title: Diminishing availability of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in New Mexico hospitals.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine the availability of trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) in New Mexico from 1998 to 2012 and maternity care providers' perception of barriers to TOLAC.
  
  
  METHODS
  Hospital maternity unit directors were surveyed regarding TOLAC availability from 1998 to 2012. Maternity care providers (obstetrician-gynecologists, certified nurse-midwives, and family medicine physicians) were surveyed in 2008 regarding resources and barriers to providing TOLAC and emergency cesarean delivery.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Trial of labor after cesarean delivery was available in 100% of counties with maternity care units in 1998 (22/22); by 2008, availability decreased to 32% (7/22). After changes in national guidelines, availability increased slightly to 9 of 22 (41%) in 2012. Barriers to TOLAC included anesthesia availability (88%), hospital and medical malpractice policies (80%), malpractice cost (69%), and obstetric surgeon availability (59%). In hospitals without TOLAC services, 73% of maternity care providers indicated a surgeon could be present in the hospital within 20 minutes of the emergency delivery decision; only 43% indicated obstetric anesthesia personnel could be present within 20 minutes (P<.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Availability of TOLAC in New Mexico has decreased dramatically. Policy changes are needed to support TOLAC access in rural and community hospitals.
  
  
  METHODS
  III.
authors: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado.
authors: Lawrence M
authors: LM
authors: Leeman
authors: Melissa
authors: M
authors: Beagle
authors: Eve
authors: E
authors: Espey
authors: Tony
authors: T
authors: Ogburn
authors: Betty
authors: B
authors: Skipper
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006297:Health Services Accessibility; D006780:Hospitals, Rural / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D009516:New Mexico; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011247:Pregnancy; D014219:Trial of Labor; D016064:Vaginal Birth after Cesarean / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*
references: Menacker F. Trends in cesarean rates for first births and repeat cesarean rates for low-risk women: United States, 1990-2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2005;54:1–8.
references: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1279–95.
references: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999;66:197–204.
references: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Practice Bulletin No. 115. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:450–63.
references: Gochnour G, Ratcliffe S, Stone MB. The UTAH VBAC Study. Matern Child Health J 2005;9:181–8.
references: Roberts RG, Deutchman M, King VJ, Fryer GE, Miyoshi TJ. Changing policies on vaginal birth after cesarean: impact on access. Birth 2007;34:316–22.
references: Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Report of final natality statistics, 1996. Mon Vital Stat Rep 1998;46(suppl):1–99.
references: Leung AS, Leung EK, Paul RH. Uterine rupture after previous cesarean delivery: maternal and fetal consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:945–50.
references: Holmgren C, Scott JR, Porter TF, Esplin MS, Bardsley T. Uterine rupture with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: decision-to-delivery time and neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:725–31.
references: Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al.. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226–32.
references: Mercer BM, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, et al.. Labor outcomes with increasing number of prior vaginal births after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:285–91.
references: Pare E, Quinones JN, Macones GA. Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective repeat caesarean section: assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes. BJOG 2006;113:75–85.
references: Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Effect of previous vaginal delivery on the risk of uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1184–6.
references: Pinette MG, Kahn J, Gross KL, Wax JR, Blackstone J, Cartin A. Vaginal birth after Cesarean rates are declining rapidly in the rural state of Maine. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004;16:37–43.
references: MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Mathews TJ, Stotland N. Trends and characteristics of home vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in the United States and selected states. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:737–44.
references: Wylie BJ, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Spong CY, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, et al.. Comparison of transverse and vertical skin incision for emergency cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1134–40.
references: Birnbach DJ, Bucklin BA, Dexter F. Impact of anesthesiologists on the incidence of vaginal birth after cesarean in the United States: role of anesthesia availability, productivity, guidelines, and patient safety. Semin Perinatol 2010;34:318–24.
references: Catling-Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CS. Non-clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2011;67:1662–76.