such a system should be simple, clinically relevant, accountable, replicable and verifiable (10, 11). The lack of such an internationally- recognized system has helped to fuel controversies and to maintain common myths about the causes for increasing CS rates as well as potential risks and benefits of increasing CS rates. Figure 1: Latest available data on caesarean section rates by country (from 2005 and later). From: The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014 (1). 4 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 5Since this system can be used prospectively and its categories are totally inclusive and mutually exclusive, every woman who is admitted for delivery can be immediately classified, based on a few basic characteristics which are usually routinely collected by obstetric care providers worldwide. The classification is simple, robust, reproducible, clinically relevant, and prospective. It allows the comparison and analysis of CS rates within and across these groups of women. Even before official endorsement by an international institution or formal guidelines recommending its use in 2015, the Robson Classification had been rapidly and increasingly used by many countries all over the world. In 2014 WHO conducted another systematic review to gather the experience of the users of the Robson Classification, to assess the pros and cons of its adoption, implementation and interpretation, and to identify barriers, facilitators and potential adaptations (11). This review included 73 publications from 31 countries that reported on the use of Robson Classification between 2000-2013. According to users, most of whom were care providers, the main strengths of this classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility (11). However, users also reported that missing data, misclassification of women, and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification were challenges in its implementation and use. Different authors have created and proposed several types of CS classification systems for use at facility level for different purposes, with the overall aim of providing a consistent and standardized framework to look at CS (10). In 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a systematic review that identified 27 different systems to classify CS. These classifications looked at “who” (woman-based), “why” (indication-based), “when” (urgency-based), as well as “where”, “how” and “by whom” a CS was performed (10). This review concluded that women-based classifications in general, and the 10-Groups classification in particular (9), were in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs. The 10-Groups classification (also known as the “TGCS-Ten Groups Classification System” or the “Robson Classification”) was created to prospectively identify well-defined, clinically relevant groups of women admitted for delivery and to investigate differences in CS rates within these relatively homogeneous groups of women (9). Unlike classifications based on indications for CS, the Robson Classification is for “all women” who deliver at a specific setting (e.g. a maternity or a region) and not only for the women who deliver by CS. It is a complete perinatal classification. IntroductionROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL “WHO proposes the Robson Classification system as a global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing caesarean section rates within healthcare facilities over time, and between facilities”. WHO statement on Robson Classification In October 2014, WHO convened a panel of experts. After reviewing the evidence, the panel proposed the use of the Robson Classification at facility level in order to establish a common point for comparing maternal and perinatal data within facilities over time and between facilities (3, 8). The panel also decided to adopt the “Robson Classification” as the official name for this classification. 6 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 02. Purpose and target audience of this manual “THIS MANUAL WAS CREATED TO ASSIST HEALTHCARE FACILITIES” This manual was created to assist healthcare facilities in adopting and using the Robson Classification. It is targeted at health professionals responsible for the care of women admitted for delivery and at administrators responsible for the management of healthcare facilities where births occur. 7 It presents a standard approach to implement and interpret this classification. Hanna-Truscott/Midwives for Haiti, Photoshare Purpose and target audience of this manual WHO expects that the use of the Robson Classification will help health care facilities to: • Identify and analyze the groups of women which contribute most and least to overall CS rates. • Compare practice in these groups of women with other units who have more desirable results and consider changes in practice. • Assess the effectiveness of strategies or interventions targeted at optimizing the use of CS. • Assess the quality of care and of clinical management practices by analyzing outcomes by groups of women. • Assess the quality of the data collected and raise staff awareness about the importance of this data, interpretation and use. WHAT can the Robson Classification do for you? This manual: • Helps you to understand and implement the Robson Classification and build the Report Table using your own data • Explains the variables and definitions used and how to produce and interpret the Report Table • Highlights challenges that you may encounter and shares useful experiences and examples from users • Presents frequently asked questions and answers when classifying women 8 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 03. The Robson Classification “EVERY WOMAN ADMITTED TO DELIVER IN ANY FACILITY CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO ONE OF THE 10 GROUPS” The system classifies all women admitted for delivery into one of 10 groups that are mutually exclusive and totally inclusive. This means that, based on a few basic obstetric variables, every woman admitted to deliver in any facility can be classified into one, and only one, of the 10 groups and no woman will be left out of the classification. 9 The Robson Classification is for “all women” who deliver at a specific setting and not only for the women who deliver by CS. WHO/Yoshi Shimizu The Robson Classification 3.1 The 10 groups of the Robson Classification 10 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 3.2 Definition of core variables Table 1: Obstetric variables for the Robson Classification The 10 groups are based on six basic obstetric variables; these are the only information needed to classify each woman (Table 1). Obstetric variables Parity • Nullipara • Multipara Previous CS • Yes (one or more) • No Onset of labour • Spontaneous • Induced • No labour (pre-labour CS) Number of fetuses • Singleton • Multiple Gestational age • Preterm (less than 37 weeks) • Term (37 weeks or more) Fetal lie and presentation • Cephalic presentation • Breech presentation • Transverse lie In principle, since these variables are routinely collected and used in the clinical management of women admitted for delivery, you should be able to obtain this data from each woman’s medical record. 11 The Robson Classification 3.2 Definition of core variables Table 2: Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Parity* Number of previous deliveries upon admission for delivery. Birth of infant weighing ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks**, alive or dead, with or without malformations, by any route. The number of previous abortions/ miscarriages does not count. Nullipara No previous delivery. This is not necessarily equivalent to Primigravida. For example, a woman in her 4th pregnancy with 3 prior miscarriages (G4 P0 A3) will be a nulliparous woman and belongs in this group. Multipara At least one previous delivery. Delivery of infant weighing ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks**, alive or dead, with or without malformations, by any route. Previous CS * Number of previous CS upon admission for delivery. Other types of uterine scars (e.g. myomectomy) should not be considered and not included as a prior CS when classifying women. None All previous deliveries were vaginal. One or more At least one previous delivery by CS but may have one or more vaginal deliveries in addition. 12 * The definition does not consider the current delivery. The woman should be classified before she delivers. For example, a woman who is admitted to deliver her first baby should be classified as a “Nullipara”, even if the forms are filled after she has already delivered; she should not be classified as a multipara. Similarly, a woman who has two previous vaginal deliveries and is admitted for an elective CS should be classified as having “No previous CS”, even if the forms are filled after the delivery of her third baby. ** This definition may vary in different settings (see Box below). Users of the classification should specify their definition for “birth” (minimum gestational age and birthweight) if this differs from the one proposed here and report this as a footnote in their Report Table (see below). It is not encouraged but if the users decide to exclude stillborn and malformed fetuses from the classification, this should also be reported in the footnote. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Onset of labour How labour and delivery started in the current pregnancy, regardless of how delivery was planned originally. This should be based on the history, physical examination and decision by health professional upon admission to the labour/delivery ward. Spontaneous Prior to delivery, the woman was in spontaneous labour . Nulliparous or multiparous women with a scheduled (prelabour) CS who arrive in spontaneous labour belong to this group. This group also includes women who entered labour spontaneously and then received oxytocin or had an amniotomy performed for augmentation (acceleration) of labour. Induced Upon admission to the labour ward, the woman was not in labour and was then induced. Any method of induction is valid including amniotomy, misoprostol, oxytocin, intracervical Foley balloon, laminaria or other. Women who enter labour spontaneously and then receive oxytocin or have an amniotomy to correct dystocias or augment (accelerate) labour do not belong in this group but should be classified as “Spontaneous” onset of labour. Pre-labour CS Woman not in labour when admitted for delivery and a decision was taken to deliver by CS. Cases of induction or spontaneous labour who ultimately were delivered by CS do not belong here . 13 Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Table 2 (Continued): Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Number of fetuses Number of fetuses upon admission for delivery. Including fetal deaths diagnosed after 22 weeks or 500 g**. Singleton One fetus. Twin pregnancies with fetal demise prior to 22 weeks or 500 g should be counted as a singleton pregnancy Multiple More than one fetus. Including cases of multiples where one or more fetuses died after 22 weeks or 500 g**. ** This definition may vary in different settings (see Box below). Users of the classification should specify their definition for “birth” (minimum gestational age and birthweight) if this differs from the one proposed here and report this as a footnote in their Report Table (see below). It is not encouraged but if the users decide to exclude stillborn and malformed fetuses from the classification, this should also be reported in the footnote. The Robson Classification Fetal lie and presentation The final fetal lie/presentation before a decision for delivery or before a diagnosis of labour is made. Women admitted with a breech fetus who undergo external version and then deliver a cephalic fetus should be considered as cephalic. Women with a dead fetus in transverse lie who undergo internal version before delivery should be considered breech. Cephalic Fetal head is the presenting part. Vertex, face or brow, or compound head presentations (hand prolapse) should go here. Breech Fetal buttocks or one foot or two feet are the presenting part. All types of breech (frank, complete and footling). Transverse or Oblique lie Fetal long axis is perpendicular or oblique in relation to the mother´ s long axis. The fetal shoulder or arm are presenting or there is no presenting part. 14 Obstetric Variable Definition Observation Table 2 (Continued): Definition of core variables used in the Robson Classification Gestational age Gestational age upon admission for current delivery. Based on best estimate (menstrual or earliest ultrasound) or neonatal exam or definitions used in your setting. Term 37 weeks or more. Preterm Less than 37 weeks. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL The Robson Classification should be considered as a common starting point for a perinatal classification system that can be further developed. Each of the 10 groups may need to be subdivided or some groups may need to be combined. In addition, more details such as indications for caesarean sections or neonatal morbidity can be added and analysed within the different groups . Other events and outcomes related to labour and delivery can also be analysed within the group (e.g. oxytocin or epidemiological variables such as age or body mass index). Moreover, there are several key obstetrical definitions, protocols or procedures which are not included in the classification but should be considered when interpreting the results. These may be specific to each health facility and sometimes standard across countries. They include for example, the criteria used for diagnosis of labour (cervical effacement and dilatation), the guidelines used for management of labour including artificial rupture of membranes, oxytocin regimen used for augmentation (acceleration) and induction, diagnosis and treatment of arrest of labour and dystocia, fetal monitoring techniques, analgesia and one to one care in labour. 15 The definition of a “birth” may vary between countries and settings. While most high-income countries count births as infants weighing at least 500 g or with a gestational age at least 20 or 22 weeks, many countries use other cut-offs. For example, the threshold of viability in many countries is birth weight ≥ 1000 g and gestational age ≥ 28 weeks. In order to compare Robson Report Tables between countries and within countries over time, it is important that the users of the classification give a clear definition of what were the weight and gestational age cutoffs used in their population. This should be added as a footnote in their Robson Report Table. HOW to define a birth The Robson Classification 3.3 Subdivisions for the 10 groups Many users of the Robson Classification have suggested subdivisions in the 10 Robson groups (12). Subdivisions of certain groups (e.g. Groups 2, 4 or 5) may prove to be more meaningful than others, but this can vary from site to site. The objective of the subdivisions is to further increase the uniformity and homogeneity of the groups by stratifying women within that group according to certain relevant characteristics. This can be especially useful when planning the implementation of clinical interventions in specific subgroups. The importance and potential usefulness of these subdivisions will depend on the size of the groups within the specific setting where the classification will be used. However, it is important to remember that the analyses of any subdivision by itself may be misleading if no attention is given to what has been left out. For this reason it is recommended that before looking at subgroups users become accustomed to first analyse the 10 groups. Otherwise, the data may be misinterpreted. Table 3 presents the Robson Classification with the most common subdivisions. 16 WHO/PAHO ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Table 3. The Robson Classification with subdivisions 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups Group Obstetric population 1 Nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labour 2 Nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation who had labour induced or were delivered by CS before labour 2a Labour induced 2b Pre-labour CS 3 Multiparous women without a previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labour 4 Multiparous women without a previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation who had labour induced or were delivered by CS before labour 4a Labour induced 4b Pre-labour CS 5 All multiparous women with at least one previous CS, with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation 5.1 With one previous CS 5.2 With two or more previous CSs 6 All nulliparous women with a single breech pregnancy 7 All multiparous women with a single breech pregnancy including women with previous CS(s) 8 All women with multiple pregnancies including women with previous CS(s) 9 All women with a single pregnancy with a transverse or oblique lie, including women with previous CS(s) 10 All women with a single cephalic pregnancy < 37 weeks gestation, including women with previous CS(s) 17 The Robson Classification Groups 2 and 4 subdivisions: 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups These groups refer to nulliparous and multiparous women without previous CS, respectively, with a singleton, term fetus in cephalic presentation who did not enter labour spontaneously (See Table 3). These groups include two distinct and mutually exclusive subcategories, namely: 2a or 4a Nulliparous or multiparous women, respectively, who had their labour induced (using any method, such as misoprostol, oxytocin, amniotomy or intracervical Foley catheter or other) and went on to deliver vaginally or by CS 2b or 4b Nulliparous or multiparous women, respectively, who were admitted and delivered by pre-labour CS. Since all the women in these subgroups will have a CS, the rates of CS in these subgroups will always be 100%. Since Groups 2 and 4 may represent a large proportion of the obstetric population in many hospitals, these subcategories are important to understand how differences in clinical practice (rates of induced labour or pre-labour CS) contribute to the rates of CS in nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous CS, as well as the overall CS rates in different hospitals. 18 Additionally, the rate of CS in Subgroups 2a and 4a (induced nulliparous and multiparous women, respectively) can also be used to assess and compare the success of induction guidelines in different hospitals or in the same hospital over time. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Group 5 subdivisions: 3.3 Common subdivisions for the 10 groups Group 5 includes all multiparous women with at least one previous CS carrying a singleton, term fetus in cephalic presentation. In current obstetric practice, Group 5 can be very important in many settings because there is a growing number of women with previous CS and therefore the size of this group may be quite significant. Since the rate of CS in this group is usually high, Group 5 may be an important contributor to the total number of CS in these settings. However, Group 5 includes two distinct and mutually exclusive subcategories, namely: 5.1 Multiparous women with only one previous CS 5.2 Multiparous women with two or more previous CS. Given the differences in clinical management of these two types of women, these common subcategories should be reported separately in the classification, as 5.1 and 5.2. The usefulness of these subcategories will depend on the actual size of Group 5 in a specific setting. In many high- and middle-income countries where the size of Group 5 is becoming substantial, the proposed subcategories will be more useful and appreciated than in places where Group 5 represents only a small proportion of the obstetric population. 19 The Robson Classification 3.4 Cases with missing variables (Unclassifiable Cases) The 10 groups are based on basic obstetric characteristics that are routinely collected in most pregnancies at admission and on delivery. In cases where the information on one or more of the core variables is missing or illegible in the patient record, it will not be possible to classify the woman in any of the 10 groups. This “unclassifiable group” of women should be reported as part of the Robson Classification Report Table but preferably placed as a footnote at the bottom of this table. It is very important to report this group and its size (absolute N and % over total deliveries) because it is an indicator of the quality of the data available in any hospital. It is also important to explore which are the exact variables that are missing in this group of women, in order to improve future data collection. 20 In 2017, hospital A had a total of 2500 deliveries and 250 (10%) could not be classified in any of the Robson groups. Upon reviewing these specific records, it was seen that the missing information was mostly fetal presentation (n=200/250 cases). In this hospital, it will be relatively simple to reduce the number of “unclassifiable cases” by properly filling the information on fetal presentation, which is easily available in all patient records. On the other hand, in hospital B, which has 7500 deliveries per year, there were 225 records that were unclassifiable (3%) and the most frequently missing variable was onset of labour and delivery (i.e. including pre-labour CS) (n=218/225 cases). It would seem that the managers of hospital B will probably need to invest less efforts to improve data collection as the unclassifiable group is smaller than in hospital A. However, the information missing in Hospital B (onset of labour and delivery) is less objective than the information missing in Hospital A (fetal presentation). To reduce the number of unclassifiable cases due to missing information on labour onset, the clinicians could consider adding a new field in their admission forms to collect this specific information in all cases. For example at one point in the data collection prior of the delivery, all women must have one of the following three options collected: spontaneous labour, induced labour or pre-labour CS. The midwifery and obstetric staff would have to agree on the hospital s´ definition of what constitutes spontaneous labour and ensure that all health care providers understand and implement this definition when filling this field. USEFULNESS of quantifying and exploring Unclassifiable Cases ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 21 04. Frequent questions on how to classify women QUESTIONS ABOUT… In the next pages you will find answers to common questions on how to classify women in the Robson groups. Frequent questions on how to classify women Q 1: I just performed a CS because of fetal distress on a nullipara who arrived in labour (8 cm) with a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at term. Should I classify this case in Group 1 or Group 5? A 1: This woman should be classified as Group 1. The classification does not take into account the current delivery. Therefore, this woman is a nullipara and not a multipara with a previous CS. Q 3: How do I classify a woman in her fourth pregnancy, with 3 previous miscarriages (at 8, 12 and 14 weeks), who is admitted at 38 weeks in spontaneous labour with a single cephalic fetus? Does she belong to Group 1 or 3? A 3: She belongs in Group 1 because she is a nullipara (i.e. she never delivered an infant weighing at ≥ 500 g or ≥ 22 weeks gestation). Q 4: A nullipara with a history of previous myomectomy two years ago is admitted for a pre-labour CS at 38 weeks, with a singleton cephalic fetus. Should she be classified in Group 2 or in Group 5? A 4: This woman belongs to Group 2 (Group 2b). Only women with uterine scars due to one (or more) CS should be classified in Group 5. Q 2: How should I classify a woman with 5 previous term deliveries who delivers a cephalic stillborn infant at 26 weeks, weighing 620 g? In my country, we register liveborn infants weighing at least 500 g but we do not register stillborn infants weighing less than 1000g. A 2: This woman would belong in Group 10. However, you can decide not to include this case in the Robson Classification because of the definitions used in your setting. In this case, at the bottom of the Robson Classification Report Table you should add a footnote specifying what were the criteria that you used for “birth”. For example, you could state in the footnote “We included only liveborn infants weighing ≥ 500g and stillborn infants weighing ≥ 1000g.” 22 Questions about parity ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 5: How do I classify a woman admitted for induction of labour at 41 weeks who has one previous vaginal delivery? I would tend to classify her as Group 1 because in my country, we call her a primipara; we use the word ‘multipara’ only for women who have had at least two previous deliveries. A 5: For the Robson Classification, all women with one or more previous births are classified as “Multiparous women”. Therefore, this woman belongs in Group 4. 