Anonymous wrote:23% I asked my doctor this was 2014.

PrimAry or all? Thanks!

23% I asked my doctor this was 2014.

Anonymous wrote:I answered last month that the number will never be known because no one requires that it be reported. You can take the practice's word for it, but that is the best you are going to do. Maryland and Virginia are legally required to report to their departments of health. Virginia compiles the rates for you. Maryland someone has to go through by hand and add them up. DC is not required to report so the numbers are not known.

THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. NO ONE IS HOLDING BACK ON YOU.

Untrue, there is an answer. How come the midwives know it's 5% for them? It makes little sense for a hospital or practice not to use stats.

I answered last month that the number will never be known because no one requires that it be reported. You can take the practice's word for it, but that is the best you are going to do. Maryland and Virginia are legally required to report to their departments of health. Virginia compiles the rates for you. Maryland someone has to go through by hand and add them up. DC is not required to report so the numbers are not known.

THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. NO ONE IS HOLDING BACK ON YOU.

I have seen a few posts asking this and nowhere has the answer posted. There us a lot of debate about the value of it etc but goodness why is this such a big secret. What's the damn number?

Yeah, the rates really don't mean much out of context. Sibley, which has a reputation for being more fast and lose with the sections, is also in the middle of an area of town with a lot of older mothers. However, I know someone who actually was recently told that a scheduled C section was off the table EVEN THOUGH it would have been her second section -- even her Sibley-delivering doctor was pushing a VBAC as the "default," unless there were other reasons to have a C section. So, C-section or not really is a personalized outcome.

I think that anecdotes, stories from people who have recently had babies at GW with the doctors there, and your own personal conversations with the providers are much more illuminating "facts" than a statistic, in this case. C-Sections are life-saving, important, and necessary for many, many women who swear from the get-go that they're not having one. More important than knowing that 40% of Sibley births are done by C section (making that up) is talking with your own doctor about your own needs, because there are way too many conflating variables here.

Fwiw, I turned high risk at the very end of my pregnancy with the midwives. The team of midwives+OBs worked hard to ensure I could have a vaginal birth. The OBs were equally committed to "healthy mom, healthy baby" first and vaginal birth second. The only time a c-section was mentioned was very early on as a reason to have an epidural. I had blood oxygen and breathing issues, and they felt it was too risky to put me under anesthesia, so they felt strongly that I consider an epidural (which I had not been planning on.)

I have also heard anecdotal evidence from friends and my doula that the GW OBs have actually turned down requests for C-sections b/c they felt they weren't medically necessary.

Anonymous wrote:You also have to consider that they likely have a lot of transfers from the midwives for cases that have to be more medically managed. I don't know if that would raise or lower their rates (patients with more risks but likely more committed to avoiding C sections).

I agree with this PP. I am currently a patient with GW MFA and my doctor told us that their c-section rates are about 20-25% Obviously higher than the Midwives but the doctor explained that those patients that get kicked out of the Midwives because of medical reasons end up the the OBs to be medically managed. This and the fact that they also care to patients who may not have been eligible for the Midwives at all help to explain their medical c-section rates.

Anonymous wrote:
GW OB - lower c-sections? I've read mixed reviews that they are low intervention & also the opposite

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/450503.page

This doesn't have a number sadly

GW OB - lower c-sections? I've read mixed reviews that they are low intervention & also the opposite

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/450503.page

You also have to consider that they likely have a lot of transfers from the midwives for cases that have to be more medically managed. I don't know if that would raise or lower their rates (patients with more risks but likely more committed to avoiding C sections).

Anonymous wrote:So call them and ask. Honest to pete, there are dozens of recent threads on here testifying to the fact that they do not employ c-sections as a first option unless it's the smartest option.

Yeah dozens of anecdotal threads. I'd like to know their rate. I tried to call and ask and couldn't get an answer. I was hoping someone jere
Might have talked to their doc about it. I am not a Patient there therefore I can't talk to a doc and people in reception are clueless.

They claim around 20% for the hospital but it is all self reported as the DC government does not require reporting.

So call them and ask. Honest to pete, there are dozens of recent threads on here testifying to the fact that they do not employ c-sections as a first option unless it's the smartest option.

I hear they are low intervention but I don't know their rates. I'd like to.