title: A survey of access to trial of labor in California hospitals in 2012.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In 2010, the NIH and ACOG recommended increasing women's access to trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This study explored access to TOLAC in California, change in access since 2007 and 2010, and characteristics of TOLAC and non-TOLAC hospitals.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between November 2011 and June 2012, charge nurses at all civilian California birth hospitals were surveyed about hospitals' TOLAC availability and requirements for providers. VBAC rates were obtained from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Distance between hospitals was calculated using OSHPD geocoding.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All 243 birth hospitals that were contacted participated. In 2010, among the 56% TOLAC hospitals, the median VBAC rate among TOLAC hospitals was 10.8% (range 0-37.3%). The most cited reason for low VBAC rates was physician unwillingness to perform them, especially due to the requirement to be continually present during labor. TOLAC hospitals were more likely to be larger hospitals in urban communities with obstetrical residency training. However, there were six (11.3%) residency programs in non-TOLAC hospitals and 5 (13.5%) rural hospitals offering TOLAC. The majority of TOLAC hospitals had 24/7 anesthesia coverage and required the obstetrician to be continually present if a TOLAC patient was admitted; 17 (12.2%) allowed personnel to be 15-30 minutes away. TOLAC eligibility criteria included one prior cesarean (32.4%), spontaneous labor (52.5%), continuous fetal monitoring and intravenous access (99.3%), and epidural analgesia (19.4%). The mean distance from a non-TOLAC to a TOLAC hospital was 37 mi. with 25% of non-TOLAC hospitals more than 51 mi. from the closest TOLAC hospital. In 2012, 139 hospitals (57.2%) offered TOLAC, 16.6% fewer than in 2007. Since 2010, five hospitals started and four stopped offering TOLAC, a net gain of one hospital offering TOLAC with three more considering it. Only two hospitals cited change in ACOG guidelines as a reason for the change.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite the 2010 NIH and ACOG recommendations encouraging greater access to TOLAC, 44% of California hospitals do not allow TOLAC. Of the 56% allowing TOLAC, 10.8% report fewer than 3% VBAC births. Thus, national recommendations encouraging greater access to TOLAC had a minor effect in California.
authors.affiliation: Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. mary.barger@nursing.ucsf.edu
authors.forename: Mary K
authors.initials: MK
authors.lastname: Barger
authors.forename: Jennifer Templeton
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Dunn
authors.forename: Sage
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bearman
authors.forename: Megan
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: DeLain
authors.forename: Elena
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Gates
mesh_terms: D002140:California; D005260:Female; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000639:trends*; D006761:Hospitals / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D016134:Organizational Policy; D018579:Patient Selection; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians'; D011247:Pregnancy; D014219:Trial of Labor; D016064:Vaginal Birth after Cesarean / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*
references.citation: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011 Oct 12;11:72
references.pmid: 21992871
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 2007 May;52(5):349-58
references.pmid: 17583231
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Oct;34(5):345-50
references.pmid: 20869551
references.citation: Ann Fam Med. 2006 May-Jun;4(3):228-34
references.pmid: 16735524
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;177(2):268-71; discussion 271-3
references.pmid: 9290439
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):312-5
references.pmid: 9241315
references.citation: NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2010 Mar 10;27(3):1-42
references.pmid: 20228855
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 16;351(25):2581-9
references.pmid: 15598960
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2006 Oct;30(5):235-41
references.pmid: 17011392
references.citation: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010 Mar;(191):1-397
references.pmid: 20629481
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;115(6):1267-1278
references.pmid: 20502300
references.citation: NCHS Data Brief. 2010 Mar;(35):1-8
references.pmid: 20334736
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Jul-Aug;42(4):24-7
references.pmid: 22777976
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;193(5):1656-62
references.pmid: 16260206
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct;106(4):700-6
references.pmid: 16199624
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 5;335(10):689-95
references.pmid: 8703167
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):244-8
references.pmid: 20654774
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;116(2 Pt 1):450-463
references.pmid: 20664418
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Oct;34(5):325-30
references.pmid: 20869548
references.citation: Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72
references.pmid: 24974589