23 Questions about onset of labour Q 1: I admitted a nullipara with a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at 40 weeks with ruptured membranes 4 hours ago and regular contractions for the last hour. Upon admission she was 2 cm cervical dilated, 80% effaced with moderate contractions every three minutes, which corresponds to the hospital´s definition of spontaneous labour. Four hours after admission, she is still 2 cm dilated and I give her oxytocin to augment (accelerate) labour. Should I classify her in Group 1 or Group 2? A 1: This woman belongs in Group 1, since she is a nullipara with spontaneous onset of labour. (according to your definition of spontaneous labour). The use of oxytocin in this case is for labour augmentation (acceleration) and not for induction. Therefore she does not belong to Group 2 which is exclusively for women who were admitted and diagnosed not in spontaneous labour and are induced using any method (pharmacological or mechanical). Q 2: I admit a 41 year old obese multipara (3 previous vaginal deliveries) at 40 weeks with a single, cephalic fetus, in spontaneous labour with 4 cm cervical dilation. She has gestational diabetes, the fetus is macrosomic and she was scheduled for an elective CS fetus on the following day. Should she be in Group 3 or Group 4b? A 2: She belongs in Group 3 because onset of labour was spontaneous and the classification always considers how labour started in the current pregnancy, regardless of how delivery was planned. Frequent questions on how to classify women 24 Q 1: If I have a woman who has a twin pregnancy and the first baby is in a transverse lie, should I classify this case in Group 8 or Group 9? A 1: She belongs in Group 8, since it includes “All women with multiple pregnancies”. Group 9 is for only for women with a singleton pregnancy with a fetus in transverse or oblique lie. Q 2: A nullipara was diagnosed with a triplet pregnancy at 14 weeks. At 22 weeks, there was only one live fetus on ultrasound examination and the other two dead fetuses had estimated weights of < 500 g. She presents at 39 weeks in spontaneous labour, the live fetus is in cephalic presentation. How should I classify this woman: in Group 8 or in Group 1? A 2: This case belongs to Group 1. The classification does not apply to pregnancies/fetuses with estimated fetal weight less than 500 g or gestational age less than 22 weeks. Questions about multiple pregnancies ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 3: A 42 year old multipara (2 previous CS) was diagnosed by ultrasound with a twin pregnancy at 10 weeks. At 31 weeks, she is admitted because of severe preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction, with both fetuses alive. On the second day, one of the fetuses dies. She is immediately taken to the labour ward for a pre-labour CS. The presenting fetus is breech and dead. The surviving fetus is cephalic. How should I classify this woman: in Group 5.2, Group 7 or Group 8? A 3: This case belongs to Group 8. The fetal demise occurred after 22 weeks (or after > 500 g of fetal weight), therefore this pregnancy is still considered a multiple. She does not belong to Group 5 because only women at term with a single, cephalic fetus should be included in this group. She does not belong in Group 7 because it is only for singleton breeches. Q 4: I have a total of 3000 women who delivered in my hospital in 2015; 60 of these women delivered twins and 1 woman delivered triplets. Therefore, my total number of babies delivered in 2015 was 3062. When I construct the main Robson Report Table for my hospital in 2015, my total number (last line in Column 2) should be 3000 or 3062? A 4: The total number of the Robson Classification Report Table refers to the total number of WOMEN delivered in a setting and not the total number of babies. Therefore, the correct total number is 3000. The Robson Classification refers to the women who deliver in a setting and not to the babies 25 Frequent questions on how to classify women 26 Questions about presentation Q 1: How should I classify a nullipara in spontaneous labour at 38 weeks, 8 cm dilated, with a face presentation? A 1: This woman belongs in Group 1. All face, brow or compound cephalic presentations should be categorized in Group 1. As long as the presenting part is the fetal head, this is considered a cephalic presentation. Q 2: I admit a woman with 3 previous vaginal deliveries in spontaneous labour at 39 weeks, 5 cm dilated, with ruptured membranes, and a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation with a hand alongside the head. Should I classify her in Group 3 or in Group 9? A 2: This woman should be in Group 3. As long as the presenting part is the fetal head, this is considered a cephalic presentation. Group 9 is only for women in transverse or oblique lie possible with a prolapsed arm which is not the case here. Q 3: I admit a nullipara with a singleton breech fetus at 37 weeks, not in labour. She is submitted to a successful external version and is induced immediately after. Within 12 hours she delivers a fetus in cephalic presentation by the vaginal route. How do I classify this woman: in Group 6 or in Group 2a? A 3: This woman should be classified in Group 2a. The Robson Classification uses the final fetal presentation/lie before a decision for delivery or before a diagnosis of labour is made. In this case, the presentation at onset of induction was cephalic, therefore she belongs in Group 2a. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL Q 1: A nulipara arrives at 32 weeks, fully dilated, with a live singleton cephalic fetus and umbilical cord prolapse. Should this woman be classified in Group 1, 10 or Group 9? A 1: She belongs to Group 10 because it includes all preterm singleton, cephalic pregnancies. Group 1 is not for her because her pregnancy is not at term (37 weeks or more) and Group 9 is only for transverse or oblique lies, which is not her case. 27 Questions about gestational age, fetal demise and fetal malformations Q 2: A multipara with 2 previous CS is admitted at 30 weeks, with severe pre- eclampsia, not in labour, with a dead fetus in breech presentation. Should this woman be included in the Robson Classification at all since her fetus is dead? If we classify her, does she belong in Group 5, Group 7 or Group 10? A 2: The Robson Classification does not exclude stillbirths; therefore, this woman should be included in the classification. She belongs in Group 7 because it includes “All multiparous women with a single breech including those with previous CS”. She does not belong in Group 5 or Group 10 because the fetus is breech and these groups only include cephalic presentations. Q 3: A nulliparous woman with an anencephalic fetus is admitted at 24 weeks for induction. The fetus is dead and in a cephalic presentation. Should we classify her at all in the Robson Classification? If we classify her, should she be categorized in Group 2 or Group 10? A 3: The Robson Classification does not exclude malformed or dead fetuses; therefore, this woman should be included in the classification. She belongs in Group 10, which includes all women with a single cephalic preterm fetus; the fact that the fetal head has a malformation does not change the fact that the presentation is still cephalic. Group 2 is for term, cephalic presentation, which is not the case here. Frequent questions on how to classify women 05. Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups “YOU DO NOT NEED A TEAM OF INFORMATION SPECIALIST” There are different ways that you can use to classify each woman into one of the 10 Groups. It can be as simple as going manually through each patient record looking for the core variables and adding a manual note with a pencil to the cover of the patient record with the number of the Robson group. On the other hand, it can be as complex as asking a team of information specialists to create a software which picks the core variables in the electronic patient record and automatically assigns the specific Robson group to each record, based on pre-established formulas. The flow chart in the next page provides guidance about the order in which the categorization can be most easily performed. Cases with missing data (no information in one or more of the six core variables) should be categorized as “Unclassifiable” and the missing variable should be noted to facilitate analyses of these cases. 28 Jonathan Torgovnik Ways of classifying women in the Robson groupsROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 29 Source: Adapted from Nassar LF, Sancho HD. Instrucción de Robson . v.0.1-1. 2015/06/08. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) Figure 2: Flow chart for the classification of women in the Robson Classification Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 30 5.1 Manually 5.2 Using a spreadsheet or an automatic calculator Each woman can be classified manually into one of the 10 groups by reviewing and collecting data from each individual record or directly from delivery room registers (log books) if they provide the required variables listed in Table 1 or using the definitions presented in Table 3 . Once the woman is classified, her specific group can be marked in her record or in a newly created column in the delivery room log book. This marking can be used to facilitate periodic (e.g. monthly) calculations of the number of women in each group. To facilitate the classification of each woman, you can print a copy of the flow chart presented in the previous page (Figure 2) and follow the steps provided in it. This form of classification is possibly superior to the manual collection as it reduces human errors in deciding to which group each woman belongs. However, it requires that each of the basic variables for each woman be typed into an electronic spreadsheet. You could for example set up a spreadsheet table (see Table 4 in the next page) where each row corresponds to a woman and each column corresponds to one of the basic variables with specific possible answers for each variable. You then create an additional last (or first) column called “Group Number” where, by the means of electronic formulas with the rules for classification, each woman would automatically be assigned to a Robson group. The table in the next page can be useful for information specialists in your hospital to create the electronic formulas to classify all women into one of the 10 Robson groups, based on the six core variables. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 31 Table 4: Summary of specifications for variables in each Robson group Group Parity Previous CS Number of fetuses Fetal presentation or lie Gestational age (weeks) Onset of labour 1 0 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Spontaneous 2 0 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Induced or CS before labour 3 ≥ 1 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Spontaneous 4 ≥ 1 No 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Induced or CS before labour 5 ≥ 1 Yes 1 Cephalic ≥ 37 Any 6 0 No 1 Breech Any Any 7 ≥ 1 Any 1 Breech Any Any 8 Any Any ≥ 2 Any Any Any 9 Any Any 1 Transverse or Oblique Any Any 10 Any Any 1 Cephalic < 37 Any 5.3 Via electronic records If your hospital uses electronic patient records, we suggest that you contact the information support team, show them the basic obstetric variables needed to classify women in one of the 10 groups (Table 4 above) and the Flow Chart used for manual classification (Figure 2) and ask them to create the necessary formulas to automatically classify all women who are admitted for delivery. They can also use this to create the Robson Report Table. 5.2 Using a spreadsheet or an automatic calculator Ways of classifying women in the Robson groups 32 06. The Robson Classification Report Table “THE DATA IS BEST REPORTED IN A STANDARDIZED WAY” In order to make the most of the information provided by the Robson Classification in local settings and to allow comparisons between settings, the data is best reported in a standardized way (the “Robson Classification Report Table”). WHO/Christopher Black ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 33 The Report Table consists of seven columns as follows: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Group name and/or number and definition (with subdivisions for Groups 2, 4 and 5, if these are of interest to the users) Total number of CS in each group Total Number of women delivered in each group Relative group size to overall facility population. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage CS rate in each group. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage Absolute group contribution to overall CS rate. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage Relative contribution of each of the 10 groups to overall CS rate. For each of the 10 groups, in percentage We suggest that you start by filling in Columns 2 and 3 (total number of CS and total number of women in each of the 10 groups) to then perform all the percent calculations. The Robson Classification Report Table 34 Table 5: The Robson Classification Report Table 06. The Robson Classification Report Table Setting name: Hospital ABC period: January 2016 to December 2016 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Group Number of CS in group Number of women in group Group Size1 (%) Group CS rate2 (%) Absolute group contribution to overall CS rate3 (%) Relative contribution of group to overall CS rate4 (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total* Total number CS Total number women delivered 100% Overall CS rate Overall CS rate 100% Unclassifiable: Number of cases and % [Number unclassifiable cases / (Total Number women delivered classified + unclassified) X 100] * These totals and percentages come from the data in the table. 1. Group size (%) = n of women in the group / total N women delivered in the hospital x 100 2. Group CS rate (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of women in the group x 100 3. Absolute contribution (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of women delivered in the hospital x 100 4. Relative contribution (%) = n of CS in the group / total N of CS in the hospital x 100 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 35 07. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table “HELPS TO UNDERSTAND THE TYPE OF POPULATION SERVED BY THE HOSPITAL” The interpretation of the Robson Classification Report Table can lead to useful insights into the quality of data collection, the type of population served by the hospital, the CS rates of each group and how each of the individual 10 groups contributes to the overall rate of CS in your setting, and the overall philosophy of care of in a maternity unit. United Nations Photo How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table The main three reasons for differences in sizes of groups or events and outcomes within groups are the following: • Poor data quality (incorrect information in the patient records or errors in retrieving information from the records) • Differences in significant epidemiological characteristics of the populations (age, BMI, etc...) • Differences in clinical practice. Only consider differences in practice after you have evaluated quality and epidemiological variables. GENERAL PRINCIPLES of Interpretation of Robson Report Tables Readers should remember that in settings with low volumes of delivery, the interpretation should take into account the effect of small changes in numbers on the percentages. One of the principles behind the Robson Classification is that no women are excluded from it and before investigating in more detail any one particular group, it is important to assess the sizes of all the 10 groups to ascertain the balance and makeup of the whole obstetric population. Doing this will usually identify any obvious data collection problems (validation) and also identify unique populations. No individual group should be interpreted unless the whole 10 groups are analysed first. The interpretation of the data provided in the Robson Classification Report Table can be facilitated by following a series of steps that we have divided into three main domains: 1) data quality, 2) type of population and 3) caesarean section rates. In the “Data Quality” domain (Table 6) we have a few simple steps that will help to check if you need to improve your data collection. The steps in the “Type of Population” domain (Table 7) will help you understand better the characteristics of the women delivered in your hospital. This information can be used for trend analyses, i.e. to help you see if this population is stable or has been changing over the course of months or years. In the “CS rates” domain (Table 8) you will find steps that will help you to understand and compare the CS rates of each of your 10 groups and identify which groups contribute most to the overall CS rates in your hospital. 36 ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 37 This type of information can be used to analyze changes over time, compare differences between hospitals and to help modify clinical practice to optimize CS rates in specific groups while ensuring good maternal and perinatal outcomes. Safety and quality of care in labour and delivery are ultimately related to maternal and perinatal outcomes, as well as to maternal satisfaction. Ideally, all perinatal outcomes should be analyzed using a standard perinatal classification system and no outcome should be judged in isolation. The Robson Classification can be used as a tool to judge care rather than to recommend care. It is up to the hospital itself to decide what is appropriate care, based on its results and other available evidence (12, 13). The examples in interpretation shown in Tables 6-8 are based on two sources; one was developed by Michael Robson based on his international experience applying the classification since 1990 (9, 14, 15) and the second source is the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO MCS) (16, 17). It should be emphasized that neither of these sources has been formally validated and the CS rates by group presented in this table have not been linked to improved outcomes. In particular, please note that the rates of CS in each of the Robson groups in the WHO MCS refer to an average obtained from over 60 health facilities in low- and middle-income countries and therefore cannot and should not be taken as a recommendation to be followed by everyone around the world. The WHO MCS was a cross- sectional study implemented in over 300 health facilities in 29 countries and included over 314,000 women from Africa, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean region, and Latin America (17, 18). Using data from this survey, a “reference population” was created; this consisted of all the facilities with low CS rates and low intra-partum perinatal mortality. These facilities were assumed to have few unnecessary CS and good maternal and perinatal outcomes (16, 19). The “reference population” included 42,637 women from 66 health facilities in 22 countries. The Multicountry Survey Box presents more detailed information on the WHO MCS and the “reference population”. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table The steps suggested below use the order of the columns presented in Table 5. These rules should be used only after fully reading and understanding the classification. If your data distribution (size of the groups) looks strange, first suspect poor data quality or the possibility of a unique population. No hospital continuously collects completely accurate data. Used on a continuous basis, this system can help to point out errors and ultimately improve the quality of data collection. In the next pages, we present the steps for interpretation of the Robson Classification Report Table The WHO MCS was a cross-sectional study implemented in 359 health facilities in 29 countries. Countries, provinces and health facilities were randomly selected to participate in the WHO MCS through a stratified, multistage cluster sampling strategy. Health facilities were only eligible if they had at least 1000 deliveries per year and had the capacity to provide CS. Between May 2010 and December 2011, 314,623 women from Africa, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean region, and Latin America were recruited (17, 18). For the creation of the “reference population” it was considered that the intra- partum related perinatal mortality (i.e. intrapartum stillbirth plus neonatal deaths that took place in the first postpartum day) was a reasonable indicator of quality of care around the time of birth. It was also assumed that health facilities with low CS rates and low intra-partum perinatal mortality had few unnecessary CS and good maternal and perinatal outcomes and thus this population was selected to serve as “reference” (16). The facilities that had both CS rates and intrapartum perinatal mortality below the percentile 50 in the WHO MCS sample of facilities constituted the “reference population”. This specific cut-off (i.e. percentile 50) was selected because the median is commonly used as a reference for defining what is low or high in sufficiently large samples. Among all the facilities in the WHO MCS, the median (50th percentile) for CS rate was 30% and the median (50th percentile) for the intrapartum related perinatal deaths was 6.8 deaths per 1000 livebirths. Health facilities below these values (i.e. facilities with less than 30% of caesarean births and less than 6.8 intrapartum-related perinatal deaths per 1000 births) constituted the “reference population” that included 42,637 women from 66 health facilities in 22 countries. We used the women delivering in these facilities to construct the Robson Report Table in this section (16). MULTICOUNTRY SURVEY on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO MCS) 38 Assessment of quality of data Assessment of type of obstetric population Assessment of caesarean section rates ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 39 Table 6: Steps to assess quality of data using the Robson Classification Report Table.* 7.1 Steps to assess quality of data Step Interpretation by Robson Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the total numbers of CS and of women delivered in your hospital (last lines of Column 2 and Column 3) These numbers should be identical to the total number of CS and of women delivered in your hospital. NA If these numbers do not match, then data is missing or incorrect. Some women may not have been classified in the Robson groups because of missing variables or were incorrectly classified as to type of delivery. Sometimes multiple pregnancies are counted as babies rather than mothers # 2. Look at the size of Group 9 (Column 4) Singletons in transverse or oblique lie It should be less than 1%. 0.4% If this is > 1%, it is probable that women with breech (or other) presentations have been misclassified as transverse /oblique lie and allocated to this group. As the classification includes all women who have delivered, if any one group is smaller or bigger, look to the other groups which sometimes will show where the misclassification is. 3. Look at the CS rate of Group 9 (Column 5): It should be 100% by convention. 88.6% By convention, if the woman gives birth vaginally by internal version, it should be classify as either cephalic or breech. The CS rate in Group 9 should be 100% * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 40 Table 7: Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* 7.2 Steps to assess type of population Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the size of Groups 1 + Group 2 (Column 4)- Nulliparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic This usually represents 35-42% of obstetric population of most hospitals. 38.1% In settings with high proportion of women who have only one child rather than more than one child, the group of nulliparous women i.e. Groups 1 and 2 tends to be larger. In settings where the opposite is true, the size of Groups 1 + Group 2 will be smaller since most of the population will be represented by multiparous women 2. Look at the size of Groups 3 + 4 (Column 4)- Multiparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic, without previous CS This usually represents about 30% of women. 46.5% In settings with high proportion of women with more than one child rather than only one child, the size of Groups 3 + Group 4 will be higher than 30% (provided they have delivered vaginally). Another reason for a low size of Groups 3 and 4 could be that the size of Group 5 is very high which would be accompanied by a very high overall CS rate. 3. Look at the size of Group 5 (Column 4) Multiparous women ≥37 weeks gestation singleton cephalic with previous CS It is related to the overall CS rate. The size of Group 5 is roughly usually about half of the total CS rate. In settings with low overall CS rates, it is usually under 10%. 7.2% The size of Group 5 is usually related to the overall CS rate. If the size of this group is larger, it means that there has been a high CS rate in the past years in that hospital and mainly in Groups 1 and 2. In places with high CS rates, the size of this group could be > 15%. 4. Look at the size of Groups 6 + 7 (Column 4) Breeches in nulliparous & multiparous women It should be 3-4% 2.7% If the total is much over 4%, the most common reason is usually a high rate of preterm deliveries or a higher proportion of nulliparous women. Therefore look at size of Group 10 (Column 4). If that is over 4-5%, this hypothesis could be true. * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 41 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 5. Look at the size of Groups 8 (Column 4)- Multiples It should be 1.5 -2% 0.9% If it is higher, the hospital is probably tertiary (high risk, referral) or runs a fertilization program. If lower, probably a lot of the twins are referred out especially if the remaining twins have a low caesarean section rate 6. Look at the size of Groups 10 (Column 4)- Preterm cephalic singletons It should be less than 5% in most normal risk settings. 4.2% If it is higher, the hospital is probably tertiary (high risk, referral) or there is a high risk of preterm births in the population that the hospital serves. If, in addition, the CS rate is low in this group, it could represent a preponderance of spontaneous preterm labour. If the CS rate in this group is high, it could suggest more provider initiated pre-labour CS for fetal growth restriction or pre-eclampsia and other pregnancy or medical complications. Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 42 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 7. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 1 versus Group 2 (Divide the size of Group 1 by the size of Group 2, Column 4) Nullipara term cephalic singletons spontaneous labour / Nullipara term cephalic singletons Induced or pre-labour CS It is usually 2:1 or higher Ratio 3.3 If it is lower, suspect poor data quality: nulliparous women who received oxytocin for augmentation (acceleration) of labour (and should be in Group 1) may have been misclassified as “induction” (and incorrectly classified as Group 2). If data collection is correct, a lower ratio may indicate that you have a high induction/prelabour CS issue which may indicate a high risk population in nulliparous women and are likely therefore to have a high CS rate. Additional information on pre-labour stillbirths would be the next question to ask. On the contrary, if the ratio is very high, you may want to look at your pre-labour stillbirth rate in this population which may indicate that you are not inducing enough. Or alternatively you may have a very low risk population Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth # For Unclassifiable cases, see recommendations in 3.d. ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 43 Step Robson guideline Example: MCS population** Further Interpretation 8. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 3 versus Group 4. (Divide the size of Group 3 by the size of Group 4, Column 4): Multipara without previous CS, term cephalic singletons spontaneous labour / Multipara without previous CS, term cephalic singletons induced or pre-labour CS It is always higher than the ratio of Group 1/Group 2 in the same institution, i.e, larger than 2:1. This is very reliable finding in confirming data quality and culture of the organization. Ratio 6.3 If it is lower, suspect poor data quality: multiparous women who received oxytocin for “augmentation” of labour (and should be in Group 3) may have been misclassified as “induction” (and incorrectly classified as Group 4). A low ratio (due to large Group 4b) may suggest a poor previous maternal experience in vaginal delivery and a request for pre-labour CS in multiparous women. Another explanation may be pre-labour CS done to perform tubal ligation (common in settings where family planning is not easily available). 