Dataset Information

Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors.

Design

A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was performed. A multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of women having a caesarean section given their maternal characteristics (age, ethnicity, parity, and socioeconomic deprivation) and clinical risk factors (previous caesarean section, breech presentation, and fetal distress). Adjusted rates of caesarean section for each NHS trust were produced from this model.

Setting

146 English NHS trusts. Population Women aged between 15 and 44 years with a singleton birth between 1 January and 31 December 2008.

Main outcome measure

Rate of caesarean sections per 100 births (live or stillborn).

Results

Among 620 604 singleton births, 147 726 (23.8%) were delivered by caesarean section. Women were more likely to have a caesarean section if they had had one previously (70.8%) or had a baby with breech presentation (89.8%). Unadjusted rates of caesarean section among the NHS trusts ranged from 13.6% to 31.9%. Trusts differed in their patient populations, but adjusted rates still ranged from 14.9% to 32.1%. Rates of emergency caesarean section varied between trusts more than rates of elective caesarean section.

Conclusion

Characteristics of women delivering at NHS trusts differ, and comparing unadjusted rates of caesarean section should be avoided. Adjusted rates of caesarean section still vary considerably and attempts to reduce this variation should examine issues linked to emergency caesarean section.

SUBMITTER: Bragg F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2950923 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, the increased use of cesarean sections has become prevalent in high-income and low and middle-income countries. In Palestine, the rate had risen from 20.3% in 2014 to 25.1% in 2018. We have rates as high as 35.8% in some governmental hospitals and some as low as 15%. This study aimed to understand better why there is a variation in cesarean rates in governmental hospitals that use the same guidelines.MethodsA qualitative and quantitative research approach was used. In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 specialists, obstetrics and gynecologists, and midwives in five government hospitals. The hospitals were selected based on the 2017 Annual Health Report reported cesarean section rates. The interview guide was created with the support of specialists and researchers and was piloted. Questions focused mainly on adherence to the obstetric guidelines and barriers to the use, sources of information, training for healthcare providers, the hospital system, and the factors that affect decision-making. Each hospital's delivery records for one month were analyzed to determine the reason for each cesarean section.ResultsThe results indicated that each governmental hospital at the system level had a different policy on cesarean sections. The National Guidelines were found to be interpreted differently among hospitals. One obstetrician-gynecologist decided on a cesarean section at high-rate hospitals, while low-rate hospitals used collective decision-making with empowered midwives. At the professional level, all hospitals urged the importance of a continuous training program to refresh the medical team knowledge, in-house training of new members joining the hospital, and discussion of cases subjective to obstetrician-gynecologists interpretations.ConclusionSeveral institutional factors were identified to strengthen the implementation of the national obstetric guidelines. For example, encouraging collective decision-making between obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives, promoting the use of a second opinion, and mandatory training.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine the association between financial performance as measured by operating margin (surplus/deficit as a proportion of turnover) and clinical outcomes in English National Health Service (NHS) trusts. SETTING:Longitudinal, observational study in 149 acute NHS trusts in England between the financial years 2011 and 2016. PARTICIPANTS:Our analysis focused on outcomes at individual NHS Trust-level (composed of one or more acute hospitals). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:Outcome measures included readmissions, inpatient satisfaction score and the following process measures: emergency department (Accident and Emergency (A&E)) waiting time targets, cancer referral and treatment targets and delayed transfers of care (DTOCs). RESULTS:There was a progressive increase in the proportion of trusts in financial deficit: 22% in 2011, 27% in 2012, 28% in 2013, 51% in 2014, 68% in 2015 and 91% in 2016. In linear regression analyses, there was no significant association between operating margin and clinical outcomes (readmission rate or inpatient satisfaction score). There was, however, a significant association between operating margin and process measures (DTOCs, A&E breaches and cancer waiting time targets). Between the best and worst financially performing Trusts, there was an approximately 2-fold increase in A&E breaches and DTOCs overall although this variation decreased over the 6 years. Between the best and worst performing trusts on cancer targets, the magnitude of difference was smaller (1.16 and 1.15-fold), although the variation slowly rose during the 6 years. CONCLUSIONS:Operating margins in English NHS trusts progressively worsened during 2011-2016, and this change was associated with poorer performance on several process measures but not with hospital readmissions or inpatient satisfaction. Significant variation exists between the best and worst financially performing Trusts. Further research is needed to examine the causal nature of relationships between financial performance, process measures and outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand organisational technology adoption (initiation, adoption decision, implementation) by looking at the different types of innovation knowledge used during this process.DesignQualitative, multisite, comparative case study design.SettingOne primary care and 11 acute care organisations (trusts) across all health regions in England in the context of infection prevention and control. PARTICIPANTS AND DATA ANALYSIS: 121 semistructured individual and group interviews with 109 informants, involving clinical and non-clinical staff from all organisational levels and various professional groups. Documentary evidence and field notes were also used. 38 technology adoption processes were analysed using an integrated approach combining inductive and deductive reasoning.Main findingsThose involved in the process variably accessed three types of innovation knowledge: 'awareness' (information that an innovation exists), 'principles' (information about an innovation's functioning principles) and 'how-to' (information required to use an innovation properly at individual and organisational levels). Centralised (national, government-led) and local sources were used to obtain this knowledge. Localised professional networks were preferred sources for all three types of knowledge. Professional backgrounds influenced an asymmetric attention to different types of innovation knowledge. When less attention was given to 'how-to' compared with 'principles' knowledge at the early stages of the process, this contributed to 12 cases of incomplete implementation or discontinuance after initial adoption.ConclusionsPotential adopters and change agents often overlooked or undervalued 'how-to' knowledge. Balancing 'principles' and 'how-to' knowledge early in the innovation process enhanced successful technology adoption and implementation by considering efficacy as well as strategic, structural and cultural fit with the organisation's context. This learning is critical given the policy emphasis for health organisations to be innovation-ready.

Project description:BackgroundMedical practice variation in caesarean section rates is the most studied type of practice variation in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. This has not resulted in increased homogeneity of treatment between geographic areas or healthcare providers. Our study aim was to evaluate whether current study designs on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates were optimized to identify the unwarranted share of practice variation and could contribute to the reduction of unwarranted practice variation by meeting criteria for audit and feedback.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCO/CINAHL and Wiley/Cochrane Library from inception to March 24th, 2020. Studies that compared the rate of caesarean sections between individuals, institutions or geographic areas were included. Study design was assessed on: selection procedure of study population, data source, case-mix correction, patient preference, aggregation level of analysis, maternal and neonatal outcome, and determinants (professional and organizational characteristics).ResultsA total of 284 studies were included. Most studies (64%) measured the caesarean section rate in the entire study population instead of using a sample (30%). (National) databases were most often used as information source (57%). Case-mix correction was performed in 87 studies (31%). The Robson classification was used in 20% of the studies following its endorsement by the WHO in 2015. The most common levels of aggregation were hospital level (35%) and grouped hospitals (35%) e.g. private versus public. The percentage of studies that assessed the relationship between variation in caesarean section rates and maternal outcome was 9%, neonatal outcome 19%, determinants (professional and organizational characteristics) 21% and patient preference 2%.ConclusionsStudy designs of practice variation in caesarean sections varied considerably, raising questions about their appropriateness. Studies focused on measuring practice variation, rather than contributing to the reduction of unwarranted practice variation. Future studies should correct for differences in patient characteristics (case-mix) and patient preference to identify unwarranted practice variation. Practice variation studies could be used for audit and feedback if results are presented at lower levels of aggregation, and appeal to intrinsic motivation of physicians, for example by including the health effects on mother and child.