Strategies to reduce the caesarean section rate at a regional hospital in northern KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. The caesarean section (CS) rate at Queen Nandi Regional Hospital (QNRH) in northern KwaZulu-Natal Province, South frica (SA), has remained above the national average for a public hospital in SA. In view of the short- and long-term complications of CS, effective strategies are required to reduce unnecessary CS.
Objectives. To identify the indications for CS and the factors that contributed to the high CS rate at QNRH, with the aim of implementing interventions to reduce unnecessary and avoidable CS without compromising mother and baby outcomes.
Methods. We conducted a 3-month retrospective audit (Q1 2024) of 100 randomly selected CS files from the labour ward birth register and from the postnatal ward. The data collected included patient demographics, referring facilities, CS category, indication for CS, Robson Ten Group classification, timing of CS, and maternal and perinatal outcomes. The CS rate for Q1 2024 was compared with Q2 2024 and Q3 2024 with and without local clinic deliveries. Referrals from the local clinics for CS in Q1 2024 were compared with institutional audits from 2020 and 2023. Tables and figures were used for analysis. Institutional ethics permission was obtained for the clinical audit and publication of the data.
Results. During the study period, there were 2 077 deliveries in total and 1 366 CSs, giving a CS rate of 66%. Among the 100 randomly selected files analysed, there were 1 set of twins, 5 stillbirths (3 due to abruptio placentae grade 3b), 96 live births, and no maternal deaths. Of the patients, 44% were aged >20 - 30 years, 41% were in their first pregnancy, 70% were referred from our local clinics, and 48% were low risk; 26% had a body mass index >40 kg/m2, 15% were hypertensive, and 25% were HIV positive. In 47% of cases the indication for CS was fetal distress/non-reassuring cardiotocograph, followed by failed induction of labour (13%), failure to progress (6%), and breech presentation and abruptio placentae (5% each). More than 80% were urgent CSs, with more of these done during the night than during the day (37% v. 28%). A further 22% of the urgent CS were done during changeover time. Of the infants, 72% were born at a gestational age of 34 - 40 weeks and 80% had a birthweight of >2 500 - 4 000 g. All liveborn infants had a normal Apgar score. There were no maternal adverse outcomes. As expected, and owing to the short time frame for repeat in-depth analysis, there was no significant impact of CS trends when comparing Q1 2024 with Q2 and Q3 2024 for both institutional-based and population-based CS rates. Referrals from the local clinics contributed 70% towards our CS rate in Q1 2024 and remained consistently ~80% on average, when compared with institutional audits from 2020 (80%) and 2023 (85%).
Conclusion. While measures were already in place to reduce rates of unnecessary CS at QNRH, the findings from our audit show that current strategies to reduce the CS rate will be unlikely to reach the target of 28% for public sector facilities, owing to our referral pattern and the drainage areas covered by this hospital. Despite the small sample size in this audit, evidence points towards the need for a district hospital in this subdistrict to help reduce our facility CS rate.
Article Details
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJCH is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA 2015;314(21):2263-2270. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama. 2015.15553
2. Montoya-Williams D, Lemas DJ, Spiryda L, Patel K, Neu J, Carson TL. What are optimal cesarean section rates in the U.S. and how do we get there? A review of evidence-based recommendations and interventions. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2017;26(12):1285-1291. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6188
3. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: Global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6(6):e005671. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
4. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet 2018;392(10155):1349- 1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5
5. Angolile CM, Max BL, Mushemba J, Mashauri HL. Global increased caesarean section rates and public health implications: A call to action. Health Sci Rep 2023;6(5):e1274. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1274
6. Department of Health, Republic of South Africa. Saving Mothers – Eighth Comprehensive Triennial Report into Maternal Deaths in South Africa, 2020-2022. https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Report- Comprehensive-Saving-Mothers-Version-2.pdf (accessed 7 September 2025).
7. Solanki G, Fawcus S, Daviaud E. A cross-sectional analytic study of modes of delivery and caesarean section rates in a private health insured South African population. PLoS ONE 2019;14(6):e0219020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0219020
8. Solanki GC, Cornell JE, Daviaud E, Fawcus S. Caesarean section rates in South Africa: A case study of the health systems challenges for the proposed National Health Insurance. S Afr Med J 2020;110(8):747-750. https://doi.org/10.7196/ SAMJ.2020.v110i8.14699
9. World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. WHO/RHR/15.02. 14 April 2015. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ WHO-RHR-15.02 (accessed 7 September 2025).
10. 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 caesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;135(2):232-233. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.08.001
11. Rubgega FD, Soma-Pillay P, Becker P. Caesarean section indications and outcomes at a tertiary level hospital in South Africa. O&G Forum 2021;31:8-11. https://hdl. handle.net/10520/ejc-medog_v31_n3_a3 (accessed 14 October 2025).
12. Yaya S, Uthman OA, Amouzou A, Bishwajit G. Disparities in caesarean section prevalence and determinants across sub-Saharan Africa countries. Glob Health Res Policy 2018:3:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-018-0074-y
13. Gyaase D, Enuameh YA, Adjei BN, et al. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section deliveries in the Kintampo Districts of Ghana. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023;23(1):286. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05622-5
14. Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong CY, Chandraharan E; FIGO Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2015;131(1):13- 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.020
15. Toivonen E, Palomaki O, Huhtala H, Uotila J. Selective vaginal breech delivery at term – still an option. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91(10):1177-1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01488x
16. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132(2):e60-e63. https://doi.org/10.1097/ AOG.0000000000002755
17. Opiyo N, Kingdon C, Oladapo OT, et al. Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: WHO recommendations. Bull World Health Organ 2020;98(1):66-68. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.236729