9. Look at the Ratio of the size of Group 6 versus Group 7. (Divide the size of Group 6 by the size of Group 7, Column 4) Nullipara breech / Multipara breech It is usually a 2:1 because breeches are more frequent in nulliparous women than in multiparous women. Ratio 0.8 If the ratio is different, suspect either unusual nullipara/multipara ratio or inaccurate data collection. Table 7 (Continued): Steps to assess type of population using the Robson Classification Report Table.* * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates In the next page we present some suggestions on the steps to follow in order to interpret the CS rates in the Robson Report Table. Please keep in mind the CS rates mentioned in the next pages have not been validated against outcomes and should not be taken as a recommendation. Merely analyzed in relation to other hospitals, CS rates in each group will vary in different hospitals and settings depending on their capacity / level of complexity, the epidemiological characteristics of the population served and the local clinical management guidelines, among other factors. Ultimately, the use of the classification over time will help each individual hospital or setting identify the CS rate (or range of CS rates) that is associated with the best outcomes in each of the 10 groups. 44 WHO/PAHO ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 45 Table 8: Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 1. Look at the CS rate for Group 1 (Column 5) Rates under 10% are achievable 9.8% This rate can only be interpreted accurately when you have considered the ratio of the sizes of Groups 1 and 2. In principle, the higher the ratio of size of Groups 1:2, the higher the likelihood of both the CS rate in Group 1 and 2 being individually higher. However, the overall CS rate in Groups 1 and 2 combined may still be low or the same. 2. Look at the CS rate for Group 2 (Column 5): Consistently around 20-35% 39.9% CS rates in Group 2 reflect the size and rates in 2a and 2b. If size of Group 2b is large, the overall CS rates in Group 2 is also going to be large. If Group 2b is relatively small, then high rates of CS in Group 2 may indicate poor success rates for induction or poor choice of women to induce and consequently a high rate of CS in Group 2a. Remember the general principle of not interpreting one single subgroup on its own without knowing what is left out. The interpretation of group 2a requires knowing the relative sizes of Groups 1 and 2b. 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 46 Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 3. Look at the CS rate for Group 3 (Column 5) Normally, no higher than 3.0%. 3.0% In units with higher CS rates in this group, this may be due to poor data collection. It is possible that women with previous scars (Group 5) were incorrectly classified as Group 3. Other possible reasons for high rates could be for example to do tubal ligation in settings with poor access to contraception, or maternal request. 4. Look at the CS rate for Group 4 (Column 5) It rarely should be higher than 15% 23.7% CS rates in Group 4 reflect the size and rates in 4a and 4b. If size of Group 4b is large, the overall CS rates in Group 4 is also going to be high. If Group 4b is relatively small, then high rates of CS in Group 4 may indicate poor success rates for induction or poor choice of women to induce and consequently a high rate of CS in Group 4a. Poor data collection could also be a reason for high CS rates in Group 4; for example due to inclusion of women with previous scars in this group (when they should be in Group 5). Lastly, a high CS rate in Group 4 may reflect a high maternal request for CS even if these women have delivered their first pregnancy vaginally. This may be because of a previously traumatic or prolonged labour or to do tubal ligation in settings with poor access to contraception. Table 8 (Continued): Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* 7.3 Steps to assess caesarean section rates * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 47 Step Robson guideline MCS reference population** Further Interpretation 5. Look at the CS rate for Group 5 (Column 5) Rates of 50-60% are considered appropriate provided you have good maternal and perinatal outcome. 74.4% If rates are higher, this is possibly due to a large Group 5.2 (women with 2 or more previous CS). This could also be due to a policy of scheduling pre-labour CS for all women with 1 previous scar without attempting a trial of labour. 6. Look at the CS rate for Group 8 (Column 5) It is usually around 60%. 57.7% Variations will depend on the type of twin pregnancy and the ratio of nulliparous/multiparous with or without a previous scar. 7. Look at the CS rate in Group 10 (Column 5): In most populations it is usually around 30% 25.1% If higher than 30%, it is usually due to many cases of high risk pregnancies (e.g. fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia) that will need preterm pre-labour CS. If lower than 30%, it suggests a relatively higher rate of preterm spontaneous labour and hence a lower overall CS rate. Table 8 (Continued): Steps to assess caesarean section rates using the Robson Report Table.* 8. Look at the relative contribution of Groups 1, 2 and 5 to the overall CS rate (add the contribution of each of these groups in Column 7) These three groups combined normally contribute to 2/3 (66%) of all CS performed in most hospitals. These three groups combined contributed to 63.7% of all CS These three groups should be the focus of attention if the hospital is trying to lower the overall CS rate. The higher the overall CS rate, the greater the focus should be in Group 1. 9. Look at the absolute contribution of Group 5 to the overall CS rate (Column 7) This group was responsible for 28.9% of all CS If it is very high, this may indicate that in previous years, CS rates in Groups 1 and 2 have been high and it is worth exploring further. * Columns number refer to Table 5. ** MCS reference population was the population of the MCS with relatively low CS rates and, at the same time, with good outcomes of labour and childbirth How to interpret the Robson Classification Report Table 08. Barriers and facilitators to implement the classification “DESIGNATE A PERSON TO BE IN CHARGE OF ORGANIZING DATA COLLECTION” The first step in implementing the classification is to designate a person if possible (clinician, nurse, clerk, manager or other) to be in charge of organizing data collection and producing the Robson Report Tables at weekly or monthly intervals. This person can then work with the staff in the labour and delivery wards and coordinate efforts to ensure that all newly admitted patients have all the necessary obstetric variables collected in their record, to allow their classification into one of the 10 Robson groups. According to users, the main strengths of the classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility. However, missing data, misclassification of women and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification may cause problems (11). 48 UNICEF/Asselin ROBSON CLASSIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL 49 The Robson Classification is not free of challenges and difficulties. The main difficulties pointed by users were: Lack of definition or consensus on the core variables used in the classification: For example, it is necessary to reach an agreement on when labour starts and how to clarify the difference between augmentation (acceleration) versus induction of labour. We therefore recommend that each hospital creates a clear written definition (a glossary) of the variables that may vary in different settings (such as spontaneous onset of labour or induction) and add these definitions as a footnote of the Robson Report Table (see Table 5). Quality of the data used to classify women: If the data used is unreliable, the real value of recommendations based on the classification is questionable. Ensuring good quality of the data should not be taken for granted and it can be challenging even in high- resource settings. Misclassification of women in wrong groups: This is a real possibility however you collect your data. In all settings, data collectors need to be carefully trained and audited periodically, for example by another person reviewing and re-classifying a sample of records from women in each of the 10 groups. By looking carefully at the Report Table and following the interpretation rules, users can find important clues about possible misclassification of specific groups. Cases that cannot be classified due to missing data: The size of “Unclassifiable” category is an important indicator of the quality of the data in the individual patient records. The lack of validation of the interpretation rules: A simple set of rules for interpretation was provided by Robson (14) to help users explore all the information provided by this classification, especially when using it to compare data between different settings or changes over time. However, these rules still need to be validated to ensure that the figures proposed (especially regarding expected CS rates per groups) are associated with good maternal and perinatal outcomes. We strongly encourage users of the classification to collect their own data on maternal as well as perinatal morbidity and mortality per Robson group and analyze these data regularly. Barriers and facilitators to implement the Classification References 09. References 51 09. References 1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343. 2. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson Classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. 6. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short- term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC medicine. 2010;8:71. 7. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-19. 8. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. Commentary: WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667- 70 9. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39. 10. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566. 11. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A. Systematic review of the Robson Classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6). 15. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179-94. 17. Souza JP, GülmezogluAM, VogelJ, CarroliG, LumbiganonP, Qureshi Z, et al. Movingbeyondessentialinterventionsfor reductionof maternal mortality(the WHO MulticountrySurveyonMaternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectionalstudy. Lancet. 2013;18(38):1747-55. 12. Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10- Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;131:S23–S27. 16. Souza JP, Betrán AP, Dumont A, de Muncio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123:427–436 18. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, WHOMCS Research Group. The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:286. 3. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (WHO/RHR/15.02). 4. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux- Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprodcutive Health. 2015;12:57. 5. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375:490-9. 19. Robson M. A global reference for CS at health facilities? Yes, but there is work to do. BJOG. 2016;123(3):437. 13. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10- Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;135(2):232-3. 14.Robson M, HartiganL, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best PractRes ClinObstetGynaecol. 2013;27:297-308. References 56Design and layout: Prodigioso Volcán

Manuale di Implementazione CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON

Manuale di Implementazione CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON Classificazione di Robson: Manuale di implementazione This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). The Manual was translated by Maria Matta, student, Harvey Course of Medicine and Surgery, Pavia University, Italy. It was revised by Alessandra Meloni, obstetrician and gynaecologist, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria - Cagliari, Italy This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition. Suggested citation. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Introduzione 01 Scopo e destinatari di questo manuale Domande frequenti su come classificare le donne Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson 02 03 04 05 La Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 06 Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson Barriere e fattori favorenti l’implementazione della Classificazione 07 08 Bibliografia 09 La Classificazione di Robson 3 7 9 21 28 32 35 48 50 Indice Esempio della Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson con traduzione: www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/

01. Introduzione “L’AUMENTO DEI TAGLI CESAREI È UN RILEVANTE PROBLEMA DI SALUTE PUBBLICA” Introduzione Negli ultimi decenni, si è verificato un progressivo aumento nel tasso di tagli cesarei (TC) nella maggior parte dei paesi sebbene i fattori che influenzano questo fenomeno non siano ancora del tutto compresi(1-2). L’incremento del tasso di tagli cesarei è un problema di salute pubblica ed è anche al centro di numerosi dibattiti dovuti ai potenziali rischi materni e perinatali, all’iniquità nell’accesso alle cure e ai costi associati a questo aumento (3-7). Per comprendere i fattori che hanno determinato questo fenomeno e per proporre e implementare misure efficaci per la riduzione o l’incremento dei TC quando utile, è necessario disporre di uno strumento in grado di monitorare e confrontare i TC in uno stesso punto nascita nel tempo e tra punti nascita diversi. Tradizionalmente abbiamo monitorizzato il tasso di cesarei, a livello di singola struttura, utilizzando le percentuali complessive di parti con TC. Le variazioni in questo “tasso di TC complessivo” nel tempo o tra diverse strutture sono difficili da interpretare e confrontare a causa di differenze intrinseche agli ospedali e alle infrastrutture (es. la distinzione tra livelli di assistenza, primo vs secondo livello), differenze nelle caratteristiche della popolazione ostetrica (“case-mix”) osservata (es. percentuale di donne con precedenti cesarei) e differenze dei protocolli clinici adottati (es. condizioni per l’induzione al travaglio o TC pre-travaglio). Idealmente, dovrebbe esistere un sistema di classificazione che renda possibile monitorare e confrontare il tasso di TC al livello di ogni struttura in maniera standardizzata, affidabile e orientata al cambiamento (3, 8-10). 3 Questo sistema di classificazione dovrebbe essere applicabile a livello internazionale e dovrebbe anche essere utile ai medici, alle amministrazioni sanitarie locali e centrali e alle donne stesse. Tale sistema dovrebbe essere semplice, rilevante dal punto di vista clinico, comprensibile, replicabile e verificabile (10,11). La mancata disponibilità di un sistema simile riconosciuto a livello internazionale ha contribuito ad alimentare controversie e a mantenere luoghi comuni relativi alle possibili cause dell’aumento nei tassi di TC, così come riguardo i possibili rischi e benefici di tale aumento. Figura 1: Ultimi dati disponibili sui tassi di TC per paese (dal 2005 in poi). Da: The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014 (1). 4 MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 5 Dal momento che questo sistema può essere usato in modo prospettico, le sue categorie sono totalmente inclusive e mutualmente esclusive, ogni donna che partorisce può essere immediatamente classificata, sulla base di alcune caratteristiche essenziali che sono comunemente raccolte di routine alla nascita, in tutto il mondo. La classificazione è semplice, solida, riproducibile, clinicamente rilevante e applicabile in modo prospettico. Permette il confronto e l'analisi dei tassi di tagli cesarei all'interno e tra i gruppi di donne. Persino prima di un sostegno ufficiale da parte di organizzazioni internazionali o dalle linee guida che in modo formale ne hanno raccomandato l’uso nel 2015, la Classificazione di Robson è stata prontamente adottata, e in costante aumento, da molti paesi di tutto il mondo. Nel 2014, l' OMS ha condotto un'altra revisione sistematica delle esperienze relative all’utilizzo della Classificazione di Robson, per valutare i pro e i contro della sua adozione, implementazione, interpretazione e per identificare ostacoli, fattori facilitanti e potenziali modifiche(11). Questa revisione è comprensiva di 73 pubblicazioni provenienti da 31 paesi che riportavano l'adozione della Classificazione di Robson tra il 2000 e il 2003. Secondo gli utilizzatori, la maggior parte dei quali operatori sanitari, il punto di forza di questa classificazione è la sua semplicità, solidità, affidabilità e flessibilità (11). Peraltro gli stessi utilizzatori hanno riportato che dati mancanti, la possibilità di compiere errori di classificazione delle donne, e la mancanza di definizioni o consensi su variabili fondamentali all'interno della classificazione potessero rappresentare ostacoli alla sua implementazione e al suo utilizzo. Diversi autori hanno creato e proposto vari tipi di sistemi di classificazione dei TC da usare nei punti nascita per scopi differenti, con l’obiettivo complessivo di offrire un modello efficiente e standardizzato per analizzare il ricorso al taglio cesareo (10). Nel 2011 l'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità (OMS) ha condotto una revisione sistematica che ha identificato 27 sistemi diversi per la classificazione dei TC. Queste classificazioni consideravano "a chi" (quale donna), "perché" (per quale indicazione), "quando" (in quale condizione di urgenza), così come "dove", "quando" e "da chi" fosse stato eseguito il TC (10). Questa revisione ha concluso che in generale le classificazioni basate su “quali donne”, e la classificazione in 10 Gruppi in particolare, rispondevano al meglio alle attuali esigenze internazionali e locali. La classificazione dei 10 Gruppi (conosciuta anche come la TGCS: Ten Group Classification System o “Classificazione di Robson”) è stata creata per identificare in modo prospettico gruppi di donne ben definiti, clinicamente rilevanti per valutare le differenze nel ricorso al TC all'interno di questi gruppi di donne relativamente omogenei (9). A differenza di classificazioni basate sulle indicazioni al TC, la Classificazione di Robson è per "tutte le donne" che partoriscono in determinate strutture (es. un punto nascita o una regione) e non solo per le donne che partoriscono con taglio cesareo. È una classificazione perinatale completa. Introduzione MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON “L'OMS propone la Classificazione di Robson come standard globale per la definizione, il monitoraggio e il confronto dei tassi di tagli cesarei all'interno degli stessi punti nascita nel tempo, e tra punti nascita diversi” Dichiarazione dell'OMS sulla Classificazione di Robson Ad ottobre 2014, l’OMS ha convocato un gruppo di esperti. Dopo aver analizzato le evidenze, il gruppo ha proposto l'utilizzo della Classificazione di Robson a livello di ogni struttura per stabilire un punto comune al fine di confrontare dati materni e perinatali all'interno di ogni struttura in tempi diversi, e tra diverse strutture (3,8). Gli esperti hanno inoltre deciso di adottare il nome "Classificazione di Robson" come nome ufficiale di questa classificazione. 6 MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 02. Scopo e destinatari di questo manuale “QUESTO MANUALE È STATO CREATO PER SUPPORTARE LE STRUTTURE SANITARIE” Questo manuale è stato creato per assistere le strutture sanitare nell'adozione e nell'utilizzo della Classificazione di Robson. È indirizzato ai professionisti sanitari responsabili delle donne ricoverate per il parto e agli amministratori responsabili della gestione delle strutture in cui le nascite avvengono. 7 Il manuale presenta un approccio standard per implementare l’impiego e interpretazione di questa classificazione. Hanna-Truscott/Midwives for Haiti, Photoshare Scopo e destinatari di questo manuale L’OMS ritiene che l’uso della classificazione di Robson sarà utile alle strutture sanitarie per: • Identificare e analizzare i gruppi di donne che contribuiscono in misura maggiore e minore al tasso complessivo di TC. • Confrontare l’assistenza in questi gruppi di donne con altre strutture che hanno risultati cui tendere e considerare possibili modifiche nella pratica clinica. • Determinare l’efficacia di strategie di intervento finalizzate ad ottimizzare il ricorso al TC. • Determinare la qualità delle cure e della gestione nella pratica clinica dall’analisi dei risultati per ogni gruppo. • Determinare la qualità dei dati raccolti e incrementare la consapevolezza dello staff riguardo l’importanza di tali dati, la loro interpretazione e il loro utilizzo. COSA può fare la Classificazione di Robson per voi? Questo manuale: • Aiuta a capire e implementare la Classificazione di Robson e costruire la tabella con le 10 classi utilizzando i tuoi dati. • Spiega le variabili e le definizioni usate per costruire la tabella con le 10 classi, e come utilizzarla. • Evidenzia le difficoltà che si potrebbero incontrare, condivide esperienze ed esempi utili per chi utilizza la classificazione. • Riporta domande frequenti che insorgono durante la classificazione delle donne e le rispettive risposte. 8 MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 03. La Classificazione di Robson “OGNI DONNA RICOVERATA PER IL PARTO IN QUALSIASI PUNTO NASCITA, PUÒ ESSERE CLASSIFICATA IN UNO DEI 10 GRUPPI” Il sistema classifica tutte le donne ricoverate per il parto in uno dei 10 gruppi che sono mutualmente esclusivi e completamente inclusivi (ogni donna può essere inclusa). Questo significa che, basandosi su alcune fondamentali variabili ostetriche, ogni donna in qualsiasi struttura può essere classificata in uno, e soltanto uno, dei 10 gruppi e che nessuna donna verrà esclusa dalla classificazione. 9 La classificazione di Robson è per "tutte le donne" che partoriscono in una situazione specifica e non solo per le donne che partoriscono con un taglio cesareo. WHO/Yoshi Shimizu La classificazione di Robson 3.1 I 10 gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 10 MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 3.2 Definizione delle variabili fondamentali Tabella 1: Variabili Ostetriche della Classificazione di Robson I 10 gruppi si basano su 6 variabili ostetriche fondamentali; queste sono le uniche informazioni necessarie a classificare ogni donna (Tabella 1) Variabili Ostetriche Parità • Nullipara • Multipara Pregressi TC • Si (uno o più) • No Inizio del travaglio • Spontaneo • Indotto • Asssenza di travaglio (TC pre-travaglio) Numero di feti • Singolo • Multiplo Età gestazionale • Prematuro (meno di 37 settimane) • A termine (37 settimane o più) Situazione e presentazione fetale • Cefalica • Podalica • Trasversa In linea di principio, dato che queste variabili vengono raccolte di routine, e usate nella gestione clinica delle partorienti, è possibile ottenere questi dati dalla cartella clinica di ogni donna. 11 La classificazione di Robson 3.2 Definizione delle variabili fondamentali Tabella 2: Definizione delle variabili fondamentali utilizzate nella Classificazione di Robson Variabili Ostetriche Definizione Osservazioni Parità* Numero di parti precedenti al ricovero per il parto Nascita di un bambino di peso ≥ 500g o ≥ 22 settimane**, vivo o morto, con o senza malformazioni, in qualsiasi modo sia nato. Il precedente numero di aborti spontanei e no, non conta. Nullipara Nessun parto precedente Questo non è necessariamente equivalente a primigravida. Per esempio, una donna alla sua 4 gravidanza con 3 precedenti aborti spontanei (G4 PO A3) sarà una donna nullipara ed apparterrà a questo gruppo. Multipara Almeno un parto precedente nascita di un bambino ≥ 500g o ≥ 22 settimane**, vivo o morto, con o senza malformazioni, in qualsiasi modo sia nato Precedenti TC* Numero di TC precedenti al ricovero Altri tipi di cicatrici uterine (es.miomectomia) non dovrebbero essere considerati e non inclusi come precedenti TC durante la classificazione delle donne Nessuno Tutti i parti precedenti erano vaginali Uno o più Almeno uno dei parti precedenti è avvenuto mediante TC ma potrebbe comunque aver avuto uno o più parti vaginali 12 *La definizione non considera la gravidanza attuale. La donna dovrebbe essere classificata prima del parto. Per esempio, una donna in attesa del suo primo figlio dovrebbe essere classificata come nullipara, anche se i documenti sono compilati dopo il parto; non dovrebbe essere classificata come multipara. Similmente, una donna con due precedenti parti vaginali e ammessa a un TC elettivo dovrebbe essere classificata come "senza precedenti TC", anche se i documenti vengono compilati dopo la nascita del terzo figlio. ** Questa definizione potrebbe variare a seconda dei posti. Chi utilizza la classificazione dovrebbe specificare la propria definizione di "nascita" (ossia il minimo di settimane di gestazione e il peso alla nascita) e, se differisce da quello qui proposto, riportarlo come nota a fondo pagina nella loro tabella con i 10 gruppi. Non è consigliato, ma se gli utilizzatori decidono di escludere i nati morti e i feti malformati dalla classificazione, anche questo dovrebbe essere riportato nella nota. MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON Inizio del travaglio Modalità di insorgenza del travaglio e del parto nella gravidanza attuale, indipendentemente da come fosse originariamente pianificato Questo dovrebbe essere basato sull’anamnesi, l'esame clinico e le decisioni degli operatori sanitari in seguito al ricovero in sala travaglio/parto. Spontaneo Prima del parto, la donna era in travaglio spontaneo. Nullipare o multipare con un TC programmato (pre-travaglio) che giungono in travaglio spontaneo appartengono a questo gruppo. Questo gruppo include anche donne che sono entrate in travaglio spontaneo e che hanno successivamente ricevuto ossitocina o amniorexi per accelerare il travaglio. Indotto Una volta ricoverata, la donna non è entrata in travaglio spontaneo ed è stato quindi indotto Qualsiasi metodo per l'induzione è valido, inclusi amniorexi, misoprostolo, ossitocina, palloncino intracervicale di Foley, laminaria o altri. Donne che entrano in travaglio spontaneamente e poi ricevono ossitocina o amniorexi per correggere distocie o accelerare il travaglio non appartengono a questo gruppo e sono classificate come travaglio spontaneo. TC pre-travaglio Donne non in travaglio per le quali è stata presa la decisione di espletare il parto mediante TC Casi di induzione o travaglio spontaneo che alla fine hanno partorito con TC non appartengono a questa categoria 13 Variabili Ostetriche Definizione Osservazioni Tabella 2 (Continua): Definizione delle variabili fondamentali utilizzate nella Classificazione di Robson Numero di feti Numero di feti al momento del ricovero per il parto Incluse morti fetali diagnosticate dopo 22 settimane o 500g** Singolo Un feto Gravidanze gemellari con decesso fetale precedente alle 22 settimane o ai 500g dovrebbe essere contato come gravidanza singola Multiplo Più di un feto Inclusi casi di gravidanza multipla in cui uno o più feti muoiono dopo 22 settimane o 500g**. ** Questa definizione potrebbe variare a seconda dei posti. Chi utilizza la classificazione dovrebbe specificare la propria definizione di "nascita" (ossia il minimo di settimane di gestazione e il peso alla nascita) e, se differisce da quello qui proposto, riportarlo come nota a fondo pagina nella loro tabella di resoconto. Non è consigliato, ma se gli utilizzatori decidono di escludere i nati morti e i feti malformati dalla classificazione, anche questo dovrebbe essere riportato nella nota. La classificazione di Robson MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON Situazione e presentazione fetale La situazione/presentazione fetale finale prima di decidere il tipo di parto o prima della diagnosi di travaglio Donne ricoverate con feto podalico che sono sottoposte a rivolgimento per manovre esterne e che partoriscono un feto cefalico devono essere considerate come cefaliche. Donne con un feto morto in situazione trasversa che subiscono un rivolgimento interno prima del parto devono essere considerate come podaliche. Cefalica La testa fetale è la parte presentata. Vertice, faccia o fronte, o presentazioni composte della testa (prolasso della mano) devono essere considerate qui. Podice Natiche o un piede o due piedi sono la parte presentata Tutte le varietà di podice (natiche, completa e piedi). Situazione obliqua o transversa L’asse longitudinale fetale è perpendicolare o obliquo all'asse longitudinale materno La parte presentata è la spalla o il braccio del feto, o non si apprezza alcuna parte fetale. 14 Variabili Ostetriche Definizione Osservazioni Tabella 2 (Continua): Definizione delle variabili fondamentali utilizzate nella Classificazione di Robson Età gestazionale Età gestazionale al momento del parto Basato sulla stima migliore disponibile (data ultima mestruazione o ecografia precoce) o esame neonatale o definizioni usate nella vostra struttura Termine 37 settimane o più Prematuro Meno di 37 settimane MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON La classificazione di Robson dovrebbe essere considerata come un punto di partenza comune per un sistema di classificazione perinatale che può essere ulteriormente sviluppato. Ciascuno dei 10 gruppi potrebbe aver bisogno di essere ulteriormente suddiviso o alcuni gruppi potrebbero aver bisogno di essere considerati insieme. Inoltre, maggiori dettagli quali le indicazioni al taglio cesareo o la morbilità neonatale possono essere aggiunti e analizzati all'interno dei diversi gruppi. Altri eventi e risultati correlati al travaglio e al parto possono essere analizzati all'interno dei gruppi (es. ossitocina o variabili epidemiologiche come l'età o l'indice di massa corporea). Inoltre, esistono diverse definizioni chiave in ostetricia, protocolli o procedure che non sono incluse nella classificazione ma che dovrebbero essere tenute in considerazione durante l'interpretazione dei risultati. Queste potrebbero essere specifiche di ogni struttura e alle volte comuni in diversi paesi. Includono, per esempio, i criteri usati per la diagnosi di travaglio (grado di appianamento e dilatazione cervicale), linee guida usate per la gestione del travaglio incluse la rottura artificiale delle membrane, regime di somministrazione dell’ossitocina utilizzato per l'accelerazione e l'induzione al travaglio, diagnosi e cura per l'arresto del travaglio e la distocia, tecniche di monitoraggio fetale, analgesia e l’assistenza “one to one” durante il travaglio. 15 La definizione di “nascita” può variare a seconda del paese e delle situazioni. Mentre la maggioranza dei paesi con alto reddito considerano nascita con possibilità di sopravvivenza quando i bambini pesano almeno 500g o con epoca gestazionale di almeno 20 o 22 settimane di gestazione, molti paesi utilizzano altri limiti. Per esempio, la soglia di vitalità in molti paesi è con un peso alla nascita di ≥ 1000g e ≥ 28 settimane di gestazione. Per comparare le 10 classi di Robson tra vari paesi e all'interno degli stessi nel tempo, è importante che chi usa la classificazione dia una definizione chiara dei propri limiti di peso alla nascita e di settimane di gestazione. Ciò dovrebbe inoltre essere aggiunto in una nota a fondo pagina nella propria Tabella con i 10 gruppi. COME definire la nascita La classificazione di Robson 3.3 Suddivisione dei 10 gruppi Molti utilizzatori della classificazione di Robson hanno suggerito delle suddivisioni dei 10 gruppi. La suddivisione di certi gruppi (es. gruppo 2, 4 e 5) potrebbe aver più senso di altri, ma questo può variare da posto a posto. L'obiettivo della suddivisione è di promuovere ulteriormente l'uniformità e l'omogeneità dei gruppi stratificando le donne all'interno del gruppo secondo certe caratteristiche rilevanti. Questo può essere particolarmente utile durante la pianificazione dell'implementazione di interventi clinici in specifici sottogruppi. L'importanza e la potenziale utilità di queste suddivisioni dipendono dalla dimensione dei gruppi nel contesto in cui la classificazione verrà utilizzata. Tuttavia, è importante ricordare che l'analisi di qualsiasi suddivisione presa singolarmente potrebbe confondere se non viene considerato anche il resto della classificazione. Per questo motivo si raccomanda di prendere prima familiarità con l'analisi dei 10 gruppi e solo in seguito considerare i sottogruppi. Altrimenti i dati potrebbero essere male interpretati. La tabella 3 presenta la Classificazione di Robson con le suddivisioni più comuni. 16 WHO/PAHO MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON Tabella 3. La classificazione di Robson con suddivisioni 3.3 Suddivisioni comuni dei 10 gruppi Gruppo Popolazione ostetrica 1 Donne nullipare con una gravidanza singola cefalica, ≥37 settimane di gestazione in travaglio spontaneo 2 Donne nullipare con una gravidanza singola cefalica, ≥37 settimane di gestazione con travaglio indotto o TC prima del travaglio 2a Travaglio indotto 2b TC pre-travaglio 3 Donne multipare senza precedenti TC, con una gravidanza cefalica singola, ≥37 settimane di gestazione in travaglio spontaneo 4 Donne multipare senza precedenti TC, con una gravidanza cefalica singola, ≥37 settimane di gestazione con travaglio indotto o TC pre-travaglio 4a Travaglio indotto 4b TC pre-travaglio 5 Tutte le donne multipare con almeno un TC precedente, con una gravidanza cefalica singola, ≥37 settimane di gestazione 5.1 Con un TC precedente 5.2 Con due o più TC precedenti 6 Tutte le donne nullipare con una gravidanza singola podalica 7 Tutte le donne multipare con una gravidanza singola podalica incluse donne con precedenti TC 8 Tutte le donne con gravidanze multiple incluse donne con precedenti TC 9 Tutte le donne con una gravidanza singola con situazione trasversa o obliqua, incluse donne con precedenti TC 10 Tutte le donne con una gravidanza cefalica singola <37 settimane di gestazione, incluse donne con precedenti TC. 17 La classificazione di Robson Suddivisioni dei gruppi 2 e 4: 3.3 Suddivisioni comuni dei 10 gruppi Questi gruppi si riferiscono rispettivamente alle donne nullipare e multipare senza precedenti TC, con una gravidanza singola, a termine, in posizione cefalica e senza travaglio spontaneo (vedi Tabella 3). Questi gruppi includono due sottocategorie distinte e reciprocamente esclusive, chiamate: 2a o 4a Donne nullipare e multipare, rispettivamente, in travaglio indotto (utilizzando un qualsiasi metodo, come misoprostolo, ossitocina, amniorexi, o catetere intracervicale di Foley o altri) che hanno avuto un parto vaginale o cesareo. 2b o 4b Donne nullipare o multipare, rispettivamente, che hanno partorito con un TC pre-travaglio. Dal momento che tutte le donne in questi sottogruppi hanno partorito con un TC, i tassi di TC in questi sottogruppi saranno sempre del 100%. Dal momento che i gruppi 2 e 4 possono rappresentare una grossa porzione della popolazione ostetrica in molti ospedali, queste sottocategorie sono importanti per capire come le differenze nella pratica clinica (i tassi di travaglio indotto o TC pre- travaglio) contribuiscano ai tassi di TC nelle donne multipare e nullipare senza TC precedenti, così come ai tassi di TC nei diversi ospedali. 18 Inoltre, i tassi di TC nei sottogruppi 2a e 4a (travaglio indotto in donne nullipare e multipare, rispettivamente) possono anche essere usati per definire e confrontare il successo delle linee guida per l'induzione in diversi ospedali o nello stesso ospedale nel tempo. MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON Suddivisione del gruppo 5: 3.3 Suddivisione comuni dei 10 gruppi Il Gruppo 5 include tutte le donne multipare con almeno un TC precedente, con una gravidanza singola, a termine, in posizione cefalica. Nella pratica ostetrica attuale, il Gruppo 5 può essere molto importante nei diversi punti nascita poiché esiste un numero crescente di donne con precedente TC e dunque le dimensioni di questo gruppo potrebbero rivelarsi piuttosto significative. Dato che il tasso di TC in questo gruppo è solitamente alto, il Gruppo 5 può rappresentare un importante contributo al numero totale di TC in queste situazioni. Il Gruppo 5 include due sottocategorie distinte e che si escludono reciprocamente, ossia: 5.1 donne multipare con un solo TC precedente 5.2 donne multipare due o più TC precedenti Date le differenze nella gestione clinica di questi due tipi di donne, queste sottocategorie comuni dovrebbero essere riportate separatamente nella classificazione, come 5.1 e 5.2. L'utilità di queste sottocategorie dipenderà dalla dimensione effettiva del Gruppo 5 in uno specifico contesto. In molti paesi di alto e medio reddito dove la dimensione del Gruppo 5 sta diventando importante, tali sottocategorie saranno più utili e apprezzate piuttosto che in posti dove il gruppo 5 rappresenta solo una piccola porzione della popolazione ostetrica. 19 La classificazione di Robson 3.4 Casi con variabili mancanti (casi inclassificabili) I 10 gruppi sono basati su caratteristiche ostetriche fondamentali che sono raccolte di routine per la maggior parte delle gravidanze al momento del ricovero e del parto. Nei casi in cui una o più di queste variabili fondamentali manchi o sia illeggibile nella cartella clinica della paziente, non sarà possibile classificare la donna in nessuno dei 10 gruppi. Questo "gruppo inclassificabile" di donne dovrebbe essere riportato come parte della Tabella della Classificazione di Robson ma posta preferibilmente come nota a fondo pagina. È molto importante riportare questo gruppo e la sua dimensione (numero assoluto e percentuale in rapporto ai parti totali) perché è un indicatore della qualità dei dati negli ospedali. È inoltre importante valutare quali siano esattamente le variabili che mancano in questo gruppo di donne, in modo da migliorare la futura raccolta dati. 20 Nel 2017, l'ospedale A ha avuto un totale di 2500 parti e 250 (10%) non possono essere classificati in nessuno dei gruppi di Robson. Una volta riviste queste cartelle cliniche, ci si è accorti che le informazioni mancanti erano per la maggior parte riguardanti la posizione fetale (n=200/250 casi). In questo ospedale, sarebbe relativamente semplice ridurre il numero di casi inclassificabili inserendo adeguatamente le informazioni sulla posizione fetale, facilmente rilevabili dalle cartelle cliniche delle pazienti. D'altro canto, nell'ospedale B, che ha 7500 parti all'anno, ci sono stati 225 casi inclassificabili (3%) e la variabile mancante più frequente è la modalità di insorgenza del travaglio e la modalità del parto (es. incluso il TC pre- travaglio) (n=218/225 casi). Sembrerebbe che gli amministratori dell'ospedale B abbiano bisogno di meno sforzi per migliorare la raccolta dei dati, poiché il gruppo di casi inclassificabili è in proporzione minore rispetto a quello nell'ospedale A. Tuttavia, le informazioni mancanti all'interno dell'ospedale B (inizio del travaglio e parto) sono meno oggettive rispetto alle informazioni mancanti nell'ospedale A (posizione fetale). Per ridurre il numero di casi inclassificabili dovuti a informazioni mancanti sull'inizio del travaglio, si dovrebbe considerare l'aggiunta di un nuovo campo per raccogliere queste informazioni specifiche in ciascun caso. Per esempio, ad un certo punto nella raccolta di dati prima del parto, per tutte le donne deve essere ottenuta una delle tre opzioni: travaglio spontaneo, travaglio indotto o TC pre-travaglio. Tutto il personale del reparto di Ostetricia dovrebbe concordare la definizione di travaglio spontaneo e assicurarsi che tutti gli operatori sanitari capiscano e implementino questa definizione durante la compilazione dei moduli. Utilità di quantificare e valutare i Casi Inclassificabili MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 21 04. Domande frequenti su come classificare le donne DOMANDE SU… Nelle prossime pagine sono presenti le risposte a domande comuni su come classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson. Domande frequenti su come classificare le donne D 1: Ho appena fatto un TC a causa di sofferenza fetale, a una nullipara, in travaglio (8cm) con una gravidanza singola, cefalica a termine. Dovrei classificarla nel Gruppo 1 o 5? R 1: Questa donna dovrebbe essere classificata nel gruppo 1. La classificazione non tiene conto del parto attuale. Perciò, la donna è nullipara e non multipara con precedenti TC. D 3: Come classifico una donna alla sua quarta gravidanza, con tre precedenti aborti spontanei (a 8, 12 e 14 settimane), ricoverata in travaglio spontaneo a 38 settimane, con una gravidanza singola cefalica? Appartiene al Gruppo 1 o 3? R 3: Appartiene al Gruppo 1 perché è nullipara (ossia non ha mai partorito un bambino che pesi ≥ 500g o che abbia ≥ 22 settimane di gestazione). D 4: Una donna nullipara con una storia di miomectomia due anni fa, viene ricoverata per un TC pre-travaglio a 38 settimane, con una gravidanza singola cefalica. Dovrebbe essere classificata nel gruppo 2 o nel gruppo 5? R 4: Questa donna appartiene al Gruppo 2 (2b). Solo donne con precedenti cicatrici uterine dovute a uno o più TC dovrebbero essere classificata nel Gruppo 5. D 2: Come dovrei classificare una donna con 5 precedenti parti a termine che partorisce un nato morto, cefalico, a 26 settimane, che pesa 620g? Nel mio paese, registriamo i nati vivi che pesano almeno 500g, ma non registriamo i nati morti che pesano meno di 1000g. R 2: Questa donna apparterrebbe al Gruppo 10. Tuttavia, si può decidere di non includerla nella Classificazione di Robson per le definizioni da voi usate. In questo caso, si dovrebbe aggiungere una nota a fondo pagina nella tua tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson, nella quale vengono specificati i criteri che vengono utilizzati per definire una nascita. Per esempio, si potrebbe dichiarare nella nota "abbiamo incluso solo i nati vivi che pesano ≥ 500g alla nascita e i nati morti che pesano ≥ 1000g". 22 Domande sulla parità: MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON D 5: Come classifico una donna ricoverata per induzione di travaglio a 41 settimane con un precedente parto vaginale? Tenderei a classificarla nel Gruppo 1 perché nel mio paese la chiamiamo primipara; usiamo la parola multipara solo per donne che hanno avuto almeno due parti precedenti. R 5: Per la Classificazione di Robson, tutte le donne con una o più nascite sono classificate come “Multipare”. Perciò, questa donna appartiene al Gruppo 4. 23 Domande sull'inizio del travaglio D 1: Ho ricoverato una nullipara con una gravidanza singola cefalica a 40 settimane con le membrane rotte da 4 ore e contrazioni regolari nell'ultima ora. Una volta ricoverata aveva una cervice con dilatazione di 2 cm, raccorciato dell’80%, con contrazioni ogni tre minuti, corrispondente alla definizione che l'ospedale ha di travaglio spontaneo. Quattro ore dopo il ricovero, ha ancora una dilatazione di 2 cm e le ho somministrato ossitocina per accelerare il travaglio (augmentation). Dovrei classificarla nel Gruppo 1 o 2? R 1: Questa donna appartiene al Gruppo 1, dato che si tratta di una nullipara entrata in travaglio spontaneamente (secondo la vostra definizione di travaglio spontaneo). L'uso di ossitocina in questo caso è per l'accelerazione del travaglio e non per l'induzione. Dunque, non appartiene al Gruppo 2, il quale comprende esclusivamente le donne non in travaglio, con travaglio indotto utilizzando un qualsiasi metodo (farmacologico o meccanico). D 2: Ho ricoverato una donna di 41 anni obesa e multipara (3 precedenti parti vaginali) alla 40esima settimana con una gravidanza singola e cefalica, in travaglio spontaneo con 4 cm di dilatazione cervicale. Ha il diabete gestazionale, il feto è macrosomico ed è stata prenotata per un TC elettivo nel giorno seguente. Dovrebbe stare nel Gruppo 3 o 4? R 2: Appartiene al Gruppo 3 perché il travaglio è iniziato spontaneamente e la classificazione considera sempre come si entra in travaglio nella gravidanza in corso, indipendentemente da come era stato pianificato il parto. Domande frequenti su come classificare le donne 24 D 1: Se una donna con una gravidanza gemellare ha il suo primo bambino in situazione trasversa, dovrei classificarla come Gruppo 8 o Gruppo 9? R 1: Appartiene al Gruppo 8, dato che include "Tutte le donne con gravidanza multipla". Il Gruppo 9 è soltanto per le donne con una gravidanza singola e un feto in situazione trasversa o obliqua D 2: A una donna nullipara viene diagnosticata una gravidanza tripla a 14 settimane. Alla 22esima, l’ecografia rileva che solo un feto è ancora vivo mentre gli altri due feti sono morti, con peso stimato di <500g. Si presenta alla 39sima settimana in travaglio spontaneo, il feto vivo in posizione cefalica. Come dovrei classificare questa donna: Gruppo 1 o 8? R 2: Questo caso appartiene al Gruppo 1. La classificazione non si applica a gravidanze/feti con peso stimato al di sotto dei 500g o meno di 22 settimane di gestazione Domande sulle gravidanze multiple MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON D 3: A una donna di 42 anni, multipara (2 TC precedenti) viene diagnosticata con l'ecografia una gravidanza gemellare a 10 settimane. Alla 31esima, viene ricoverata a causa di severa preeclampsia e restrizione della crescita fetale, con entrambi i feti vivi. Il secondo giorno, uno dei due feti muore. Viene immediatamente sottoposta a TC pre-travaglio. Il primo feto, morto, è podalico. Il feto che sopravvive è cefalico. Come dovrei classificare questa donna: Gruppo 5.2, 7 o 8? R 3: Questo caso appartiene al Gruppo 8. Il decesso fetale è avvenuto dopo la 22esima settimana di gestazione (o dopo aver raggiunto i 500g di peso fetale), perciò la gravidanza è comunque considerata multipla. Non appartiene al Gruppo 5 perché solo una donna a termine con una gravidanza cefalica singola dovrebbe essere collocata in questo gruppo. Non appartiene al Gruppo 7 poiché è esclusivamente per gravidanze singole podaliche. D 4: Ho un totale di 3000 donne che hanno partorito nel mio ospedale nel 2015; 60 di queste donne hanno partorito gemelli e una donna una tripletta. Dunque, il mio numero totale di bambini nel 2015 è stato di 3062. Quando compilo la tabella con le Classi di Robson del 2015 del mio ospedale, il numero totale (ultima linea nella Colonna 2) dovrebbe essere 3000 o 3062? R 4: Il numero totale della tabella della Classificazione di Robson si riferisce al numero totale di DONNE che hanno partorito, non al numero totale di neonati. Dunque, il numero totale corretto è 3000. La Classificazione di Robson si riferisce alle donne che partoriscono in determinate situazioni, e non ai neonati 25 Domande frequenti su come classificare le donne GRUPPO GRUPPO GRUPPO GRUPPO GRUPPO 26 Domande sulla presentazione D 1: Come dovrei classificare una nullipara in travaglio spontaneo a 38 settimane, 8cm di dilatazione, con una presentazione di faccia? R 1: Questa donna appartiene al Gruppo 1. Tutte le presentazioni di faccia, fronte o cefaliche composte devono essere classificate nel Gruppo 1. Sinché la parte che si presenta è una parte della testa fetale, si tratta di presentazione cefalica. D 2: Ho ricoverato una donna con 3 parti vaginali precedenti, attualmente in travaglio spontaneo alla 39esima settimana, 5 cm di dilatazione, con membrane rotte, e una gravidanza singola con il feto in posizione cefalica con associazione di una mano insieme alla testa. Dovrei classificarla nel Gruppo 3 o 9? R 2: Questa donna appartiene al Gruppo 3. Sinché la parte che si presenta è la testa fetale, viene considerata una presentazione cefalica. Il Gruppo 9 è solo per le donne con situazione fetale trasversa o obliqua, in cui è possibile avere prolasso del braccio, a differenza di questo caso. D 3: Ho ricoverato una nullipara con una gravidanza singola, podalica a 37 settimane, non in travaglio. È stata sottoposta con successo a un rivolgimento per manovre esterne e indotta al travaglio subito dopo. In 12 ore, partorisce un feto in posizione cefalica per via vaginale. Come classifico questa donna: nel Gruppo 6 o 2a? R 3: Questa donna dovrebbe essere classificata nel Gruppo 2a. La classificazione di Robson usa la presentazione/situazione fetale finale prima del parto o prima del travaglio. In questo caso, la presentazione all'inizio del travaglio era cefalica, perciò la donna appartiene al Gruppo 2a. MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON D 1: Una nullipara arriva a 32 settimane, dilatazione totale, con una gravidanza singola cefalica e prolasso del cordone ombelicale. Dovrebbe essere classificata nel Gruppo 1, 10 o 9? R 1: Appartiene al Gruppo 10 perché comprende tutte le gravidanze singole premature cefaliche. Non corrisponde al Gruppo 1 perché la sua gravidanza non è a termine (37 settimane o più) e il Gruppo 9 è soltanto per le situazioni trasverse o oblique, e non è il suo caso. 27 Domande sulla situazione fetale, morte fetale e malformazioni fetali D 2: Una donna multipara con 2 TC precedenti viene ricoverata a 30 settimane, con grave preeclampsia, non in travaglio, con un feto podalico morto. Dovrebbe essere inclusa nella classificazione di Robson dato che il suo feto è morto? Se sì, appartiene al Gruppo 5, 7 o 10? R 2: La Classificazione di Robson non esclude i nati morti; perciò, questa donna dovrebbe essere inclusa nella classificazione. Appartiene al Gruppo 7 poiché questo gruppo include tutte le donne multipare con una gravidanza singola podalica comprese quelle con TC precedenti. Non appartiene al Gruppo 5 o 10 perché il feto è podalico e questi gruppi comprendono solo gravidanze cefaliche. D 3: Una donna nullipara con un feto anencefalico è ricoverata a 24 settimane per l'induzione al travaglio. Il feto è morto e in posizione cefalica. Dovremmo includerla nella Classificazione di Robson? Se sì, dovrebbe essere categorizzata nel gruppo 2 o 10? R 3: La Classificazione di Robson non esclude feti malformati o morti; perciò, questa donna dovrebbe essere inclusa nella classificazione. Appartiene al Gruppo 10, che comprende tutte le donne con una gravidanza cefalica singola prematura; il fatto che la testa cefalica presenti una malformazione non cambia il fatto che sia comunque cefalico. Il Gruppo 2 è per gravidanze cefaliche a termine, e non si tratta di questo caso. Domande frequenti su come classificare le donne 05. Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson Ci sono modi diversi che si possono utilizzare per classificare ogni donna in uno dei 10 gruppi. Può essere semplice come ricercare manualmente nelle cartelle delle pazienti le variabili fondamentali e aggiungendo una nota con la matita sulla copertina della cartella clinica con il numero del gruppo di Robson. D'altro canto, potrebbe anche essere complesso come chiedere ad un team di specialisti di creare un software che selezioni le variabili fondamentali nella cartella clinica elettronica e che assegni automaticamente un gruppo di Robson a ciascuna cartella, basandosi su formule prestabilite “NON C'È BISOGNO DI UN TEAM DI SPECIALISTI INFORMATICI” Il diagramma di flusso nella prossima pagina offre una guida sull'ordine in cui la categorizzazione può essere fatta nella maniera più semplice. I casi con dati mancanti (nessuna informazione in una o più delle sei variabili centrali) dovrebbe essere categorizzata come "Inclassificabile" e la variabile mancante dovrebbe essere annotata per facilitare l'analisi di questi casi. 28 Jonathan Torgovnik Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 29 Adattato da: Nassar LF, Sancho HD. Instrucción de Robson . v.0.1-1. 2015/06/08. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) Figura 2: Diagramma di flusso (Flow chart) per classificare le donne secondo la Classificazione di Robson Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson 30 5.1 Manualmente 5.2 Utilizzando un tabulato o un calcolatore automatico Ogni donna può essere classificata manualmente all'interno di uno dei 10 gruppi con revisione e raccolta dei dati da ciascuna cartella clinica o direttamente dai registri della sala parto (log books) se forniscono le variabili richieste elencate nella Tabella 1 o utilizzando le definizioni presenti nella Tabella 3. Una volta che la donna è stata classificata, il suo gruppo specifico può essere segnato nella sua cartella o in un nuovo spazio appositamente creato nel registro della sala parto. Tale assegnazione può essere utilizzata per facilitare i calcoli periodici (es. mensili) del numero di donne in ogni gruppo. Per facilitare la classificazione per ogni donna, si potrebbe stampare una copia del diagramma di flusso nella pagina precedente (Figura 2) e seguire i passaggi in esso proposti. Questa forma di classificazione è forse superiore alla raccolta manuale poiché riduce gli errori umani nel decidere a quale gruppo assegnare ciascuna donna. Comunque, richiede che ognuna delle variabili di base per ciascuna donna sia digitata all'interno di un tabulato elettronico. Si potrebbe per esempio elaborare un tabulato (vedi Tabella 4 nella prossima pagina) dove ciascuna riga corrisponda a una donna e ciascuna colonna corrisponda ad una delle sei variabili di base con possibili specifiche risposte per ogni variabile. Si potrebbe dunque creare un'ulteriore colonna chiamata "Numero del Gruppo" dove, attraverso le medie delle formule elettroniche con le regole della classificazione, ogni donna verrebbe automaticamente assegnata ad un gruppo di Robson. La tabella nella prossima pagina può essere utile agli specialisti informatici del tuo ospedale per creare le formule elettroniche per la classificazione di tutte le donne in uno dei 10 gruppi di Robson, basandosi sulle sei variabili fondamentali. MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 31 Tabella 4: Riassunto delle specificazioni per le variabili in ciascun gruppo di Robson Gruppo Parità Pregressi TC N° di feti Situazione o posizione fetale Età gestazionale (settimane compiute) Insorgenza del travaglio 1 0 No 1 Cefalico ≥ 37 Spontaneo 2 0 No 1 Cefalico ≥ 37 Indotto o TC prima del travaglio 3 ≥ 1 No 1 Cefalico ≥ 37 Spontaneo 4 ≥ 1 No 1 Cefalico ≥ 37 Indotto o TC prima del travaglio 5 ≥ 1 SI 1 Cefalico ≥ 37 Qualsiasi 6 0 No 1 Podalico Qualsiasi Qualsiasi 7 ≥ 1 Qualsiasi 1 Podalico Qualsiasi Qualsiasi 8 Qualsiasi Qualsiasi ≥ 2 Qualsiasi Qualsiasi Qualsiasi 9 Qualsiasi Qualsiasi 1 Trasverso o obliquo Qualsiasi Qualsiasi 10 Qualsiasi Qualsiasi 1 Cefalico < 37 Qualsiasi 5.3 Utilizzando cartelle cliniche elettroniche Se il tuo ospedale usa cartelle cliniche elettroniche, suggeriamo di contattare il team di supporto informatico, mostrargli le variabili ostetriche di base necessarie per classificare le donne in uno dei 10 gruppi (Tabella 4 sopra) e il diagramma di flusso utilizzato per la classificazione manuale (Figura 2) e chiedergli di creare le formule necessarie per classificare automaticamente tutte le donne ricoverate per il parto. Possono inoltre utilizzare questo metodo per creare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson. 5.2 Utilizzando un tabulato o un calcolatore automatico Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson 32 06. La Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson “I DATI SONO RIPORTATI MEGLIO IN MANIERA STANDARDIZZATA” Per fare in modo che la maggior parte delle informazioni ottenute dalla Classificazione di Robson in ogni punto nascita e per consentire il confronto fra le diverse strutture, è meglio riportare i dati in maniera standardizzata (Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson). WHO/Christopher Black MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 33 La Tabella con i 10 Gruppi consiste di sette colonne, come segue: Colonna 1 Colonna 2 Colonna 3 Colonna 4 Colonna 5 Colonna 6 Colonna 7 Nome del gruppo e/o numero e suddivisione (con suddivisione per i Gruppi 2, 4 e 5, se di interesse per l'utilizzatore) Numero totale di TC in ogni gruppo Numero totale di donne in ogni gruppo Dimensione del gruppo relativa al numero complessivo di parti della struttura. Per ciascuno dei 10 gruppi, in percentuale Tasso di TC in ogni gruppo. Per ciascuno dei 10 gruppi, in percentuale Contributo assoluto del gruppo al tasso complessivo di TC. Per ciascuno dei 10 gruppi, in percentuale Contributo relativo di ciascun gruppo al tasso complessivo di TC. Per ciascuno dei 10 gruppi, in percentuale Suggeriamo di compilare partendo dalle Colonne 3 e 4 (numero totale di TC e numero totale di donne in ognuno dei 10 gruppi) per passare poi al calcolo delle percentuali. La Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 34 Tabella 5: Tabella di con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 06. La Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson Nome della Struttura: Ospedale ABC periodo: gennaio 2016 a dicembre 2016 Colonna 1 Colonna 2 Colonna 3 Colonna 4 Colonna 5 Colonna 6 Colonna 7 Gruppo Numero di TC nel gruppo Numero di donne nel gruppo Dimensioni1 del gruppo (%) Tasso2 di TC nel gruppo(%) Contributo assoluto del gruppo al tasso complessivo di TC3 (%) Contributo relativo del gruppo al tasso complessivo di TC4 (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totale* Numero totale di TC Numero totale di donne (parti) 100% Tasso totale di TC Tasso totale di TC 100% Inclassificabile: numero di casi e % [Numero casi inclassificabili/(Numero totale di donne classificate + non classificate) x 100] *Questi valori totali e percentuali (alla fine di ogni colonna) vengono dai numeri nella tabella 1. dimensione del gruppo % = n di donne nel gruppo/n totale di donne partorienti nell’ospedale x 100 2. tasso di TC del gruppo % = n di TC nel gruppo/n totale di donne nel gruppo x 100 3. contributo totale % = n di tc nel gruppo/n totale di donne partorienti nell’ospedale x 100 4. contributo relativo % = n di TC nel gruppo/n totale di TC nell’ospedale x 100 MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 35 07. Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson “AIUTA A COMPRENDERE IL TIPO DI POPOLAZIONE ASSISTITO NELL'OSPEDALE” L'interpretazione della Tabella di con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson può portare a utili osservazioni riguardo la qualità dei dati raccolti, il tipo di popolazione nell'ospedale, il tasso di TC di ogni gruppo e come ciascuno dei 10 gruppi contribuisca al tasso di TC complessivo in una determinata struttura, e la filosofia generale dell’assistenza del punto nascita. United Nations Photo Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson Le tre ragioni principali delle differenze nelle dimensioni dei gruppi o di eventi e esiti all'interno dei gruppi sono le seguenti: • Scarsa qualità dei dati (informazioni non corrette nella cartella della paziente o errori nel raccogliere le informazioni dalle cartelle) • Differenze in caratteristiche epidemiologiche significative della popolazione (età, BMI, etc...) • Differenze nella pratica clinica. Le differenze nella pratica sono da considerare solo dopo aver valutato le variabili qualitative ed epidemiologiche. PRINCIPI GENERALI dell'interpretazione della Tabelle con i 10 gruppo di Robson I lettori dovrebbero ricordarsi che in strutture con bassi volumi di parti, l'interpretazione deve tenere conto degli effetti che piccole modifiche nei numeri hanno sui valori percentuali. Uno dei principi della Classificazione di Robson è che nessuna donna sia esclusa e che prima di analizzare nel dettaglio qualsiasi gruppo, è importante capire le dimensioni di tutti i 10 gruppi per determinare il peso e la composizione della popolazione ostetrica totale. Così facendo solitamente si identificano sia i problemi più ovvi nella raccolta dei dati (validazione) e si identificano popolazioni particolari. Nessun gruppo deve essere interpretato singolarmente se i 10 gruppi non sono ancora stati analizzati nel loro insieme. L'interpretazione dei dati raccolti nella Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson può essere facilitata seguendo una serie di passaggi che abbiamo diviso in tre campi principali: 1) qualità dei dati 2) tipo di popolazione e 3) tassi di tagli cesarei. Nell'ambito della "Qualità dei Dati" (Tabella 6) ci sono alcuni semplici passaggi da verificare se si vuole migliorare la raccolta di dati. I passaggi nell'ambito del "Tipo di Popolazione" (Tabella7) aiutano a capire meglio le caratteristiche delle donne che partoriscono nel tuo ospedale. Questa informazione può essere usata per le analisi del fenomeno, es. per aiutare a capire se questa popolazione è stabile o è cambiata negli ultimi mesi o anni. Nell'ambito dei "Tassi di TC" (Tabella 8) si trovano i passaggi per capire e confrontare i tassi di TC all'interno dei 10 gruppi e identificare quali gruppi apportano il contributo maggiore al tasso complessivo di TC nel tuo ospedale. 36 MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 37 Questo tipo di informazione può essere utilizzato per analizzare dei cambiamenti nel tempo, confrontare differenze tra gli ospedali, ed aiutare a modificare la pratica clinica per ottimizzare i tassi di TC in gruppi specifici assicurando buoni esiti materni e perinatali. La sicurezza e la qualità dell’assistenza durante il travaglio e il parto sono alla fine connessi agli esiti materni e perinatali, così come alla soddisfazione materna. Idealmente, tutti i risultati perinatali dovrebbero essere analizzati utilizzando un sistema di classificazione perinatale standard e nessun risultato dovrebbe essere valutato singolarmente. La classificazione di Robson può essere usata come strumento di valutazione dell’assistenza piuttosto che di raccomandazioni sulla stessa. È a discrezione dell'ospedale decidere quale sia il trattamento più appropriato, basandosi sui propri risultati e altre prove disponibili (12, 13). Gli esempi di interpretazione mostrati nelle Tabelle 6-8 si basano su due fonti; una sviluppata da Michael Robson basata sulla sua esperienza internazionale applicando la classificazione dal 1990 (9, 14, 15) e la seconda fonte è il Sondaggio Multinazionale (Multicountry Survey) dell'OMS sulla Salute Materna e Neonatale (WHO MCS) (16, 17). Si dovrebbe enfatizzare che nessuna di queste fonti è stata validata formalmente e che i tassi di TC nei gruppi presentati in questa tabella non sono stati correlati a risultati migliori. In particolare, si noti che i tassi di TC in ciascuno dei gruppi di Robson nell'OMS MCS si riferiscono a una media ottenuta da più di 60 strutture sanitarie in paesi a basso, medio reddito e perciò non possono e non devono essere presi come una raccomandazione che chiunque nel mondo dovrebbe seguire. L'OMS MCS è stato uno studio trasversale condotto in più di 300 strutture sanitarie in 29 paesi e che ha incluso più di 314,000 donne dall'Africa, Asia, l'est del Mediterraneo e l'America Latina (17,18). Utilizzando i dati di questo sondaggio, è stata creata una "popolazione di riferimento" che consta di strutture con bassi tassi di TC e bassa mortalità perinatale intra- partum. Si è ritenuto che queste strutture abbiano pochi TC non necessari e buoni risultati materni e perinatali (16,19). La "popolazione di riferimento" è comprensiva di 42,637 donne provenienti da 66 strutture sanitarie in 22 paesi. Il box del Sondaggio Multinazionale presenta informazioni più dettagliate sull'OMS MCS e sulla "popolazione di riferimento". Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson I passaggi consigliati in basso utilizzano l'ordine delle colonne illustrato nella Tabella 5. Queste regole devono essere utilizzate solo dopo una lettura e comprensione completa della classificazione. Se la vostra distribuzione dei dati (dimensione dei gruppi) sembra insolita, bisogna prima di tutto sospettare una scarsa qualità dei dati o la possibilità di una popolazione particolare. Nessun ospedale raccoglie in modo continuo i dati in modo del tutto corretto. Usato in maniera continua, questo sistema può aiutare a individuare errori e migliorare la qualità della raccolta di dati. Nelle prossime pagine, verranno presentati i passaggi per l'interpretazione della Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson L'OMS MCS è uno studio trasversale condotto in 359 strutture sanitarie in 29 paesi. Paesi, province e strutture ospedaliere sono state selezionate casualmente per partecipare attraverso una strategia di campionamento stratificata, a più stadi. Sono state incluse solo le strutture ospedaliere con più di 1000 parti all’anno e in cui potevano essere eseguiti TC. Tra maggio 2010 e dicembre 2011, sono state reclutate 324,623 donne da Africa, Asia, est del Mediterraneo e America Latina (17, 18). Per la creazione della "popolazione di riferimento" è stato preso in considerazione il fatto che la mortalità perinatale correlata a eventi intrapartum (es. nati morti intrapartum più le morti neonatali che sono avvenute nel primo giorno dopo il parto) rappresenti ragionevolmente un indicatore della qualità dell’assistenza durante la nascita. Si è ritenuto inoltre che le strutture sanitarie con bassi tassi di TC e bassa mortalità perinatale intrapartum abbiano eseguito pochi TC non necessari con buoni risultati materni e perinatali, perciò questa popolazione è stata individuata come "riferimento"(16). Le strutture del campione dell'OMS MCS che presentavano tasso di TC e di mortalità perinatale intrapartum al di sotto del 50° percentile costituiscono quindi la "popolazione di riferimento". Questo cut-off specifico (ossia il 50°percentile) è stato selezionato poiché la mediana è comunemente utilizzata per definire cosa è alto o basso in campioni sufficientemente estesi. Tra tutte le strutture, la mediana (50° percentile) per i tassi di TC era del 30% e la mediana per le morti perinatali intra-parto era di 6,8 morti ogni 1000 nati vivi. Le strutture sanitarie al di sotto di questi valori costituiscono la "popolazione di riferimento" che comprende 42,637 donne da 66 strutture sanitarie in 22 paesi. Sono state considerate le donne che hanno partorito in queste strutture per costruire la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson in questa sezione (16). SONDAGGIO MULTINAZIONALE sulla Salute Materna e Neonatale (WHO) 38 Determinazione della qualità dei dati Determinazione del tipo di popolazione ostetrica Determinazione del tasso dei tagli cesarei MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 39 Tabella 6: Passi per determinare la qualità dei dati utilizzando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson.* 7.1 Passi per determinare la qualità dei dati Passo Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 1. Osserva il totale di TC e di donne che hanno partorito nel tuo ospedale (ultima riga delle Colonne 2 e 3) Questi numeri dovrebbero essere identici al numero totale di TC e di donne che hanno partorito nel tuo ospedale NA Se i numeri non corrispondono, significa che i dati sono mancanti o sbagliati. Alcune donne potrebbero non essere state classificate nei gruppi di Robson a causa delle variabili mancanti o sono state classificate non correttamente per il tipo di parto. Alcune volte le gravidanze multiple vengono contate in base al numero di bambini invece che della madre#. 2. Osservare le dimensioni del Gruppo 9 (Colonna 4) Gravidanze singole con situazione trasversa o obliqua Dovrebbero essere meno dell'1% 0.4% Se è >1%, è probabile che donne con presentazione podalica (o altre) siano state erroneamente classificate come situazioni trasverse/oblique e assegnate a questo gruppo. Siccome la classificazione include tutte le donne che partoriscono, se qualche gruppo è più grande o più piccolo, controllando gli altri gruppi a volte si potrà evincere dove sia avvenuto l'errore di classificazione. 3. Osservare il tasso di TC del Gruppo 9 (Colonna 5) Dovrebbe essere per convenzione 100% 88.6% Per convenzione, se una donna partorisce per via vaginale in seguito a un rivolgimento interno, dovrebbe essere classificata tra le cefaliche o podaliche. I tassi di TC nel gruppo 9 dovrebbero essere 100%. *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. #Per i casi Inclassificabili vedi la raccomandazione riportata in 3.d NA: Non Applicabile Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 40 Tabella 7 : Passi per determinare il tipo di popolazione utilizzando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson* 7.2 Passi per determinare il tipo di popolazione Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 1. Osservare le dimensioni del Gruppo 1 + Gruppo 2 (Colonna 4)- Donne nullipare, ≥ 37 settimane di gestazione gravidanza singola cefalica Queste di solito rappresentano il 35-42% della popolazione ostetrica nella maggior parte degli ospedali 38.1% In aree con alte proporzioni di donne con figlio unico piuttosto che con più di uno, il gruppo di donne nullipare, ossia Gruppi 1 e 2 tendono ad essere più grandi. In situazioni dove accade il contrario, questi gruppi tendono a essere più piccoli poiché la maggior parte della popolazione sarà rappresentata da donne multipare. 2. Osservare le dimensioni dei Gruppi 3+4 (colonna 4)- Donne multipare ≥ 37 settimane di gestazione, gravidanza cefalica singola, senza TC precedenti Queste di solito rappresentano il 30% delle donne 46.5% In aree con un'alta proporzione di donne con più di un figlio piuttosto che con solo un figlio, il numero dei Gruppi 3 e 4 sarà più alto del 30% (sempre che abbiano partorito per via vaginale). Un'altra ragione per una minore dimensione dei Gruppi 3 e 4 potrebbe essere una dimensione elevata del gruppo 5, che sarebbe associata ad un tasso di TC molto alto. 3. Osservare le dimensioni del Gruppo 5 (colonna 4) Donne multipare ≥ 37 settimane di gestazione gravidanza singola cefalica con precedenti TC È correlata al tasso di TC complessivo. La dimensione del Gruppo 5 di solito corrisponde alla metà del tasso di TC totale. In situazioni con bassi tassi di TC, è generalmente sotto il 10%. 7.2% La dimensione del Gruppo 5 è solitamente correlata al tasso di TC complessivo. Se le dimensioni di questo gruppo sono maggiori, significa che c’è stato un alto tasso di TC negli anni precedenti in quell’ospedale e principalmente nei Gruppi 1 e 2. In posti con alti tassi di TC, le dimensioni del gruppo possono essere >15%. 4. Osservare le dimensioni dei Gruppi 6+7 (colonna 4) Podalici in donne nullipare e multipare Dovrebbe essere 3-4% 2.7% Se il totale supera di molto il 4%, la ragione più comune è di solito un alto numero di prematuri o una maggiore proporzione di nullipare. Perciò si guardino le dimensioni del Gruppo 10 (colonna 4). Se quest'ultimo supera il 4-5%, questa ipotesi potrebbe rivelarsi corretta. *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. #Per i casi Inclassificabili vedi la raccomandazione riportata in 3.d MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 41 Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 5. Osservare le dimensioni del Gruppo 8 (Colonna 4) – Gravidanze multiple Dovrebbe essere 1,5-2% 0.9% Se è più alto, l'ospedale è probabilmente di secondo livello (che accoglie le gravidanze ad alto rischio) oppure partecipa a un programma di fecondazione assistita. Se è più basso, probabilmente molti dei gemelli sono stati esclusi specialmente se i gemelli restanti hanno un basso tasso di TC. 6. Osservare le dimensioni del Gruppo 10 (Colonna 4)- Pretermine cefaliche singole Dovrebbe essere meno del 5% nelle normali condizioni di rischio 4.2% Se è più alto, l'ospedale è probabilmente di secondo livello o vi è un alto rischio di nascite premature nella popolazione afferente all'ospedale. Se, in più, il tasso di TC in questo gruppo è basso, potrebbe rappresentare una preponderanza di travaglio spontaneo prematuro. Se il tasso di TC è alto, potrebbe suggerire per lo più TC pre-travaglio eseguiti per restrizione di crescita fetale o preeclampsia e altre complicanze mediche o della gravidanza. Tabella 7 (continua): Passi per determinare il tipo di popolazione utilizzando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson* *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. #Per i casi Inclassificabili vedi la raccomandazione riportata in 3.d Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 42 Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 7. Osservare le dimensioni del Rapporto tra le dimensioni del Gruppo 1 e quelle del Gruppo 2 (Dividere la dimensione del gruppo uno per quella del gruppo 2, Colonna 4) – Nullipare con gravidanza singola cefalica, travaglio spontaneo/ Nullipare con gravidanza singola cefalica, travaglio indotto o TC pre- travaglio Di solito è di 2:1 o più alto Rapporto 3.3 Se è più basso, sospettare di scarsa qualità dei dati: nullipare che hanno ricevuto ossitocina per accelerazione del travaglio (e dovrebbero stare nel Gruppo 1) potrebbero essere state inserite erroneamente alla categoria "indotto" (Gruppo 2). Se la raccolta dati è corretta, un rapporto inferiore potrebbe indicare un problema di elevato ricorso all’induzione al travaglio/TC pre-travaglio che potrebbe a sua volta indicare un alto rischio nella popolazione di donne nullipare che perciò hanno più possibilità di avere un alto tasso di TC. La successiva domanda da porsi è quella di avere maggiori informazioni sulle morti endouterine pre-travaglio. Al contrario, se il rapporto è molto alto, si dovrebbe guardare al tasso di morti endouterine pre-travaglio in questa popolazione, che potrebbe indicare un insufficiente ricorso all’induzione. Oppure si potrebbe trattare di una popolazione con un rischio molto basso. Tabella 7 (continua): Passi per determinare il tipo di popolazione utilizzando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson* *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto #Per i casi Inclassificabili vedi la raccomandazione riportata in 3.d MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 43 Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 8. Osservare il Rapporto tra le dimensioni del Gruppo 3 versus il Gruppo 4. (Si divida la dimensione del Gruppo 3 per quella del Gruppo 4, Colonna 4): Multipare senza precedenti TC, gravidanza singola a termine travaglio spontaneo/Multipare con precedenti TC, gravidanza singola a termine, travaglio indotto o TC pre- travaglio È sempre più alto del rapporto tra Gruppo 1/2 nello stesso istituto, ossia più grande di 2:1. Questo è un dato molto importante nella conferma della qualità dei dati e cultura dell'organizzazione. Rapporto 6.3 Se è più basso, si sospetti scarsa qualità dei dati: donne multipare che hanno ricevuto ossitocina per accelerazione del travaglio (e dovrebbero essere nel Gruppo 3) potrebbero essere state erroneamente inserite nella categoria "indotto" (e classificate scorrettamente nel Gruppo 4). Un rapporto basso (dovuto a un grande Gruppo 4b) potrebbe suggerire un’esperienza materna negativa nel precedente parto vaginale con richiesta di TC pre- ravaglio da parte di donne multipare. Un'altra spiegazione potrebbe essere data dai TC pre - travaglio fatti per eseguire la legatura delle tube (comune in situazioni in cui il family planning non è facilmente disponibile). 9. Osservare il Rapporto tra le dimensioni del Gruppo 6 versus il Gruppo 7. (Si divida la dimensione del Gruppo 6 per quella del Gruppo 7, Colonna 4): Nullipare podalici/Multipare podalici È di solito 2:1 poiché podalici sono più frequenti nelle nullipare piuttosto che nelle multipare. Rapporto di 0.8 Se il rapporto è diverso, si sospetti o un insolito rapporto di nullipare/multipare o una raccolta dati non accurata Tabella 7 (continua): Passi per determinare il tipo di popolazione utilizzando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson* *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 7.3 Passi per determinare i tassi di TC Nella prossima pagina presentiamo alcuni suggerimenti sui passaggi da seguire per interpretare i tassi di TC nella Tabella con i 10 Gruppi di Robson. Si prega di ricordare che i tassi di TC nelle prossime pagine non sono stati validati rispetto agli esiti e non dovrebbero essere interpretati come una raccomandazione. Meramente analizzati rispetto agli altri ospedali, i tassi di TC in ciascun gruppo variano in diversi ospedali e strutture a seconda della capacità/livello di complessità, le caratteristiche epidemiologiche della popolazione presa in considerazione e delle linee guida locali, tra gli altri fattori. In ultima analisi, l'uso della classificazione nel tempo aiuta ogni ospedale o ambiente a identificare il tasso di TC (o il range dei tassi di TC) associato ai risultati migliori in ciascuno dei 10 gruppi. 44 WHO/PAHO MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 45 Tabella 8: Passi per definire i tassi di TC usando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi di Robson* Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 1. Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 1 (Colonna 5) Sono raggiungibili tassi inferiori al 10% 9,8% Questo tasso può essere interpretato accuratamente solo quando è stato considerato il rapporto tra le dimensioni dei Gruppi 1:2. In principio, più alto il rapporto tra le dimensioni dei Gruppi 1 e 2, più alte le probabilità di avere tassi di TC più alti in entrambi i gruppi individualmente. In ogni caso, il tasso di TC complessivo nei gruppi 1 e 2 combinati potrebbe comunque essere basso o simile. 2. . Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 2 (Colonna 5) In modo costante intorno al 20- 30% 39,9% I tassi di TC nel gruppo 2 riflettono le dimensioni e i tassi dei Gruppi 2a e 2b. Se le dimensioni del gruppo 2b sono elevate, il tasso di TC complessivo nel gruppo 2 sarà altrettanto alto. Se il gruppo 2b è relativamente ristretto, allora alti tassi di TC nel gruppo 2 potrebbero indicare tassi di scarso successo nell'induzione o scelte sbagliate delle donne da sottoporre all'induzione e di conseguenza un alto tasso di TC nel gruppo 2a. Si ricordi il principio generale di non interpretare un singolo sottogruppo senza considerare anche il resto. L'interpretazione del Gruppo 2a richiede la conoscenza delle dimensioni relative dei Gruppi 1 e 2b. 7.3 Passi per determinare i tassi di TC *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 46 Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 3. Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 3 (Colonna 5) Normalmente, non più del 3.0% 3.0% Nelle unità con tassi di TC più alti in questo gruppo, ciò potrebbe essere dovuto ad errori durante la raccolta dati. È possibile che donne con pregressi TC (Gruppo 5) siano state classificate erroneamente nel Gruppo 3. Altre possibili ragioni per alti tassi potrebbero per esempio avere a che fare con la legatura delle tube, in condizioni di scarso accesso alla contraccezione, o con la richiesta materna. 4. Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 4 (Colonna 5) Raramente sopra il 15% 23.7% Il tasso di TC nel Gruppo 4 riflette le dimensioni dei tassi nel 4a e 4b. Se le dimensioni del Gruppo 4b sono elevate, il tasso di TC complessivo del Gruppo 4 sarà altrettanto alto. Se il Gruppo 4b è relativamente piccolo, allora i tassi elevati di TC nel gruppo 4 potrebbero indicare tassi di scarso successo nell’induzione al travaglio o una scelta non corretta delle donne da indurre e di conseguenza un alto tasso di TC nel Gruppo 4°. Anche una raccolta dati sbagliata potrebbe essere la ragione dei tassi elevati del Gruppo 4; per esempio, dovuta all’inclusione di donne con precedenti cicatrici uterine in questo gruppo (quando dovrebbero stare nel Gruppo 5). Infine, un alto tasso di TC nel Gruppo 4 potrebbe riflettere un’alta richiesta da parte delle madri di TC anche se queste donne hanno partorito la prima volta per via vaginale. La causa potrebbe essere un travaglio precedente traumatico o troppo prolungato oppure per legatura delle tube in ambienti con scarso accesso alla contraccezione. Tabella 8 (Continua): Passi per definire i tassi di TC usando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi di Robson* 7.3 Passi per determinare i tassi di TC *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 47 Passi Interpretazione di Robson Esempio: popolazione MCS** Ulteriore Interpretazione 5. Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 5 (Colonna 5) Tassi del 50-60% sono considerati appropriati se si hanno buoni esiti materni e perinatali 74.4% Se i tassi sono più alti, potrebbe essere dovuto a un ampio Gruppo 5.2 (donne con 2 o più pregressi TC. Questo potrebbe anche essere dovuto a una politica di programmazione di TC pre-travaglio per tutte le donne con una cicatrice uterina senza tentare il travaglio. 6. Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 8 (Colonna 5) Di solito intorno al 60% 57.7% Le variazioni dipendono dal tipo di gravidanza gemellare e dal rapporto di nullipare/multipare con o senza cicatrici uterine. 7. Osservare il tasso di TC per il Gruppo 10 (Colonna 5) Nella maggior parte delle popolazioni di solito intorno al 30% 25.1% Se più alto del 30%, di solito è dovuto a molti casi di gravidanze ad alto rischio (es. restrizione della crescita fetale, pre-eclampsia) che necessitano di TC pre-travaglio pretermine. Se più basso del 30%, suggerisce un tasso relativamente più alto di travaglio spontaneo pretermine e quindi un tasso di TC complessivo più basso. Tabella 8 (Continua): Passi per definire i tassi di TC usando la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi di Robson* 8. Osservare il contributo relativo dei Gruppi 1, 2 e 5 al tasso complessivo di TC (sommare il contributo di ciascuno di questi gruppi nella Colonna 7) Questi gruppi riuniti di solito contribuiscono ai 2/3 (66%) di tutti i TC nella maggior parte degli ospedali Questi tre gruppi insieme hanno contribuito al 63.7% di tutti i TC Questi tre gruppi dovrebbero essere il punto focale dell’attenzione se l’ospedale sta cercando di ridurre il tasso di TC complessivo. Più alto il tasso complessivo di TC, più grande l’attenzione da prestare al Gruppo 1. 9. Osservare il contributo assoluto del Gruppo 5 al tasso di TC complessivo (Colonna 7) Questo gruppo ha contribuito al 28% di tutti i TC Se è molto alto, potrebbe indicare che negli anni precedenti i tassi di TC nei Gruppi 1 e 2 sono stati alti e vale la pena di indagare ulteriormente. *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. Come Interpretare la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi della Classificazione di Robson 08. Barriere e fattori favorenti l’implementazione della classificazione "DESIGNARE UNA PERSONA RESPONSABILE DELLA GESTIONE DELLA RACCOLTA DATI" Il primo passo nell'implementazione della classificazione è designare una persona se possibile (dottore, infermiera, impiegato, amministratore o altro) come responsabile della gestione della raccolta dati e della produzione della Tabella con i 10 gruppi di Robson a intervalli regolari, settimanali o mensili. Questa persona può quindi lavorare con il personale delle sale travaglio e parto e coordinare gli sforzi per assicurare che per tutte le pazienti appena ricoverate vengano raccolte nelle rispettive cartelle tutte le variabili ostetriche necessarie per permettere la corretta classificazione in uno dei 10 Gruppi di Robson. Secondo gli utilizzatori la forza principale della classificazione è la sua semplicità, solidità, affidabilità e flessibilità. Comunque, dati mancanti, classificazioni scorrette delle donne, mancanza di definizioni o condivisione sulle variabili essenziali della classificazione potrebbero essere fonte di problemi (11). 48 UNICEF/Asselin MANUALE DI IMPLEMENTAZIONE DELLA CLASSIFICAZIONE DI ROBSON 49 La classificazione di Robson non è priva di ostacoli e difficoltà. Le maggiori difficoltà indicate dagli utilizzatori sono: Mancanza di definizione o consenso nelle variabili fondamentali usate nella classificazione: per esempio, è necessario raggiungere un accordo sull’inizio del travaglio e chiarire le differenze tra accelerazione e induzione del travaglio. È perciò consigliato che ogni ospedale stili una definizione scritta chiara (un glossario) delle variabili che potrebbero essere diverse in diverse strutture (come il travaglio spontaneo o indotto) e aggiungere queste definizioni in una nota a fondo pagina nella Tabella con i 10 Gruppi di Robson (vedi Tabella 5). Qualità dei dati usati per classificare le donne: se i dati utilizzati non sono affidabili, il valore reale delle raccomandazioni basate sulla classificazione è confutabile. Assicurare una buona qualità dei dati non dovrebbe essere dato per scontato e può rivelarsi problematico persino in ambienti con alte risorse. Classificazione erronea delle donne nel gruppo sbagliato: si tratta di una possibilità reale durante la raccolta dei dati. In tutti i casi, chi raccoglie i dati deve essere accuratamente addestrato e periodicamente sottoposto a verifica, per esempio da un'altra persona che revisiona e riclassifica uno stesso campione di donne in ciascuno dei 10 gruppi. Osservando attentamente la Tabella con i 10 Gruppi e seguendo le regole di interpretazione, gli utilizzatori possono trovare importanti indizi riguardanti gli errori nella classificazione di gruppi specifici. Casi che non possono essere classificati a causa della mancanza di dati: la dimensione della categoria "inclassificabile" è un indicatore importante della qualità dei dati nelle singole cartelle cliniche. Mancata validazione delle regole di interpretazione: un semplice insieme di regole per l'interpretazione è stato proposto da Robson (14) per aiutare a sfruttare tutte le informazioni fornite dalla classificazione, specialmente quando la si usa per confrontare dati tra diverse situazioni o variazioni nel tempo. In ogni caso, queste regole hanno ancora bisogno di essere validate per assicurare che le proposte (specialmente quelle riguardanti i tassi di TC attesi per gruppo) siano associate a buoni esiti materni e perinatali. Si incoraggiano fortemente gli utilizzatori della classificazione a raccogliere i propri dati sulla morbilità e mortalità materna e perinatale per ciascun gruppo di Robson e analizzare i dati regolarmente. Barriere e fattori favorenti l’implementazione della classificazione References 09. Bibliografia 51 09. Bibliografia 1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343. 2. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson Classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. 6. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC medicine. 2010;8:71. 7. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-19. 8. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. Commentary: WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667-70 9. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39. 10. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566. 11. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A. Systematic review of the Robson Classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6). 15. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179-94. 17. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Vogel J, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, et al. Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): a cross- sectional study. Lancet. 2013;18(38):1747-55. 12. Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10-Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;131:S23– S27. 16. Souza JP, Betrán AP, Dumont A, de Muncio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123:427–436 18. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, WHOMCS Research Group. The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:286. 3. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (WHO/RHR/15.02). 4. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprodcutive Health. 2015;12:57. 5. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375:490-9. 19. Robson M. A global reference for CS at health facilities? Yes, but there is work to do. BJOG. 2016;123(3):437. 13. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10- Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;135(2):232-3. 14.Robson M, HartiganL, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best PractRes ClinObstetGynaecol. 2013;27:297-308. Bibliografia 56 The Manual was translated by Maria Matta, student, Harvey Course of Medicine and Surgery, Pavia University, Italy. It was revised by Alessandra Meloni, obstetrician and gynaecologist, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria - Cagliari, Italy. Design and layout: Prodigioso Volcán, Edited by Anna Vasalaki.

Uygulama Kılavuzu SINIFLANDIRMASI

Uygulama Kılavuzu SINIFLANDIRMASI Robson Sınıflaması: Uygulama Kılavuzu This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). The translation was prepared by Cagri GULUMSER, MD, University of Health Sciences School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ankara, TURKEY and Berkem Ökten, MD, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine , Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, İstanbul - Turkey This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition. Suggested citation. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Giriş 01 Kılavuzun amacı ve hedef kitlesi Kadınları Nasıl Sınıflamak Gerektiği Hakkında Sık Sorulan Sorular Kadınları Robson Gruplarına Sınıflama Yolları 02 03 04 05 Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu 06 Robson Sınıflama Verilerinin Yorumlanması Sınıflama Uygulamasında Engeller ve Yardımcı Unsurlar 07 08 Referanslar 09 Robson Sınıflaması 3 7 9 21 28 32 35 48 50 İçindekiler Robson Rapor Tablosu’nun Yorumlanması ile birlikte örneğini bulabileceğiniz link: www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/

01. Giriş “ARTAN SEZARYEN ORANLARI TOPLUM İÇİN ÖNEMLİ BİR SAĞLIK SORUNUDUR” Giriş Sezaryen ile doğum oranı birçok ülkede son yıllarda giderek artma eğilimde olsa da bu eğilimi tetikleyen unsurlar tam olarak anlaşılamamıştır (1,2). Artan sezaryen oranları toplum için önemli bir sağlık sorunu olmakla birlikte beraberinde getirdiği bu artışa bağlı potansiyel maternal ve perinatal riskler, hizmete erişimdeki eşitsizlik ve neden olduğu maliyet açısından dünya çapında tartışmalara neden olmaktadır (3-7). Sezaryen oranlarındaki bu artış eğilimini tetikleyen unsurların daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi, bu oranı düşürmek veya yalnızca gerektiği zaman artırabilecek etkin ölçütler ışığında öneriler ve uygulamalarda bulunabilmek için aynı toplumda zamanla değişen ve farklı toplumlar arası sezaryen oranlarının gözlenmesi ve karşılaştırılabilmesi amaçlı bir araç gerekmektedir. Geleneksel olarak, kurumsal bazda sezaryen oranını genel sezaryen doğum yüzdesi ile belirlemekteyiz. Hastaneler arası iç ve altyapısal (birinci basamak Vs üçüncü basamak sağlık merkezi gibi) farklılıklar, gebe gruplarının (obstetrik popülasyon) özellikleri arasında farklılıkların karışık sunulması (karışık vakalar, daha önce sezaryen olmuş kadınların yüzdesi gibi) ve klinikler arası yönetim protokollerinin farklılık göstermesi (indüksiyon durumu veya travay başlamadan sezaryen yapılması vb.) gibi nedenlerden dolayı “genel sezaryen oranları” açısından zamanla olan veya değişik gruplar arasında gözlenen farklılıkların yorumlanması ve karşılaştırılması zor olmaktadır. İdeal olarak, sezaryen oranını kurum bazında gözlemleyip karşılaştırabilecek standardize edilmiş, güvenilir, tutarlı ve eylem odaklı bir Sınıflama sistemi olmalıdır (3, 8-10). 3 Bu Sınıflama sistemi uluslararası uygulanabilir olmasının yanı sıra klinisyenlere, kurum idarecilerine, halk sağlığı yetkililerine ve kadınların kendilerine faydalı olmalıdır. Böyle bir sistem basit, klinik yönden ilişkili, tanımlanabilir, yinelenebilir ve doğrulanabilir olmalıdır (10,11). Uluslararası düzeyde tanınmış böyle bir sistemin yokluğu, artan sezaryen oranlarının nedenleri ve bu artışın beraberinde getirdiği potansiyel risk ve yararlar hakkında tartışmaları alevlendirip, devam etmesine zemin sağlamıştır. Şekil 1: Ülkeler arasında sezaryen oranlarını gösteren ulaşılabilir son veriler (2005’ten sonrası). From: The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014 (1). 4 ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 5 Sistem prospektif olarak kullanılabildiği ve tüm kategorileri tamamen kapsadığı ve aynı anda iki farklı doğru içermeyen bir yapıda olduğu için, dünya genelinde doğum hizmeti sağlayan kişilerce genellikle rutin olarak temel alınan çoğu özellikleri baz alarak doğum için başvuran her kadın hemen sınıflandırılabilmektedir. Sınıflama basit, sağlam, tekrarlanabilir, klinik açıdan anlamlı ve ileriye dönüktür. Sezaryen oranlarının kadın grupları içinde, arasında karşılaştırılma ve analiz edilebilmesine olanak sağlamaktadır. Robson Sınıflaması uluslararası kurum veya resmi kılavuzlarca 2015 yılında onaylanmasından bile önce dünya genelinde birçok ülke tarafından hızla ve artan bir şekilde kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. 2014 yılında DSÖ Sınıflamanın benimsenmesinin artı ve eksilerini, uygulanma ve yorumlanmasını, engelleyen, kolaylaştıran faktörleri ve olası uyarlamaları belirlemek amacıyla kullanıcıların deneyimlerini topladığı bir başka sistematik inceleme yürütmüştür (11). Bu inceleme 2000-2013 yılları arasında Robson Sınıflaması kullanımı üzerine 31 ülke tarafından rapor edilen 73 yayından oluşmaktadır. Çoğunluğu hizmet sağlayıcısı olan kullanıcılara göre bu Sınıflamanın en güçlü yanları basit, sağlam, güvenilir ve esnek olmasıdır (11). Bununla birlikte uygulamadaki en büyük zorluklar kullanıcılar tarafından eksik veri, kadınların hatalı sınıflandırılması ve Sınıflamanın temel değişkenleri hakkında tanım veya fikir birliği eksikliği olarak rapor edilmiştir. Kurum bazında tutarlı ve standardize bir çerçeveden sezaryeni değerlendirmek amacıyla birkaç tip sezaryen Sınıflama sistemi farklı yazarlarca oluşturulmuş ve önerilmiştir (10). 2011 yılında Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (DSÖ) tarafından yürütülen bir sistematik incelemede, 27 farklı sezaryen Sınıflama sistemi tanımlanmıştır. Bu Sınıflamalar, “kim” (hastaya göre), “neden” (endikasyona göre), “ne zaman” (aciliyete göre) sorularının yanı sıra “nerede”, “nasıl” ve “kim tarafından” sezaryenin yapıldığı sorularına odaklanmış Sınıflamalardır. Bu inceleme günümüz uluslararası ve yerel ihtiyaçların karşılanmasında genel olarak hasta bazlı Sınıflamaların, özel olarak ise 10-grup Sınıflama sisteminin en tatmin edici Sınıflamalar oldukları sonucuna varmıştır (9). 10-grup Sınıflama sistemi (“OGSS- On Grup Sınıflama Sistemi veya “Robson Sınıflaması”) kliniğe doğum için başvurmuş kadınları iyi tanımlamak, klinik açıdan ilişkili grupları ileriye dönük olarak belirlemek ve bu nispeten homojen kadın grupları arasındaki sezaryen oran farklılıklarını araştırmak için oluşturulmuştur (9). Robson Sınıflaması, sezaryen endikasyonuna göre oluşturulmuş diğer Sınıflamalardan farklı olarak, sadece sezaryen ile doğum yapmış kadınlar değil, belirli bir çevrede (doğum evi veya bölge) doğum yapan ‘’tüm kadınlar’’ içindir. Bütün olarak bir perinatal Sınıflamadır. Giriş ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU DSÖ, sağlık hizmeti veren bir kurumda zaman içinde olan ve bu kurumlar arasındaki sezaryen oranlarını izlemek, karşılaştırmak ve değerlendirmek için küresel standart olarak Robson Sınıflama sistemini önermektedir. Robson Sınıflaması için DSÖ’nün Bildirisi Ekim 2014’te DSÖ bir uzman paneli düzenlemiştir. Kanıtların gözden geçirilmesi sonucu, maternal ve perinatal verilerin aynı kurumda zaman içinde ve kurumlar arasında karşılaştırılabilmesinde ortak bir nokta sağlayabilmek için panel tarafından Robson Sınıflaması’nın kurum düzeyinde uygulanması önerilmiştir (3,8). Panelde aynı zamanda bu Sınıflamanın resmi adının‘’ Robson Sınıflaması ‘’ olarak kabul edilmesine karar verilmiştir. 6 ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 02. Kılavuzun amacı ve hedef kitlesi “BU KILAVUZ SAĞLIK HİZMETİ KURUMLARINA YARDIMCI OLMAK İÇİN OLUŞTURULMUŞTUR’” Bu kılavuz sağlık hizmeti kurumlarının Robson Sınıflanması’nı kabul edip kullanmalarına yardımcı olmak için oluşturulmuştur. Doğum için başvuran kadınların hizmetinden sorumlu sağlık uzmanları ve doğumların olduğu sağlık hizmeti kurumlarının yönetiminden sorumlu idareciler bu kılavuzun hedef kitlesini oluşturmaktadır. 7 Sınıflamanın uygulama ve yorumlanmasında standart bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Hanna-Truscott/Midwives for Haiti, Photoshare Kılavuzun amacı ve hedef kitlesi DSÖ Robson Sınıflaması kullanımının sağlık hizmeti veren kurumlara aşağıdaki faydaları sağlayacağını öngörmektedir: • Sezaryen oranlarında en fazla ve en az payı olan kadın gruplarının belirlenmesi ve analizi • İstenilen oranlara sahip diğer kurumlarla, bu kadın gruplarındaki uygulamaların kıyaslanması ve gerekli durumlarda uygulamada değişikliğin göz önünde bulundurulması • Sezaryen oranlarını optimum hale getirmeyi hedefleyecek strateji ve girişimlerin etkinliğini değerlendirmek • Kadın gruplarından çıkan sonuçların analiz edilmesi ile hizmet ve klinik yönetim uygulamalarının kalitelerinin değerlendirilmesi • Toplanan verilerin kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi ve bu verilerin önemi, yorumlanması ve kullanımı hakkında çalışan farkındalığını arttırmak. Robson Sınıflaması sizin için NE yapabilir? Bu kılavuz: • Robson Sınıflamasını anlama ve uygulamanızda ve kendi verilerinizi kullanarak Rapor Tablosu oluşturmanızda yardımcı olmaktadır. • Kullanılan tanımları ve değişkenleri ve Rapor Tablosunun nasıl oluşturulup yorumlanacağını açıklamaktadır. • Karşılaşılabilecek olası zorlukları vurguladığı gibi kullanıcılardan gelen deneyim ve örnekleri paylaşmaktadır. • Kadınları sınıflandırırken sık sorulan soruları ve cevaplarını sunmaktadır. 8 ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 03. Robson Sınıflaması “HERHANGİ BİR KURUMA DOĞUM İÇİN BAŞVURMUŞ HER KADIN 10 GRUPTAN BİRİNDE SINIFLANDIRILABİLİR” Sistem doğum için başvuran her kadını bütünüyle kapsayıcı ve aynı anda iki farklı doğru içermeyecek nitelikteki 10 gruptan birine Sınıflamaktadır. Bunun anlamı; herhangi bir kuruma doğum amaçlı başvuran her kadın temel birkaç obstetrik değişken baz alınarak 10 gruptan birine ve sadece birine, hiçbiri dışarda kalmayacak şekilde sınıflandırılabilmektedir. 9 Robson Sınıflaması sadece sezaryen ile doğum yapmış kadınlar değil, belirli bir ortamda doğum yapan ‘’tüm kadınlar’’ içindir. WHO/Yoshi Shimizu Robson Sınıflaması 3.1 Robson Sınıflamasının 10 Grubu 10 ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU Önceden uterin skarı olanlar da dahil çoğul gebeliği olan bütün kadınlar Nullipar, tekil, baş geliş̧, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan, doğum eyleminden önce indüksiyon veya sezaryen uygulanmış kadınlar Multipar, önceden geçirilmiş uterin skarı olmayan, tekil, baş geliş, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan spontan doğum eyleminde kadınlar Multipar, önceden geçirilmiş uterin skarı olmayan, tekil,
baş geliş, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan, doğum eyleminden önce indüksiyon veya sezaryen uygulanmış kadınlar Multipar, daha önce en az bir uterin skarı olan, tekil, baş geliş, ≥37 haftalık gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar Nullipar, tekil, makat geliş gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar Multipar, tekil, önceden uterin skarı olanlar da dahil makat geliş gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar Nullipar, tekil, baş geliş̧, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan spontan doğum eyleminde kadınlar Önceden uterin skarı olanlar da dahil tekil, transvers ya da oblik prezentasyonlu gebeliği olan bütün kadınlar Tekil, baş geliş, önceden skarı olanlar da dahil, <37 haftalık gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar 3.2 Temel Değişkenlerin Tanımı Tablo 1: Robson Sınıflaması için obstetrik değişkenler 10 grup 6 temel obstetrik değişken üzerine kurulmuştur; her kadını Sınıflamak için yalnızca bu bilgilere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır (Tablo 1). Obstetrik değişkenler: Parite • Nullipar • Multipar Geçirilmiş Sezaryen Öyküsü • Var (bir veya daha fazla) • Yok Doğum eyleminin başlangıcı • Spontan • İndüklenmiş • Eylem başlamadan Sezaryen) Fetus Sayısı • Tekil • Çoğul Gestasyonel Yaş • Preterm (37 haftadan az) • Term (37 hafta veya üzeri)) Fetal duruş ve prezentasyon • Baş • Makat • Transverse Bu bilgiler doğum amaçlı başvuran her kadının klinik yönetiminde kullanılmak üzere zaten rutin olarak toplandığı için her kadının medikal kayıtlarından elde edilebilir olmalıdır. 11 Robson Sınıflaması 3.2 Temel Değişkenlerin Tanımları Tablo 2: Robson Sınıflamasında Kullanılan Temel Değişkenlerin Tanımı Gözlemşken Definizione Osservazioni Parite* Doğum amaçlı başvuru zamanına kadar olan önceki doğum sayısı ≥500g veya ≥22 hafta**,canlı veya ölü, eşlik eden malformasyon var veya yok herhangi bir yolla olmuş bebek doğumları. Geçirilmiş düşük veya küretajlar dahil edilmez. Nullipar Önceden hiç doğum yapmamış Bu tam olarak Primigravida’nın karşılığı değildir. Örneğin 3 düşük yapmış 4. Gebeliği olan bir kadın (G4P0A3) nullipardır ve bu gruba aittir. Multipar En az bir doğum yapmış. ≥ 500 g veya ≥ 22 hafta** , canlı veya ölü, eşlik eden malformasyon var veya yok herhangi bir yolla olmuş bebek doğumları. Geçirilmiş Sezaryen* Doğum amaçlı başvuru zamanına kadar olan önceki sezaryen sayısı Diğer tip uterinskarlar (örneğin myomektomi) geçirilmiş sezaryen grubunda sayılmamalı ve bu gruba dahil edilmemelidir. Yok Önceki tüm doğumlar vajinal yolla olmuştur. Bir veya daha fazla Önceki doğumlarının bir veya fazlası vajinal yolla bile olsa en az bir defa sezaryen ile doğum yapmış olmalıdır. 12 *Tanım o an olan doğumu kapsamamaktadır. Kadın doğumdan önce sınıflandırılmalıdır. Örneğin ilk doğumunu yapmak üzere başvurmuş bir kadın ‘’Nullipar’’ olarak sınıflandırılmalı, form doğumdan sonra doldurulsa bile multipar olarak sınıflandırılmamalıdır. Benzer olarak daha önce 2 vajinal doğum öyküsü olan ve elektif sezaryen için başvuran bir kadın, sezaryen ile 3. doğumunu yaptıktan sonra form doldurulmuş olsa bile ‘’geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü yok’’ olarak sınıflandırılmalıdır. **Bu tanım farklı çevrelerde değişkenlik gösterebilir (aşağıdaki kutuya bakınız). Sınıflamanın kullanıcıları kendi ‘’doğum’’ tanımlamalarını belirtmelidirler (minimum gestasyonel yaş veya doğum kilosu). Eğer burada önerilenden farklılık gösteriyorsa bunu Rapor Tablo’larında (aşağıya bakınız) dipnot olarak belirtmelidirler. Önerilmemekle birlikte eğer ki kullanıcılar ölü doğumları veya malformasyonlu bebekleri Sınıflamaya dahil etmek istemiyorlarsa, bu da dipnotta belirtilmelidir. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU Doğum Eyleminin Başlangıcı Başlangıçta nasıl planlandığından bağımsız olarak travay ve doğumun mevcut gebelikte nasıl başladığıdır. Doğum amaçlı başvuru zamanında hasta geçmişi, fizik muayenesi ve sağlık uzmanı tarafından verilen karar temeline dayanmaktadır. Spontan Doğumdan önce doğum eylemi spontan başlamıştır Sezaryen planlanan (eylem başlamadan) nullipar veya multipar olsun spontan eylemi başlayarak başvuran her kadın bu gruba dahildir. Ayrıca spontan eylemi başlayarak başvurmuş ve ardından oksitosin verilmiş veya eylemi hızlandırmak için amniyotomi uygulanmış hastalar da bu gruba dahildir. İndüklenmiş Doğum merkezine başvurma anında eylemi başlamamış olup orada indüklenmiş kadınlar. Amniyotomi, misoprostol, oksitosin, intraservikal Foley balon uygulaması, laminaria veya diğer herhangi bir indüksiyon yöntemi geçerlidir. Travaya spontan girmiş ve sonrasında oksitosin almış veya distosiyi düzeltmek veya eylemi hızlandırmak amaçlı amniyotomi uygulanmış kadınlar bu gruba değil, ‘’Spontan’’ eylem başlangıcı grubuna dahildir. Eylem Başlamadan Sezaryen Doğum için başvuru anından doğum eylemi başlamamış ve sezaryen ile doğum kararı alınmış kadınlar. İndüksiyon uygulanmış veya spontan eylemi başlayıp daha sonra sezaryen ile doğum uygulanmış olgular bu gruba ait değildir. 13 Obstetrik Değişken Tanım Gözlem Tablo 2 (Devamı): Robson Sınıflamasında Kullanılan Temel Değişkenlerin Tanımı Fetus Sayısı Doğum için başvuru zamanındaki fetüs sayısı ** 22 hafta sonrası veya 500gr üzeri teşhis edilmiş fetal ölümler dahil Tekil Tek fetus 22 hafta veya 500gr ağırlık öncesinde bir fetusun kaybedildiği gebelikler tekil sayılmaktadır. Çoğul Birden fazla fetüs ** 22 hafta veya 500gr’a ulaşmış bir veya daha fazla fetusun kaybedildiği çoğul gebelikler de dahildir. ** Bu tanım farklı çevrelerde değişkenlik gösterebilir (aşağıdaki kutuya bakınız). Sınıflamanın kullanıcıları kendi ‘’doğum’’ tanımlamalarını belirtmelidirler (minimum gestasyonel yaş veya doğum kilosu). Eğer burada önerilenden farklılık gösteriyorsa bu Rapor Tablo’larında (aşağıya bakınız) dipnot olarak belirtmelidirler. Önerilmemekle birlikte eğer ki kullanıcılar ölü doğumları veya malformasyonlu bebekleri Sınıflamaya dahil etmek istemiyorlarsa, bu da dipnotta belirtilmelidir. Robson Sınıflaması ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU Fetal Duruş ve Prezentasyon Doğum kararı verilmeden veya eylem başlama teşhisi konulmadan olan son fetal duruş/prezentasyondur. Makat prezentasyon ile başvurmuş ve eksternal versiyon sonrası baş geliş ile doğurtulmuş bir kadın baş prezentasyon olarak kabul edilmelidir. Transvers şekilde anne karnında duran ölü bir fetüs internal versiyon uygulanarak doğurtulmuş ise makat prezentasyon olarak kabul edilmelidir. Baş Önde gelen kısım fetal baştır Verteks, yüz veya alın veya karma baş geliş (el sarkması) bu gruba dahildir. Makat Fetal makat veya tek ayak veya çift ayak önde gelen kısımdır. Tüm makat geliş şekilleri (frank-düz,komplet makat ve ayak geliş) Transvers veya Oblik Duruş Fetal uzun aks ile maternal uzun aks birbirine dik veya oblik şekilde durmaktadır. Fetal omuz veya kol önde gelen kısımdır veya gelen hiçbir kısım yoktur. 14 Obstetrik Değişken Tanım Gözlem Tablo 2 (Devamı): Robson Sınıflamasında Kullanılan Temel Değişkenlerin Tanımı Gestasyonel Yaş Başvuru zamanındaki doğumun gestasyonel yaşı En iyi öngörülen (son adet tarihi veya ilk ultrasona göre) veya yenidoğan muayenesi veya pratiğinizde kullandığınız tanımlamalar baz alınarak belirlenmiş. Term 37 hafta veya üzeri Preterm 37 hafta altında ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU Robson Sınıflaması daha ilerde geliştirilecek bir perinatal Sınıflamanın genel başlangıç noktası olarak düşünülmelidir. 10 grubun her birinin alt gruplara bölünme veya birbiri ile kombine edilme ihtiyacı duyulabilir. Ek olarak sezaryen endikasyonları veya yenidoğan morbiditesi gibi detaylar eklenebilir ve farklı gruplar içinde analiz edilebilir. Doğum ve doğum eylemi ile ilgili diğer olay ve sonuçlar da grup içinde analiz edilebilir (örneğin oksitosin veya yaş, vücut kitle indeksi gibi epidemiyolojik değişkenler). Ayrıca Sınıflamada yer almayan fakat sonuçları yorumlarken göz önünde bulundurulması gereken birkaç anahtar obstetrik tanım, protokol veya prosedür vardır. Bunlar her bir sağlık kurumuna özel olabileceği gibi bazen ülkeler arasında standart da olabilmektedir. Bunara örnek olarak, eylemin tanısında kullanılan kriterler (servikal efasman ve dilatasyon), eylemin yönetiminde kılavuzlarda geçen membranların yapay yırtılması(amniyotomi), doğumu hızlandırma ve indüksiyon amaçlı kullanılan oksitosin rejimi, ilerlemeyen eylem ve distosi teşhis ve yönetimi, fetal izlem teknikleri, analjezi ve eylemde bire bir bakım gibi durumlar sayılabilir. 15 ‘’Doğum’’ tanımı çeşitli ülkeler veya çevrelerde farklılık gösterebilir. Çoğu yüksek gelirli ülke, en az 500 gr ağırlığında veya en az 20 ila 22 haftalık gestasyonel yaşı doldurmuş bebek olmasına doğum derken, diğer birçok ülke doğum için farklı sınır değerler kabul etmektedir. Örneğin; birçok ülke viabilite sınırı olarak doğum ağırlığını en az 1000 gr, gestasyonel yaşı ise 28 hafta olarak kabul etmektedir. Ülkeler arasında veya ülkeler içinde zamanla olan Robson Rapor Tabloları’nın karşılaştırılabilmesi için Sınıflamayı kullananların kendi popülasyonlarında kabul edilen kilo ve gestasyonel yaş sınır değerlerinin net tanımlarını vermeleri gerekmektedir. Bunlar dipnot olarak Robson Rapor Tablolarına eklenmelidir. Doğum NASIL tanımlanır? Robson Sınıflaması 3.3 10 Grup için Alt bölümler Robson Sınıflamasının birçok kullanıcısı 10 Robson grubuna alt bölümler önermişlerdir (12). Belli grupların (örneğin grup 2, 4 veya 5) alt grupları olması diğerlerine göre daha anlamlı olsa da bu bölümden bölüme değişebilir. Alt bölümlerin amacı, belli alakalı özelliklere göre aynı grup içindeki kadınları grup içi benzerlik ve homojeniteyi daha da artırmak için katmanlara ayırmaktır. Bu belli alt grupla klinik müdahalelerin uygulaması planlanırken özellikle faydalı olabilmektedir. Bu alt bölümlerin önemi ve potansiyel faydaları Sınıflamanın kullanılacağı belirli çevrenin grup büyüklüğüne bağlıdır. Ancak unutulmamalıdır ki; herhangi bir alt bölümün kendi içinde analiz edilmesi dışarda bırakılmış faktörlere dikkat edilmez ise yanıltıcı olabilmektedir. Bu yüzden alt gruplara bakmadan önce kullanıcıların öncelikle 10 grubu analiz etmeye alışmış olmaları önerilmektedir. Aksi takdirde veriler yanlış yorumlanabilir. Tablo 3 Robson Sınıflamasının en yaygın alt bölümlerini göstermektedir. 16 WHO/PAHO ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU Tablo 3. Alt bölümlü Robson Sınıflaması 3.3 10 grup için genel alt bölümler Grup Obstetrik Populasyon 1 Nullipar, tekil, baş geliş, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olanspontandoğum eyleminde kadınlar 2 Nullipar, tekil, baş geliş, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan, doğum eyleminden önce indüksiyon veya sezaryen uygulanmış kadınlar 2a Eylem indüklenmiş 2b Eylem başlamadan sezaryen uygulanmış 3 Multipar, önceden geçirilmiş uterinskarı olmayan, tekil, baş geliş, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan spontan doğum eyleminde kadınlar 4 Multipar, önceden geçirilmiş uterinskarı olmayan, tekil,
başgeliş, ≥37 hafta gebeliği olan, doğum eyleminden önce indüksiyon veya sezaryen uygulanmış kadınlar 4a Eylem indüklenmiş 4b Eylem başlamadan sezaryen uygulanmış 5 Multipar, daha önce en az bir sezaryeni olan, tekil, baş geliş, ≥37 haftalık gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar 5.1 Geçirilmiş 1 sezaryen öyküsü 5.2 Geçirilmiş 2 ya da daha fazla sezaryen öyküsü 6 Nullipar, tekil, makat geliş gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar 7 Multipar, tekil, önceden sezaryeni olanlar da dahil makat prezentasyonlugebeliği olan tüm kadınlar 8 Önceden sezaryeni olanlar da dahil çoğul gebeliği olan bütün kadınlar 9 Önceden sezaryeni olanlar da dahil tekil, transvers ya da oblikprezentasyonlugebeliği olan bütün kadınlar 10 Tekil, baş geliş, önceden sezaryeni olanlar da dahil, <37 haftalık gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar 17 Robson Sınıflaması Grup 2 ve 4 için alt bölümler 3.3 10 grup için genel altbölümler Bu gruplar geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olmayan, tekil, baş geliş, term ve travayı spontan başlamamış sırasıyla nullipar ve multipar gebelikleri kapsamaktadır (Tablo 3). Bu gruplar iki belirgin ve karşılıklı dışlayıcı alt kategorileri kapsamaktadır: 2a veya 4 a : Travayı indüklenmiş (misoprostol, oksitosin, amniyotomi, intraservikal foley kateterizasyon veya başka bir yolla) ve vajinal yolla veya sezaryen ile doğumu gerçekleşmiş sırasıyla nullipar veya multipar kadınlar. 2b veya 4 b: Travay başlamadan sezaryen yapılmış nullipar veya multipar tüm kadınlar. Bu alt gruplardaki tüm kadınlara sezaryen uygulanmış olmasından dolayı hepsinin sezaryen oranı daima %100’dür. Birçok hastanede Grup 2 ve 4, obstetrik populasyonda büyük bir oranı temsil ettiğinden dolayı, klinik uygulamalar (indüklenmiş travay veya travay öncesi sezaryen oranları) arasındaki farklılıkların geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olmayan nullipar ve multipar hastaların sezaryen oranına ve aynı zamanda farklı hastanelerdeki genel sezaryen oranına nasıl etki ettiğini anlayabilmek adına bu alt kategoriler önem taşımaktadır. 18 Ek olarak, 2a ve 4a (sırasıyla indüklenmiş nullipar ve multipar kadınlar) altgruplarının sezaryen oranları, farklı hastanelerdeki indüksiyon kılavuzlarının başarısınınveya zaman içinde aynı hastane verilerinin değerlendirilmesi ve karşılaştırılmasında da kullanılabilir. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU Grup 5 için altbölümler: 3.3 10 grup için genel altbölümler Grup 5, önceden geçirilmiş en az bir sezaryen olmuş tekil, baş prezentasyonunda term gebelikleri kapsamaktadır. Geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olan kadın sayısının artmasıyla birlikte, günümüz obstetrik uygulamalarında birçok çevrede Grup 5 oldukça önemli olabilmektedir. Bu gruptaki sezaryen oranı genellikle yüksek olduğu için, Grup 5 bu çevrelerdeki toplam sezaryen sayısının önemli belirleyicilerinden olabilmektedir. Ancak, Grup 5 belirgin ve karşılıklı dışlayıcı 2 alt kategori kapsamaktadır: 5.1 Daha önceden yalnızca bir sezaryen öyküsü olan multipar kadınlar 5.2 Daha önceden iki ya da daha fazla sezaryen öyküsü olan multipar kadınlar Farklılıkları belirlenmiş bu iki kadın tipinin klinik yönetiminde bu genel alt kategoriler, Sınıflamada 5.1 ve 5.2 olarak ayrı ayrı rapor edilmelidir. Bu alt kategorilerin faydası belli bir çevredeki Grup 5 popülasyonunun gerçek boyutuna bağlıdır. Birçok yüksek ve orta gelirli ülkede Grup 5’in büyüklüğü azımsanmayacak ölçülere ulaşmakla birlikte, önerilen bu alt kategoriler obstetrik populasyonda Grup 5’in yalnızca küçük bir bölümü temsil ettiği ülkeler dışındaki yerlerde daha faydalı ve takdir edilir olacaktır. 19 Robson Sınıflaması 3.4 Değişkenleri eksik olan olgular (Sınıflandırılamayan Olgular) 10 grup sistemi birçok gebelikte başvuru veya doğum esnasında rutin olarak toplanan temel obstetrik özellikler üzerine kurulmuştur. Hasta kayıtlarında bir veya daha fazla temel değişken bilgisinin eksik veya okunaksız olduğu durumlarda kadınları 10 gruptan herhangi birine sınıflandırabilmek mümkün olmayacaktır. Bu “sınıflandırılamayan grup”taki kadınlar Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu’nun bir parçası olarak rapor edilmeli ancak tercihen tablonun altında bir dipnot gibi yerleştirilmelidir. Herhangi bir hastanedeki mevcut verilerin kalite belirteci olmasından dolayı, bu grup ve boyutunun (toplam doğumlar içindeki net sayı ve yüzdesi) raporlanması çok önemlidir. Aynı zamanda gelecekteki veri toplanmasını geliştirmek adına, bu kadın grubunda tam olarak hangi değişkenlerin bilgisinin eksik olduğunun araştırılması önem taşımaktadır. 20 2017 yılında A Hastanesi’nde toplam 2500 doğum oldu ve bunların 250 (%10) tanesi Robson gruplarından birine sınıflandırılamadı. Bu kayıtların incelenmesinde eksik verinin genellikle fetal prezentasyon (n=200/250 olgu) olduğu görüldü. Bu hastanede, her hastanın kaydında mevcut olan fetal prezentasyon bölümünün düzgünce doldurulması, “sınıflandırılamayan olgu” sayısını düşürmede nispeten basit olacaktır. Diğer bir yandan, yılda 7500 doğum olan ve 225 (%3) olgunun sınıflandırılamamış olarak kayda geçtiği B hastanesinde, eksik değişkenler en sık travay başlangıcı ve doğum olarak saptanmıştır (örnek: travay başlamadan sezaryen) (n = 218/225 olgu). Sınıflandırılamayan kişi sayısının B Hastanesi’nde, A Hastanesi’ne göre daha az olduğunu görüp veri toplamanın geliştirilmesi için B Hastanesi’nin yöneticisinin daha az gayret sarf etmesi gerektiği sonucu çıkabilir. Ancak, baktığımızda B Hastanesi’nde eksik olan bilginin (travayın başlangıcı ve doğum), A Hastanesi’nde eksik olan bilgiden (fetal prezentasyon) daha az objektif olduğunu görmekteyiz. Travay başlangıcı ve doğum bilgisinin eksik olmasına bağlı sınıflandırılamayan olgu sayısını düşürmek için, her olguda bu belirli bilgiyi toplayabilmek adına klinisyenler başvuru formlarına bu bilgiyi girecek yeni bir alan eklemeyi düşünebilirler. Örneğin doğumdan önce veri toplama esnasında, her kadın için şu üç seçenekten biri kaydedilebilir; spontan travay, indüklenmiş travay veya travay başlamadan sezaryen uygulanmış. Bu alan doldurulurken, spontan eylemi neyin oluşturduğunun hastane tarafından nasıl tanımlandığı ve sağlık hizmet sağlayıcılarının bu tanımı doğru anlayıp, uyguladığı konusunda tüm ebe ve doğum personelinin fikir birliğinde olmaları gerekmektedir. Sınıflandırılamayan Olguların ölçülme ve araştırılmasının YARARLILIĞI ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 21 04.Kadınları Nasıl Sınıflamak Gerektiği Hakkında Sık Sorulan Sorular …HAKKINDAKİ SORULAR Sıradaki sayfalarda kadınları Robson Grupları’nda nasıl Sınıflamak gerektiği hakkında sıklıkla sorulan soruların cevaplarını bulacaksınız. Kadınları Nasıl Sınıflamak Gerektiği Hakkında Sık Sorulan Sorular S 1: Travayı başlamış (8 cm) olarak başvuran nullipar, tekil, baş prezentasyon, term gebeliği olan kadına fetal distres nedeniyle sezaryen uyguladım. Bu olguyu Grup 1 olarak mı Grup 5 olarak mı Sınıflamalıyım? C 1: Bu kadın Grup 1 olarak sınıflandırılmalıdır. Sınıflama o sıradaki doğumu hesaba katmamaktadır. Bu nedenle bu kadın geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olan bir multipar değil nullipar olarak kabul edilir. S 3: 4. gebeliği ve önceden 3 düşük (8. , 12. ve 14. haftalarda) öyküsü olan 38 haftalık, tekil, baş prezentasyonlu spontan eylemi başlamış bir kadını nasıl Sınıflamalıyım? Bu kadın Grup 1’e mi yoksa Grup 3’e mi aittir? C 3: Nullipar olması nedeniyle ( ≥ 500 gr veya ≥ 22 hafta bir fetus doğurma öyküsü yok) Grup 1’e aittir. S 4: 38 haftalık, tekil, baş prezentasyonlu ve 2 yıl önce geçirilmiş myomektomi öyküsü nedeniyle eylem başlamadan sezaryen amaçlı başvuran nullipar bir kadın Grup 2’de mi yoksa Grup 5‘te mi sınıflandırılmalıdır? C 4: Bu kadın Grup 2’ye aittir (Grup 2b). Uterin skar öyküsü yalnızca geçirilmiş bir (veya daha fazla) sezaryen nedeniyle mevcut olan kadınlar Grup 5’e dahil edilmelidir. S 2: Önceden 5 defa term doğum yapmış, baş prezentasyon, 26 haftalık, 620 gr ölçülerinde ölü bebek doğurmuş kadını nasıl Sınıflamalıyım? Ülkemde 500 gr ve üzeri canlı doğan bebekler kayıt altına alınmakla birlikte 1000 gr altında olan ölü doğumları kayıt etmiyoruz. C 2: Bu kadın Grup 10’a aittir. Ancak sizin çevrenizde bulunan tanımlamalardan dolayı bu olguyu Robson Sınıflamasına dahil etmemeye de karar verebilirsiniz. Bu olguda, “doğum” tanımı için kullandığınız belirleyici kriterleri Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu’nun altına dipnot olarak eklemeniz gerekmektedir. Örneğin dipnotunuzda; “Yalnızca ≥ 500 gr canlı ve ≥ 1000 gr ölü bebek doğumlarını dahil ettik.” şeklinde belirtebilirsiniz. 22 Parite hakkında sorular: ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU S 5: Daha önce bir vajinal doğum öyküsü olan ve 41. Haftada indüksiyon amaçlı hastaneye başvurmuş bir kadını nasıl sınıflandırırım? Ben Grup 1 olarak Sınıflamak istedim, çünkü benim ülkemde sadece daha önce en az 2 doğum yapmış kadınlara multipar denilmekte olup böyle kadınlara primipar denilmektedir. C 5: Robson Sınıflamasına göre daha önce bir veya daha fazla doğum öyküsü olan tüm kadınlar “ Multipar kadınlar’’ olarak sınıflandırılmaktadır. Bu yüzden bu kadın Grup 4’e aittir. 23 Doğumun başlaması hakkında sorular S 1: 4 saat önce membran rüptürü gerçekleşmiş ve son bir saattir kontraksiyonları başlamış 40 haftalık, tekil, baş prezentasyonunda, nullipar bir gebeyi kabul ettim. Başvurduğunda, hastanenin spontan eylem tanımına uygun olan, 2 cm servikal açıklık, %80 efasman ve üç dakikada bir olan orta şiddetli kontraksiyon özelliklerini gösteriyordu. Başvurusundan 4 saat sonra hala servikal açıklığının 2 cm olması üzerine eylemi hızlandırmak için oksitosin verdim. Bu kadını Grup 1 olarak mı, Grup 2 olarak mı Sınıflamam gerekir? C 1: Nullipar olması ve eyleminin spontan başlaması nedeniyle (sizin spontan eylem tanımınıza göre) bu kadın Grup 1’e aittir. Bu olgudaki oksitosin kullanımı indüksiyon amaçlı değil eylemi hızlandırma amaçlı kullanılmıştır. Bu nedenle bu kadın spontan eylemi başlamamış ve herhangi bir yöntemle (farmakolojik veya mekanik) doğumu indüklenmiş gebelere özel olan Grup 2’ye ait değildir. S 2: 41 yaşında, obez, multipar (3 vajinal doğum öyküsü mevcut), 40 haftalık, tekil, baş prezentasyonda, spontan eylemi başlamış ve 4 cm servikal dilatasyonu olan gebeyi kabul ettim. Gestasyonel diabet ve makrozomik fetüs nedeniyle bir gün sonraya elektif sezaryen planladım. Bu kadın Grup 3’te mi, yoksa Grup 4b’de mi olmalıdır? C 2: Sınıflama doğumun nasıl planlandığını değil, mevcut gebelikte doğum eyleminin nasıl başlamış olduğunu göz önüne almakta olup, bu doğumun başlangıcının spontan olması nedeniyle bu kadın Grup 3’e aittir. Kadınları Nasıl Sınıflamak Gerektiği Hakkında Sık Sorulan Sorular 24 S 1: İkiz gebeliği olan ve önde gelen bebeğin transvers durduğu bir gebelik olgusunu Grup 8 olarak mı Grup 9 olarak mı Sınıflamalıyım? C 1: “Çoğul gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar’’ tanımı Grup 8 kapsamına girdiği için bu kadın da Grup 8’e aittir. Grup 9 transvers veya oblik duruştaki tekil gebelikleri kapsamaktadır. S 2: Nullipar bir kadına 14. gebelik haftasında üçüz gebelik tanısı konuldu. 22. Haftada yapılan ultrasonda yaşayan yalnızca tek fetüs olduğu görüldü ve diğer ölü fetusların tahmini ağırlıkları 500 gramın altında olarak ölçüldü. 39. gebelik haftasında eylemi spontan başlamış, canlı fetüs baş prezentasyon şekilde başvurdu. Bu kadını nasıl Sınıflamalıyım: Grup 8’de mi yoksa Grup 1’de mi? C 2: Bu olgu Grup 1’e aittir. Bu Sınıflama tahmini fetal ağırlığı 500 gramın veya gestasyonel yaşı 22 haftanın altında gebelikler/fetüsler için uygulanmaz. Çoğul gebelikler hakkında sorular ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU S 3: 42 yaşında multipar (geçirilmiş 2 sezaryen öyküsü) bir kadına yapılan ultrasonda 10 haftalık ikiz gebelik tanısı konuluyor. 31 haftalıkken ağır preeklampsi ve fetal gelişme geriliği nedeniyle iki fetus da canlı şekilde hastaneye yatışı yapılıyor. İkinci gün fetuslardan biri ölüyor. Acilen eylem öncesi sezaryen amaçlı doğumhaneye alınıyor. Önde gelen fetus makat prezentasyonda ve ölü olarak, yaşayan fetus ise baş prezentasyonda saptanıyor. Bu kadın Grup 5.2’ye mi, Grup 7’ye mi yoksa Grup 8’e mi aittir? C 3: Bu olgu Grup 8’e aittir. Fetal kayıp 22 haftadan sonra (veya > 500 gr fetal ağırlığa ulaştıktan sonra) gerçekleşmiş olduğu için bu gebelik çoğul olarak kabul edilir. Grup 5’e ait değildir çünkü bu grup yalnızca term, tekil ve baş prezentasyonda gebelikleri kapsar. Grup 7’ye de ait değildir. Çünkü bu grup yalnızca tekil, makat prezentasyonlu gebeleri kapsamaktadır. S 4: 2015 yılında hastanemde toplam 3000 doğum olmuş olup bu doğumların 60 tanesi ikiz, 1 tanesi üçüzdü. Dolayısıyla 2015’te toplam 3062 bebek doğurtulmuştur. Hastanem için 2015 yılı ana Robson Rapor Tablosunu oluştururken toplam sayı (2. Sütun son satır) 3000 mi, yoksa 3062 mi olmalı? C 4: Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosu toplam sayısı, bir çevredeki toplam bebek sayısı değil toplam doğum yapmış KADIN sayısını gösterir. Dolayısıyla doğru toplam sayı 3000 olacaktır. Robson Sınıflaması bir çevredeki toplam doğum yapmış kadın sayısını gösterir bebek sayısını değil. 25 Kadınları Nasıl Sınıflamak Gerektiği Hakkında Sık Sorulan Sorular 26 Prezentasyon Hakkında Sorular S 1: Eylemi spontan başlamış, nullipar, 38 haftalık ve 8 cm servikal açıklığı bulunan, yüz presentasyonunda bir kadını nasıl Sınıflamam gerekir? C 1: Bu kadın Grup 1’e aittir. Tüm yüz, alın veya bileşik baş prezentasyonlar Grup 1’de sınıflandırılmalıdır. Önde gelen bölüm fetal baş olduğu sürece hep baş prezentasyon olarak kabul edilir. S 2: Daha önce 3 vajinal doğum yapmış, eylemi spontan başlamış 39 haftalık, 5 cm servikal açıklığı olan, membran rüptürü gerçekleşmiş, tekil baş prezentasyonlu fakat başın yanında fetal elin de bulunduğu bir gebeyi kabul ettim. Bu kadını Grup 3’e mi yoksa Grup 9’a mı yerleştirmem gerekir? C 2: Bu kadın Grup 3’te olmalıdır. Önde gelen kısım baş olduğu her durum baş prezentasyonu olarak kabul edilir. Grup 9 yalnızca transvers veya oblik duruşlu fetusları kapsamakta olup bu duruşa eşlik eden olası bir kol sarkması da bu gruba dahil olabilir, fakat bu olguda böyle bir durum söz konusu değil. S 3: Nullipar, 37 haftalık, makat prezentasyonda doğum eylemi başlamamış bir gebeyi kabul ettim. Başarılı bir eksternal versiyon uygulamasının hemen ardından indüklendi. 12 saat içinde vajinal yolla baş prezentasyonlu doğum gerçekleşti. Bu kadını Grup 6’ya mı yoksa Grup 2a’ya mı yerleştirmem gerekir? C 3: Bu kadın Grup 2a’da yer alır. Robson Sınıflaması doğum kararı verilmeden veya eylem tanısı konulmadan önceki nihai fetal prezentasyon/duruş ne ise onu baz alır. Bu olguda eylemin başlangıcı esnasındaki prezentasyon baş olması nedeniyle bu kadın Grup 2a’da yer alır. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU S 1: 32 haftalık, servikal açıklığı tam, tekil, canlı, baş prezentasyonda, umblikal kord sarkması da mevcut bir nullipar başvurdu. Bu kadın Grup 1, 10 veya Grup 9’dan hangisine aittir? C 1: Bu kadın Grup 10’a aittir çünkü preterm, tekil ve baş prezentasyonda ki tüm gebelikleri bu grup kapsar. Bu olgudaki gebelik term (37 hafta ve üzeri) olmadığı için Grup 1’e dahil olmadığı gibi, sadece transvers veya oblik duruş olanları kapsayan Grup 9’a da dahil değildir. 27 Gestasyonel yaş, fetal kayıp ve fetal malformasyonlar hakkında sorular S 2: Geçirilmiş 2 sezaryen öyküsü mevcut, 30 haftalık, eylemi başlamamış, makat prezentasyonda ölü fetusu olan ve preeklampsili multipar bir gebe. Bu kadın fetusun ölü olması nedeniyle Robson Sınıflamasına dahil edilmeli mi? Eğer ediliyorsa bu kadın Grup 5, Grup 7 veya Grup 10’dan hangisine dahil edilmelidir? C 2: Robson Sınıflaması ölü doğumları dışlamamaktadır. Dolayısıyla Sınıflamaya dahil edilmelidir. Bu kadın “Multipar, tekil, önceden geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olanlar da dahil makat prezentasyonda gebeliği olan tüm kadınlar” tanımına uyduğu için Grup 7’ye dahildir. Grup 5 ve Grup 10 yalnızca baş prezentasyonlu gebelikleri kapsadığı için makat prezentasyonlu bu olgu bu gruplara dahil değildir. S 3: Nullipar, anensefalik fetus taşıyan bir kadın 24. gebelik haftasında indüksiyon amaçlı yatırıldı. Fetus baş prezentasyonda ölü olarak izlendi. Robson Sınıflaması’na dahil edilmesi söz konusu mu? Eğer dahil ediliyorsa Grup 2’ye mi yoksa Grup 10’a mı dahil edilmeli? C 3: Robson Sınıflaması ölü veya malforme fetusları dışlamamaktadır; dolayısıyla bu kadın Sınıflamaya dahil edilmelidir. Tekil, baş prezentasyonlu, preterm bütün gebelikleri kapsadığı için bu kadın Grup 10’a dahildir; fetal baş anomalisi varlığı prezentasyonun baş olduğu gerçeğini değiştirmez. Grup 2 term, baş prezentasyonlu gebelikler içindir ki bu olguda durum zaten farklıdır. Kadınları Nasıl Sınıflamak Gerektiği Hakkında Sık Sorulan Sorular 05. Kadınları Robson Gruplarına Sınıflama Yolları Her kadını 10 Grup’tan birine Sınıflamak için kullanabileceğiniz farklı yollar bulunmaktadır. Her hastanın kayıtlarından ana değişkenlere tek tek bakıp dosyanın kapak sayfasına manuel olarak kalemle hastanın Robson Grubunu not etmek kadar basit olabileceği gibi, diğer bir taraftan bilgi veren uzmanlardan oluşan bir takımdan, elektronik hasta kayıtlarından gerekli ana değişkenleri seçip, önceden ayarlı formüllerle her kaydı ona spesifik Robson Grubuna otomatik olarak atayan bir yazılım oluşturmalarını isteyecek kadar komplike de olabilir. “BİLGİ VEREN UZMANLAR TAKIMINA İHTİYACINIZ YOK” Bir sonraki sayfada kategorizasyonun en kolay şekilde uygulanabilmesi için takip edilecek rehber niteliğindeki akış şeması bulunmaktadır. Verileri eksik (6 ana değişkenin bir veya daha fazlasının bilgisinin olmaması) olgular “Sınıflandırılamaz” olarak kategorize edilmeli ve eksik değişkenler bu olguların analizlerini kolaylaştırmak adına not edilmelidir. 28 Jonathan Torgovnik Kadınları Robson Gruplarına Sınıflama Yolları ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 29 Source: Adattato da Nassar LF, Sancho HD. Instrucción de Robson . v.0.1-1. 2015/06/08. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) Figür 2: Robson Sınıflaması’nda kadınların sınıflandırılması için akış şeması Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson çoğul gebelik Transvers veya oblik makat gebelik Gestasyonel yaş <37 hafta multipar kadın daha önceden uterin skar doğum indüksiyonu veya doğum öncesi doğum indüksiyonu veya doğum öncesi evet evet evet evet evet BURADAN BAŞLA evet evet evet evet multipar kadın yok yok yok yok yok yok yok yok yok 30 5.1 Manuel olarak 5.2 Elektronik çizelge veya otomatik hesaplayıcı kullanarak Her bir kaydı inceleyip toplayarak veya eğer Tablo 1’de listelenen gerekli değişkenleri sağlıyorsa direk doğumhane kayıtlarından (doğum defteri) veya Tablo 3’te gösterilen tanımlamalar kullanılarak her kadın manuel olarak 10 gruptan birine sınıflandırılabilir. Bir kere sınıflandırıldıktan sonra, kadının ait olduğu spesifik grup, dosya kayıtlarına veya doğumhanedeki doğum defterinde oluşturulacak yeni bir sütuna işlenebilir. Bu kayıtlar her bir gruptaki kadın sayısının periyodik (örn. aylık) ölçümlerini kolaylaştırmak için kullanılabilir. Her kadının Sınıflamasını kolaylaştırmak için bir önceki sayfada bulunan akış şemasının (Figür 2) bir kopyasını yazdırabilir ve belirtilen adımları takip edebilirsiniz. Bu tarz bir Sınıflama, her kadının hangi gruba ait olduğu kararını vermede insani hata payını azaltması açısından manuel olarak toplamadan muhtemelen daha üstündür. Ancak her kadın için her temel değişkenin elektronik bir çizelgeye girilmesini gerektirir. Örneğin her kadın için bir satır ve her bir temel değişken ve bu değişkenlerin olası spesifik cevapları için bir sütundan oluşan elektronik bir çizelge (sonraki sayfada Tablo 4’e bakınız) oluşturabilirsiniz. Ardından bu çizelgenin en sonuna (veya en başına) “Grup Numarası” adıyla bir sütun daha ekleyebilir ve Sınıflamanın kurallarıyla tanımlanmış elektronik formüller aracılığıyla her kadının otomatik olarak yerleştiği Robson Grubu numaralarının bu sütuna atanmasını sağlayabilirsiniz. Sonraki sayfada bulunan tablo hastanenizdeki bilgi veren uzmanların 6 temel değişken baz alınarak tüm kadınları 10 Robson grubundan birine sınıflandıracak elektronik formülleri oluşturmalarında faydalı olabilir. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 31 Tablo 4: Her Robson grubundaki değişken özelliklerinin özeti Grup Parite Önceki C/S Fetus Sayısı fetal prezentasyon veya yatış Gestasyonel hafta Dpoğumun başlayış şekli 1 0 hayır 1 sefalik ≥ 37 spontan 2 0 hayır 1 sefalik ≥ 37 indüksiyon veya doğumdan önce C/S 3 ≥ 1 hayır 1 sefalik ≥ 37 spontan 4 ≥ 1 hayır 1 sefalik ≥ 37 indüksiyon veya doğumdan önce C/S 5 ≥ 1 evet 1 sefalik ≥ 37 6 0 hayır 1 makat 7 ≥ 1 1 makat 8 ≥ 2 9 1 transvers veya oblik 10 1 sefalik < 37 5.3 Elektronik kayıtlar üzerinden Eğer hastaneniz elektronik hasta kayıt sistemi kullanılıyorsa, bilgi işlem ile irtibata geçip, kadınları 10 gruptan birine Sınıflamak için gerekli temel obstetrik değişkenleri (Tablo 4) ve manuel Sınıflama için kullanılan akış şemasını (Figür 2) onlara gösterip, doğum için başvuran kadınları otomatik olarak sınıflandıracak gerekli formülleri oluşturmalarını isteyebilirsiniz. Robson Rapor Tablosunu oluşturmada bunu da kullanabilirler. 5.2 Elektronik çizelge veya otomatik hesaplayıcı kullanarak Modi di classificare le donne nei gruppi di Robson 32 06. Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu “VERİLERİN STANDARTLAŞTIRILMIŞ BİR ŞEKİLDE EN İYİ RAPORLANMASI OLUR” Yerel çevrelerdeki Robson Sınıflamasında sağlanan verilerden en verimli şekilde yararlanabilmek ve bu çevreler arasında karşılaştırma yapabilmek için verilerin en iyi raporlanması standartlaştırılmış bir şekilde olur (“Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu”). WHO/Christopher Black ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 33 Rapor tablosu 7 sütundan oluşmaktadır: Sütun 1 Sütun 2 Sütun 3 Sütun 4 Sütun 5 Sütun 6 Sütun 7 Grup ismi ve/veya numarası ve tanımı (kullanıcıların ilgi alanına giriyorsa Grup 2,4 ve 5 için alt bölümleriyle birlikte) Her gruptaki toplam sezaryen sayısı Her gruptaki doğum yapan toplam kadın sayısı Genel kurum popülasyonuna oranla grup boyutu. 10 grubun her biri için yüzde olarak. Her gruptaki sezaryen oranı. 10 grubun her biri için yüzde olarak. Genel sezaryen oranına her grubun net katkı. 10 grubun her biri için yüzde olarak. Genel sezaryen oranına her 10 grubun ayrı ayrı göreceli katkısı. 10 grubun her biri için yüzde olarak. Daha sonra tüm yüzde hesaplarını yapabilmeniz için doldurmaya Sütun 2 ve 3’ten (10 grubun her birindeki toplam sezaryen ve kadın sayısı) başlamanızı öneririz. Below is an example of the table in a condensed format which may be useful in a slide presentation. CS/Women 19.8% Size of Group (%) CS rate in gp (%) Contr. Of each gp 19.8% 1 Nullip single ceph ≥ 37 wks spon lab 196/2503 27.3 7.8 2.1 2 Nullip single ceph ≥ 37 wks ind. Or CS before lab 548/1380 15.1 33.2 5.0 3 Multi (excl prev caesarean section) single ceph ≥ 37 wks spon lab 25/2678 29.2 0.9 0.3 4 Multi (excl prev caesarean section) single ceph ceph ≥ 37 wks ind. Or CS before lab 125/885 9.7 14.1 1.4 5 Previous caesarean section single ceph ≥ 37 wks 483/811 8.9 59.6 5.3 6 All nulliparous breeches 183/199 2.2 92.0 2.0 7 All multiple breeches (incl previous caesarean sections) 101/121 1.3 83.5 1.1 8 All multiple pregnancies (incl) previous caesarean sections) 91/155 1.7 58.7 1.0 9 All abnormal lies (incl previous caesarean sections) 21/21 0.2 100 0.2 10 All single ceph ≤ 36 wks (incl previous caesarean sections) 137/408 4.5 33.6 1.5 Example of slide with the classification for a presentation Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu 34 Tabella 5: Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu 06. Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosu Hastane ismi: Hastane ABC periyod: Ocak 2016 – Aralık 2016 Sütun 1 Sütun 2 Sütun 3 Sütun 4 Sütun 5 Sütun 6 Sütun 7 Grup Gruptaki sezaryen sayısı Gruptaki kadın sayısı Grup büyüklüğü1 (%) Grup sezaryen oranı2 (%) toplam C/S oranına grubun gerçek katkısı3 (%) toplam C/S oranına grubun relatif katkısı4 (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 toplam* toplam C/S sayısı Doğum yapan toplam kadın sayısı 100% toplam C/S oranı toplam C/S oranı %100 Sınıflandırılamayan: Vaka sayısı ve % (sınıflandırılamayan vaka sayısı/(sınıflandırılabilien vakaların toplam sayısı+sınıflandırılamayan vakaların sayısı) x100 *Bu toplam ve %’ler tablodaki datadan gelecek 1. Grup büyüklüğü (%) = n gruptaki kadın sayısı/ hastanede doğum yapan toplam N kadın sayısı x 100 2. Grup C/S oranı (%) = n C/S grubundaki / gruptaki toplam N kadın x 100 3. Gerçek katkı (%) = n C/S gurubunda ki toplam / hastanede doğum yapan toplam N kadın sayısı x 100 4. Relatif katkı (%) = n C/S gurubunda ki toplam / hastanede toplam C/S olanlar N x 100 ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 35 07. Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması “HASTANE TARAFINDAN HİZMET VERİLEN POPULASYON TİPİNİ ANLAMADA YARDIM EDER” Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun yorumlanması, veri toplama kalitesini, hastane tarafından hizmet verilen populasyonun tipini, her grubun sezaryen oranını ve belli çevrede 10 grubun her birinin genel sezaryen oranına ayrı ayrı nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu ve ayrıca bir doğum ünitesinin genel felsefesini kavramamızı sağlamaktadır. United Nations Photo Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması Gruplar arası boyut ve gruplar içindeki olay ve sonuçların farklılıklarının en temel 3 sebebi şunlardır: • Düşük veri kalitesi (hasta kayıtlarındaki yanlış bilgiler veya kayıtlardan bilgi aktarımı sırasındaki hatalar) • Popülasyonların önemli epidemiyolojik özellikleri arasındaki farklılıklar (yaş, VKİ, vb...) • Klinik uygulamadaki farklılıklar. Yalnızca kaliteyi ve epidemiyolojik değişkenleri değerlendirdikten sonraki uygulama değişikliklerini dikkate alınız. Robson Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanmasında GENEL PRENSİPLER Okuyucuların hatırlaması gerekir ki sayılardaki küçük oynamalar, doğum hızı az olan çevrelerde yüzdeler üzerine etkisini yorumlamada dikkate alınmalıdır. Robson Sınıflamasının prensiplerinden biri hiçbir kadının dışlanmamasıdır ve herhangi bir grubu detaylı değerlendirmeden önce, ayrı ayrı her 10 grubun boyutlarını belirlemek, tüm obstetrik popülasyonun denge ve yapısını tayin etmek için önemlidir. Bu yaklaşım ile genellikle aşikar veri toplama problemleri (doğrulama) ve ayrıca özgün popülasyonlar tanımlanabilir. 10 grup önceden analiz edilmeden hiçbir grup tek başına yorumlanmamalıdır. Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunda bulunan verilerin yorumlanması, üç ana alana böldüğümüz bir dizi adımları takip ederek kolaylaştırılabilir: 1)Veri kalitesi, 2) popülasyon tipi ve 3) sezaryen oranları. “Veri Kalitesi” alanında (Tablo 6) veri toplamanızı geliştirmeniz gerekiyorsa bunu kontrol etmenize yardımcı olacak birkaç basit adım bulunmaktadır. “Popülasyon Tipi” alanındaki (Tablo 7) adımlar hastanenizde doğum yapan kadınların özelliklerini daha iyi anlamanıza yardımcı olacaktır. Bu bilgiler trend analizi yapmada kullanılabilir; örneğin popülasyon sabit mi veya popülasyon içinde ay veya yıl süresince değişim var mı gibi konuların anlaşılmasında yardımcı olması gibi. “Sezaryen oranları” alanında (Tablo 8) her 10 grubun sezaryen oranlarını anlayıp karşılaştırabilmenize ve hastanenizdeki genel sezaryen oranına en büyük katkıyı hangi grubun sağladığını tanımlamanızda yardımcı olacak adımları bulacaksınız. 36 ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 37 Bu tip bilgiler zaman içindeki değişiklikleri analiz etmede, hastaneler arası farklılıkları karşılaştırmada ve belirli gruplarda iyi maternal ve perinatal sonuçları sağlayacak optimum sezaryen oranlarını yakalamak için gerekli klinik uygulamaların modifiye edilmesine yardımcı olmada kullanılabilirler. Eylem ve doğumun güvenlik ve kalitesine gösterilen özen, maternal ve perinatal sonuçların yanısıra anne tatmini ile de yüksek derecede ilişki göstermektedir. İdeal olarak tüm perinatal sonuçlar standart bir perinatal Sınıflama sistemi kullanılarak değerlendirilmeli ve hiçbir sonuç diğerlerinden ayrı şekilde değerlendirilmemelidir. Robson Sınıflaması sağlık bakımı önerme için değil sağlık bakımı değerlendirme amaçlı bir araç olarak kullanılabilir. Hastanenin sonuçları ve diğer mevcut kanıtlar ışığında uygun bakımın ne olduğu kararı hastanenin kendisine aittir (12,13). Tablo 6-8’deki yorumlama örneklerinde iki kaynak temel alınmıştır; biri Michael Robson tarafından 1990’dan beri Sınıflamayı uygulaması ile oluşmuş uluslararası deneyimi (9, 14, 15), ikinci kaynak ise Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Anne ve Yenidoğan Sağlığı Çoklu Ülke Araştırmasıdır (WHO MCS) (16, 17). Burada vurgulanması gereken, bu kaynakların hiçbirinin resmi validasyonunun ve tabloda gruplara göre dağıtılan sezaryen oranlarının düzeltilmiş sonuçlarla ilişkilendirilmediğidir. Özellikle dikkat edilmelidir ki, WHO MCS’de bulunan her Robson grubundaki sezaryen oranları düşük ve orta gelirli ülkelerden 60 sağlık tesisinin ortalaması baz alınarak elde edilmiştir ve bu nedenle dünya genelinde herkes tarafından takip edilecek öneriler olarak alınamaz ve alınmamalıdır. WHO, MCS 29 ülkedeki 300 sağlık tesisinde bulunan Afrika, Asya, Doğu Akdeniz bölgesi ve Latin Amerika’dan toplam 314000 kadını dahil ederek uygulanmış kesitsel bir çalışmadır (17, 18). Bu araştırma verileri ışığında, sezaryen ve doğum esnasında perinatal mortalite oranları düşük merkezlerden oluşan bir “referans populasyon” oluşturulmuştur. Bu merkezlerin gereksiz sezaryen sayılarının az olduğu ve iyi maternal ve perinatal sonuçları olduğu varsayılmıştır (16, 19). Bu “referans populasyon” 22 ülkedeki 66 tesisten toplam 42,637 kadını kapsamaktadır. Çoklu Ülke Araştırma Kutusu, WHO, MCS ve “referans populasyon”’da daha detaylı bilgiler sunmaktadır. Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması Aşağıda önerilen adımlar Tablo 5’te belirtilen sütunların sırasını kullanmaktadır.Bu kurallar yalnızca sınıflamayı tamamen okuyup anladıktan sonra kullanılmalıdır. Eğer veri dağılımınız (grup boyutları) tuhaf görünüyorsa öncelikle veri kalitesi düşüklüğünden ya da benzersiz bir popülasyon ihtimalinden şüphelenin. Hiçbir hastane devamlı tamamen doğru veri toplayamamaktadır. Devamlılık gösteren bir kullanımda, bu sistem hatalarını belirlemede ve veri toplama kalitesini en iyi şekilde geliştirmede yardımcı olur. Sonraki sayfalarda Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu yorumlamak için gerekli adımları sunuyoruz. WHO, MCS 29 ülkedeki 359 sağlık tesisi baz alınarak uygulanmış kesitsel bir çalışmadır. WHO, MCS’e katılan ülke, il ve sağlık tesisleri katmanlı, kademeli küme örnekleme yöntemi ile rasgele seçilmişlerdir. Yalnızca yılda en az 1000 doğum yaptırılan ve sezaryen olanağı sunabilen sağlık tesisleri uygun olarak kabul edildi. Mayıs 2010 ve Aralık 2011 tarihleri arasında Adrika, Asya, Doğu Akdeniz bölgesi ve Latin Amerika’dan toplam 314,623 kadın dahil edildi (17, 18). “Referans populasyon” oluşturulurken, doğum zamanı bakım kalitesi için intrapartum ilişkili perinatal mortalite (örn: intrapartum ölü doğumlar ve doğumdan sonraki ilk bir gün içinde olan neonatal ölümler) makul bir belirteç olarak düşünüldü. Ayrıca sezaryen ve intrapartum perinatal mortalite oranları düşük sağlık merkezleri, gereksiz sezaryen sayıları az, maternal ve perinatal sonuçları iyi olduğu varsayıldı ve bundan dolayı bu popülasyon “referans” olarak kabul edildi (16). WHO, MCS merkez örnekleminde sezaryen oranları ve intrapartum perinatal mortalitesi 50 persantilin altında olan merkezler “referans populasyonu oluşturdu. Yeterli ölçüde büyük gruplarda düşük veya yüksekliğin tanımlanmasında genellikle bu orta değer referans olarak kullanıldığı için bu spesifik sınır değer (örn. 50 persantil) seçildi. WHO, MCS dahilindeki tüm merkezler içinde sezaryen oranı için orta değer (50. persantil) %30 iken intrapartum ilişkili perinatal ölümler için bu değer 1000 canlı doğumda 6.8 ölüm olarak saptandı. Bu değerlerin altında değeri olan sağlık tesisleri (örn. sezaryen oranı %30’un altında ve intrapartum ilişkili ölüm sayısı 1000 doğumda 6.8’in altında), 22 ülkedeki 66 tesisten toplam 42,637 kadını kapsayan “referans populasyon”u oluşturdu. Bu bölümdeki Robson Rapor Tablosunu oluştururken bu tesislerde doğum yapmış kadınları kullandık (16). Anne ve Yenidoğan Sağlığı üzerine ÇOKLU ÜLKE ARAŞTIRMASI (WHO, MCS) 38 Veri Kalitesini değerlendirme Obstetrik populasyon tipini değerlendirme Sezaryen oranlarını değerlendirme ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 39 Tablo 6: Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak veri kalitesini belirleme adımları* 7.1 Veri kalitesini belirleme adımları Adım Robson’a göre Yorumlama Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 1. Hastanenizde sezaryen olmuş ve doğum yapmış toplam kadın sayısına bakın (sütun 2 ve 3’ün son satırları) Bu sayılar hastanenizdeki toplam sezaryen olmuş ve doğum yapmış kadın sayısı ile aynı olmalıdır. Uygulanamaz Bu sayılar eşleşmiyorsa verileri eksik veya yanlıştır. Eksik değişkenler nedeniyle bazı kadınlar Robson Grupları’na sınıflandırılamamış veya doğum tipine göre yanlış sınıflandırılmış olabilir. Bazen çoğul gebelikler anne olarak sayılmak yerine bebek olarak sayılabilmektedir# 2. Grup 9’un büyüklüğüne bakın (sütun 4) Transvers veya oblik duruşlu tekiller %1’den az olmalıdır. 0.4% Eğer bu %1’in üzerinde ise muhtemelen makat (veya diğer) prezentasyonlar yanlışlıkla transvers/oblik duruş grubuna yerleştirilmiş olabilir. Sınıflama doğurmuş olan tüm kadınları kapsadığı için, eğer ki bir grup daha büyük veya küçük ise bazen diğer gruplara bakmak yanlış Sınıflamanın nerede olduğunu gösterebilir. 3. Grup 9’un CS oranına bakın (Sütun 5): Toplamı %100 olmalıdır. 88.6% Eğer bir kadın internal versiyon ile vajinal doğum yapmış ise genel olarak baş veya makat olarak sınıflandırılmalıdır. Grup 9’daki sezaryen oranı %100 olmalıdır. *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** MCS referans popülasyonu MCS’deki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. # Sınıflandırılamayan olgular için 3.d’deki önerilere bakınız. Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması 40 Tablo 7 : Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak popülasyon tipini belirleme adımları* 7.2 Populasyon tipini belirleme adımları Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 1. Grup 1 + Grup 2’nin büyüklüklerine bakın (Sütun 4) – Nullipar ≥37 hafta tekil baş prezentasyon gebeliği olan kadınlar Çoğu hastanede obstetrik popülasyonun genellikle %35- 42’lik bölümünü temsil eder. %38.1 Birden fazla çocuk yerine yalnızca tek çocuğu olan kadınların yüksek oranda olduğu çevrelerde, nullipar kadın grupları, örn. Grup 1 ve 2 daha büyük olma eğilimindedirler. Tam tersinin geçerli olduğu çevrelerde ise popülasyonun çoğu multipar kadınlar tarafından temsil edileceği için Grup 1 ve Grup 2’nin boyutları küçük olacaktır. 2. Grup 3 + 4’ün büyüklüklerine bakın (Sütun 4) – Multipar ≥37 hafta tekil, baş prezentasyonlu gebeliği olan ve geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olmayan kadınlar Bu genellikle kadınların %30’unu temsil eder %46.5 Yalnızca tek çocuk yerine birden fazla çocuğu olan kadınların yüksek oranda olduğu çevrelerde, Grup 3 + Grup 4’ün büyüklükleri %30’dan yüksek olacaktır (vajinal doğum yapmış olmaları kaydıyla). Grup 3 ve 4’ün boyutlarının küçük olmasının bir diğer nedeni ise Grup 5 oranının çok yüksek olması ve çok yüksek gene sezaryen oranının buna eşlik etmesi olabilmektedir. 3. Grup 5’in büyüklüğüne bakın (Sütun 4) - Multipar ≥37 hafta tekil, baş prezentasyonlu gebeliği ve geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olan kadınlar Genel sezaryen oranı ile ilişkilidir. Grup 5’in büyüklüğü genellikle toplam sezaryen oranının kabaca yarısı kadardır. Genel sezaryen oranı düşük çevrelerde bu oran genellikle %10’un altındadır. %7.2 Grup 5’in boyutu çoğunlukla genel sezaryen oranı ile ilişkilidir. Eğer bu grubun boyutu daha büyükse, o hastanede geçmiş senelerde özellikle Grup 1 ve 2’de yüksek sezaryen oranı olduğu anlamı ortaya çıkar. Yüksek sezaryen oranları olan yerlerde bu grubun boyutu >15% olabilir.. 4. Grup 6 + 7’nin büyüklüklerine bakın (Sütun 4) – Makat prezentasyonlu nullipar ve multipar kadınlar . %3-4 olmalıdır %2.7 Eğer toplam %4ün üzerindeyse, en sık neden genellikle yüksek preterm doğum oranı veya daha yüksek oranda nullipar kadın olmasıdır. Bu yüzden Grup 10’un boyutuna bakın (Sütun 4). Eğer %4-5’in üzerinde ise bu hipotez doğru olabilir. *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** ÇÜA referans popülasyonu ÇÜA’daki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. # Sınıflandırılamayan olgular için 3.d’deki önerilere bakınız. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 41 Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 5. Grup 8’in büyüklüğüne bakın (Sütun 4) – Çoğullar %1.5-2 olmalıdır %0,9 Eğer daha yüksekse, muhtemelen o merkez ya üçüncü basamaktır (yüksek risk, sevk merkezi) ya da fertilizasyon programı yürütüyodur. Eğer daha düşükse muhtemelen çoğu ikiz gebelik dışarı sevk ediliyordur ve özellikle kalan ikizlerin sezaryen oranı düşüktür. 6. Grup 10’un büyüklüğüne bakın (Sütun 4) – Preterm baş prezentasyonlu tekiller Çoğu normal riskli çevrelerde %5’in altında olmalıdır %4,2 Eğer daha yüksekse, muhtemelen o merkez ya üçüncü basamaktır (yüksek risk, sevk merkezi) ya da hastane preterm doğum riski yüksek bir popülasyona hizmet veriyordur. Ek olarak eğer bu grupta sezaryen oranı düşükse, spontan preterm eylemin baskın olduğunu gösteriyor olabilir. Eğer bu gruptaki sezaryen oranı yüksekse bu fetal gelişme geriliği veya preeklampsi ve diğer gebelik ve medikal komplikasyonlar nedeniyle hizmet sağlayan tarafından gerçekleştirilmiş eylem başlamadan sezaryen uygulamalarını gösteriyor olabilir. Tablo 7 (Devamı) Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak popülasyon tipini belirleme adımları* *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** MCS referans popülasyonu MCS’daki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. # Sınıflandırılamayan olgular için 3.d’deki önerilere bakınız Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması 42 Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 7. Grup 1’in boyutunun Grup 2’ye oranına bakın (Grup 1’in boyutunu Grup 2’ye bölün, Sütun4) Nullipar term baş prezentasyonlu tekil spontan eylem / Nullipar term baş prezentasyon tekil indüklenmiş veya indüksiyondan önce sezaryen Genellikle 2:1 veya daha yüksektir Oran 3.3 Eğer daha düşükse, düşük veri kalitesinden şüphelenin: oksitosini eylemi hızlandırma amaçlı alan nullipar kadınlar (Grup 1’de olmalıdırlar) ‘indüksiyon’ olarak (yanlışlıkla Grup 2 olarak) yanlış sınıfandırılmış olabilirler. Eğer veriler doğruysa, daha düşük bir oran, yüksek indüksiyon / eylem başlamadan sezaryen durumunu işaret eder ki bu da nullipar kadınlarda yüksek riskli bir popülasyon varlığı dolayısıyla artmış sezaryen oranını gösterir. Eylem öncesi ölü doğumlar hakkında ek bilgi de sorulacak diğer soru olacaktır. Diğer taraftan, eğer oran çok yüksek ise yeteri kadar indüklemediğiniz anlamına gelebilecek olan bu popülasyondaki eylem öncesi ölü doğum oranınıza bakmak isteyebilirsiniz. Veya alternatif olarak çok düşük riskli bir popülasyonunuz da olabilir. Tablo 7 (Devamı) Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak popülasyon tipini belirleme adımları* *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** MCS referans popülasyonu MCS’deki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. # Sınıflandırılamayan olgular için 3.d’deki önerilere bakınız. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 43 Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 8.Grup 3’ün boyutunun Grup 4’e oranına bakın (Grup 3’ün boyutunu Grup 4’e bölün, Sütun 4)Geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olmayan multipar term baş prezentasyonlu tekil spontan eylem / Geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olmayan multipar term baş prezentasyonlu tekil indüklenmiş veya eylem başlamadan sezaryen uygulanmış Aynı kurumdaki Grup 1 / Grup 2 oranından her zaman daha yüksektir, örn. 2:1’den daha büyüktür. Veri kalitesini ve kurumun kültürünü onaylamada gayet güvenilir bir bulgudur. Oran 6.3 Eğer daha düşükse, düşük veri kalitesinden şüphelenin: oksitosini eylemi hızlandırma amaçlı alan multipar kadınlar (Grup 3’te olmalıdırlar) ‘indüksiyon’ olarak (yanlışlıkla Grup 4 olarak) yanlış sınıflandırılmış olabilirler. Düşük bir oran (büyük Grup 4b’ye bağlı) multipar kadınlarda, annenin geçirilmiş kötü bir vajinal doğum deneyimi sonucu eylem başlamadan sezaryen istemine işaret ediyor olabilir. Diğer bir açıklama ise tubal ligasyon amacıyla eylem başlamadan sezaryen uygulanmış olması olabilir (aile planlamasının kolay ulaşılabilir olmadığı çevrelerde sıktır). 9. Grup 6’nın boyutunun Grup 7’ye oranına bakın. (Grup 6’nın boyutunu Grup 4’e bölün, Sütun 4) Nullipar makat / Multipar makat Genellikle 2:1’dir çünkü nulliparlarda makat prezentasyon multipar kadınlara oranla daha sıktır. Oran 0.8 Oran farklıysa ya alışılmışın dışında bir nullipar / multipar oranından ya da hatalı veri toplanmasından şüphelenin. Tablo 7 (Devamı) Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak popülasyon tipini belirleme adımları* *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** MCS referans popülasyonu MCS’deki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması 7.3 Sezaryen oranlarını belirleme adımları Sonraki sayfada Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosundaki sezaryen oranlarını yorumlamak için izlenecek adımlar hakkında önerileri sunuyoruz. Sonraki sayfalarda belirtilen sezaryen oranlarının gebelik sonuçları ile validasyonunun yapılmadığını ve tavsiye olarak alınmaması gerektiğini lütfen aklınızda bulundurunuz. Yalnızca diğer hastaneler ile ilişkisi analiz edildiğinde, her gruptaki sezaryen oranları farklı hastane ve çevrelerdeki kapasite / karmaşıklık seviyesi, hizmet verilen popülasyonun epidemiyolojik özellikleri, yerel klinik uygulama önerileri ve diğer faktörlere göre farklılık gösterecektir. Sonuç olarak, bu Sınıflamanın zaman içinde kullanımı her bir hastane veya çevreye, her 10 grup için en iyi sonuçlarla ilişkili sezaryen oranını (veya sezaryen oran aralığını) saptamalarında yardımcı olacaktır. 44 WHO/PAHO ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 45 Tablo 8: Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak sezaryen oranlarını belirleme adımları* Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 1.Grup 1 için sezaryen oranına bakın (Sütun 5) .%10’un altındaki oranlar ulaşılabilir .%9,8 Bu oran yalnızca Grup 1 ve 2’nin büyüklük oranlarını hesaba katınca doğru yorumlanabilir. Prensip olarak Grup 1:2 büyüklük oranları ne kadar yüksek olursa Grup 1 ve Grup 2’nin her ikisinin sezaryen oranı da ayrı ayrı daha yüksek olacaktır. Ancak Grup 1 ve 2’nin birlikte değerlendirilen genel sezaryen oranı hala aynı veya düşük olabilir. 2. Grup 2 için sezaryen oranına bakın ( sütun 5) İstikrarlı olarak %20- 35 civarında %39,9 Grup 2’deki sezaryen oranları, 2a ve 2b’nin büyüklük ve oranlarını yansıtmaktadır. Eğer Grup 2b’nin boyutu büyük ise Grup 2’nin genel sezaryen oranları da büyük olacaktır. Eğer Grup 2b göreceli olarak küçük iken Grup 2’nin yüksek sezaryen oranları varsa, bu durum düşük indüksiyon başarı oranını veya indüksiyon uygulanacak kadın seçiminin kötü olduğunu işaret eder ve dolayısıyla Grup 2a’da yüksek sezaryen oranı görülür. Genel ilke olarak, tek bir alt grubu dışarıda kalanların ne olduğunu bilmeden yalnızca kendi içinde yorumlamamak gerektiğini hatırlayınız. Grup 2a’nın yorumlanması Grup 1 ve 2b’nin göreceli büyüklüklerini bilmeyi gerektirir. 7.3 Sezaryen oranlarını belirleme adımları *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** MCS referans popülasyonu MCS’deki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması 46 Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 3.Grup 3 için sezaryen oranına bakın (Sütun 5) Normalde %3’ten yüksek olmaz %3 Bu gruptaki sezaryen oranları daha yüksek olan ünitelerde sebep kötü veri toplama olabilir. Geçirilmiş skarı olan kadınlar (Grup 5) muhtemelen yanlışlıkla Grup 3 olarak sınıflandırılmış olabilirler. Yüksek oranların diğer olası sebepleri ise örnek olarak kontrasepsiyona erişimi zor olan çevrelerde tüp ligasyonu yapılması veya anne isteğidir. 4. Grup 4 için sezaryen oranına bakın ( Sütun 5) Nadiren %15’ten yüksek olur %23,7 Grup 4’teki sezaryen oranları Grup 4a ve 4b büyüklükleri ve oranlarını yansıtmaktadır. Grup 4b’nin büyüklüğü yüksek ise Grup 4’teki genel sezaryen oranları da yüksek olacaktır. Eğer Grup 4b göreceli olarak küçük ama Grup 4 sezaryen oranları yüksek ise bu durum düşük indüksiyon başarı oranını veya indüksiyona aday kadın seçimi başarısızlığını ve dolayısıyla Grup 4a’da artmış sezaryen oranını işaret ediyor olabilir. Veri toplama kalitesinin düşüklüğü de Grup 4’teki sezaryen oranı yüksekliğinin bir nedeni olabilir; geçirilmiş skarı olan kadınların bu gruba dahil edilmesi örnek olarak verilebilir (oysa ki Grup 5’te olmalıdırlar). Son olarak, Grup 4’teki yüksek sezaryen oranı ilk doğumunu vajinal yapmış olmasına rağmen anne isteğine bağlı yapılmış sezaryenleri de yansıtıyor olabilir. Bunun nedeni önceki geçirilmiş travmatik veya uzamış doğum eylemi veya kontrasepsiyon yöntemlerine ulaşımın zor olduğu çevrelerde tüp ligasyonu yapılabilmesi olabilir. Tablo 8: (Devamı) Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak sezaryen oranlarını belirleme adımları* 7.3 Sezaryen oranlarını belirleme adımları *Sütunların numarası Tablo 5’i ifade etmektedir. ** MCS referans popülasyonu MCS’deki göreceli düşük sezaryen oranlı ve aynı zamanda iyi doğum eylemi ve doğum sonuçları olan popülasyondur. ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 47 Adim Robson kilavuzu Örnek: MCS popülasyonu** İleri Yorum 5.Grup 5 için sezaryen oranına bakın (Sütun 5) %50-60 oranları uygun kabul edilmekte olup iyi maternal ve perinatal sonuçlarınız olduğunu gösterir. %74,4 Eğer oranlar daha yüksekse bu muhtemelen Grup 5.2’nin büyük olmasına bağlıdır (2 veya daha fazla geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olması). Bunun bir diğer nedeni ise geçirilmiş 1 sezaryen öyküsü olan tüm kadınlara, travay deneme teşebbüsünde bulunmaksızın eylem başlamadan sezaryen planlama politikası olabilir. 6. Grup 8 için sezaryen oranına bakın ( Sütun 5) Genellikle %60 civarındadır. .%57,7 Varyasyonlar, ikiz gebelik tipine ve geçirilmiş sezaryen öyküsü olan veya olmayan nullipar / multipar oranına bağlı olacaktır. 7. Grup 10 için sezaryen oranına bakın (Sütun 5) Çoğu popülasyonda genellikle %30 civarında %25.1 Eğer %30’dan daha yüksekse bu genellikle preterm, eylem başlamadan önce sezaryen gerektiren yüksek riskli gebelik olgularına (örn. fetal gelişme geriliği, preeklampsi) bağlıdır. Eğer %30’unda altındaysa bu durum preterm spontan doğum oranının göreceli olarak yüksek ve bu nedenle daha düşük bir genel sezaryen oranı olmasına bağlıdır Tablo 8: (Devamı) Robson Sınıflaması Rapor Tablosunu kullanarak sezaryen oranlarını belirleme adımları* 8. Grup 1, 2 ve 5’in genel sezaryen oranına göreceli katkılarına bakın (her bir grubun dağılımını Sütun 7’ye ekleyin) Birlikte bu üç grup çoğu hastanede uygulanan tüm sezaryenlerin 2/3’ünü (%66) oluşturmaktadır Birlikte bu üç grup tüm sezaryenlerin %63.7’sini oluşturmaktadır. Eğer hastane genel sezaryen oranını düşürme çabasında ise ilginin odağı bu üç grup olmalıdır. Genel sezaryen oranı ne kadar yüksekse, Grup 1’e verilecek dikkat de o kadar yüksek olmalıdır. 9. Grup 5’in genel sezaryen oranına net katkısına bakın (Sütun 7) Bu grup tüm sezaryenlerin %28.9’undan sorumludur. Eğer çok yüksekse, bu önceki yıllarda Grup 1 ve 2’deki sezaryen oranlarının yüksek seyrettiğine işaret ediyor olabilir ve ileri incelemeyi hak eder. *Il numero delle Colonne è riferito alla Tabella 5 **La popolazione di riferimento MCS è la popolazione del MCS con tassi relativamente bassi di TC e, allo stesso tempo, con buoni esiti del travaglio e del parto. Robson Sınıflama Rapor Tablosunun Yorumlanması 08. Sınıflamayı uygulamadaki engeller ve yardımcılar "VERİ TOPLAMAYI ORGANİZE ETMEKLE GÖREVLİ BİR KİŞİ ATAYIN" Sınıflamayı uygulamada ilk adım, eğer mümkünse veri toplamayı organize etmekten ve haftalık veya aylık aralıklarla Robson Rapor Tablosu oluşturmaktan sorumlu bir kişi (klinisyen, hemşire, sekreter, yönetici veya diğer) atamaktır. Böylece bu atanan kişi travay veya doğum odası personeliyle birlikte çalışıp, yeni başvuran tüm hastaların, 10 Robson Grubu’ndan birine sınıflandırılabilmeleri için gerekli tüm obstetrik değişkenlerinin kayıtlarında toplandığına emin olacak şekilde koordine edebilir. Kullanıcılara göre Sınıflama temel gücünü basitliği, sağlamlığı, güvenilirliği ve esnekliğinden almaktadır. Ancak eksik veriler, kadınların hatalı sınıflandırılması ve tanım eksikliği veya Sınıflamanın temel değişkenleri üzerinde bir fikir birliğinin sağlanamaması durumları probleme sebebiyet verebilmektedir (11). 48 UNICEF/Asselin ROBSON SINIFLANDIRMASI UYGULAMA KILAVUZU 49 Robson Sınıflamasında sorunlar veya zorluklar yok değildir. Kullanıcılar tarafından işaret edilmiş temel zorluklar şunlardır: Sınıflamada kullanılan temel değişkenlerin tanım eksikliği veya üzerine fikir birliği olmaması: Örnek olarak, doğum eylemi başlangıç zamanı üzerine fikir birliğine varmak ve indüksiyon arasındaki farkı netleştirmek gereklidir. Bu yüzden her hastanenin başka çevrelerde farklılık gösterebilecek değişkenler (travayın spontan başlaması veya indüksiyon gibi) için net şekilde yazılmış tanımlar (açıklayıcı sözlük) oluşturmasını ve bu tanımları Robson Rapor Tablosu’na (Tablo 5) dipnot olarak eklemesini öneriyoruz. Kadınları Sınıflamada kullanılan veri kalitesi: eğer veriler güvenilir değilse, Sınıflama baz alınarak yapılan önerilerin gerçek değerleri kuşkuludur. İyi kalitede veri sağlamak hafife alınmamalıdır ve yüksek kaynakları olan çevrelerde bile zorlayıcı olabilmektedir. Kadınların yanlış gruplara sınıflandırılması: Verinizi nasıl toplarsanız toplayın bu gayet olası bir durumdur. Her çevrede, veri toplayıcılar özenle eğitilmiş ve belli aralıklarla denetlenir olmalıdırlar; örneğin her 10 gruba sınıflandırılmış kadınların kayıt örneklerinin başka biri tarafından incelenip tekrar sınıflandırılması. Kullanıcılar, rapor tablosuna dikkatlice bakarak ve yorumlama kurallarını takip ederek, spesifik grupların olası yanlış sınıflandırılmaları hakkında önemli ipuçları bulabilirler. Eksik veri nedeniyle sınıflandırılamayan olgular: ‘’Sınıflandırılamayan’’ kategorisi büyüklüğü, bireysel hasta kayıtlarındaki veri kalitesinin önemli bir belirtecidir. Yorumlama kurallarının validasyonunun yapılmamış olması: Kullanıcıların, Sınıflamanın sağladığı ve özellikle farklı çevrelerin verilerini veya zaman içindeki değişimleri karşılaştırırken kullandığı bilgileri keşfetmelerinde yardımcı olacak, yorumlamada basit kurallar dizisi Robson tarafından sağlanmıştır (14). Ancak önerilen figürlerin (özellikle grup başına beklenen sezaryen oranları ile ilgili) iyi maternal ve perinatal sonuçlarla ilişkili olduğundan emin olacak şekilde bu kuralların hala validasyonunun yapılması gerekmektedir. Sınıflamanın kullanıcılarına her Robson grubu için hem maternal hem de perinatal morbidite ve mortaliteye dair kendi verilerini toplamalarını ve bu verileri düzenli olarak analiz etmelerini şiddetle tavsiye ediyoruz. Barriere e fattori favorenti l’implementazione della classificazione References 09. Referanslar 51 09. Referanslar 1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343. 2. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson Classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. 6. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC medicine. 2010;8:71. 7. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-19. 8. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. Commentary: WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667-70 9. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39. 10. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566. 11. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A. Systematic review of the Robson Classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6). 15. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179-94. 17. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Vogel J, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, et al. Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2013;18(38):1747-55. 12. Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10- Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;131:S23–S27. 16. Souza JP, Betrán AP, Dumont A, de Muncio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123:427–436 18. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, WHOMCS Research Group. The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:286. 3. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (WHO/RHR/15.02). 4. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux- Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprodcutive Health. 2015;12:57. 5. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375:490-9. 19. Robson M. A global reference for CS at health facilities? Yes, but there is work to do. BJOG. 2016;123(3):437. 13. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10-Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;135(2):232-3. 14.Robson M, HartiganL, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best PractRes ClinObstetGynaecol. 2013;27:297-308. Bibliografia 56

Key facts
Document type Publications
Adoption date
Source World Health Organization