Dataset Information

Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Caesarean delivery (CD) rates have been frequently used as quality measures for maternity service comparisons. More recently, primary CD rates (CD in women without previous CD) or CD rates within selected categories such as nulliparous, term, cephalic singleton deliveries (NTCS) have been used. The objective of this study is to determine the extent to which risk adjustment for clinical and socio-demographic variables is needed for inter-hospital comparisons of CD rates in women without previous CD and in NTCS deliveries.

Methods

Hospital discharge records of women who delivered in Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy) from January, 2007 to June 2009 and in Tuscany Region for year 2009 were linked with birth certificates. Adjusted RRs of CD in women without a previous Caesarean and NTCS were estimated using Poisson regression. Percentage differences in RR before and after adjustment were calculated and hospital rankings, based on crude and adjusted RRs, were examined.

Results

Adjusted RR differed substantially from crude RR in women without a previous Caesarean and only marginally in NTCS group. Hospital ranking was markedly affected by adjustment in women without a previous CD, but less in NTCS.

Conclusion

Risk adjustment is warranted for inter-hospital comparisons of primary CD rates but not for NTCS CD rates. Crude NTCS CD rates are a reliable estimate of adjusted NTCS CD.

SUBMITTER: Stivanello E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3223220 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries.

Stivanello Elisa E Rucci Paola P Carretta Elisa E Pieri Giulia G Seghieri Chiara C Nuti Sabina S Declercq Eugene E Taglioni Martina M Fantini Maria Pia MP

PloS one 20111123 11

<h4>Background</h4>Caesarean delivery (CD) rates have been frequently used as quality measures for maternity service comparisons. More recently, primary CD rates (CD in women without previous CD) or CD rates within selected categories such as nulliparous, term, cephalic singleton deliveries (NTCS) have been used. The objective of this study is to determine the extent to which risk adjustment for clinical and socio-demographic variables is needed for inter-hospital comparisons of CD rates in wome ...[more]

PMID: 22132210

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCesarean section rates is often used as an indicator of quality of care in maternity hospitals. The assumption is that lower rates reflect in developed countries more appropriate clinical practice and general better performances. Hospitals are thus often ranked on the basis of caesarean section rates. The aim of this study is to assess whether the adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic variables of the mother and the fetus is necessary for inter-hospital comparisons of cesarean section (c-section) rates and to assess whether a risk adjustment model based on a limited number of variables could be identified and used.MethodsDischarge abstracts of labouring women without prior cesarean were linked with abstracts of newborns discharged from 29 hospitals of the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy) from 2003 to 2004. Adjusted ORs of cesarean by hospital were estimated by using two logistic regression models: 1) a full model including the potential confounders selected by a backward procedure; 2) a parsimonious model including only actual confounders identified by the "change-in-estimate" procedure. Hospital rankings, based on ORs were examined.Results24 risk factors for c-section were included in the full model and 7 (marital status, maternal age, infant weight, fetopelvic disproportion, eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, placenta previa/abruptio placentae, malposition/malpresentation) in the parsimonious model. Hospital ranking using the adjusted ORs from both models was different from that obtained using the crude ORs. The correlation between the rankings of the two models was 0.92. The crude ORs were smaller than ORs adjusted by both models, with the parsimonious ones producing more precise estimates.ConclusionRisk adjustment is necessary to compare hospital c-section rates, it shows differences in rankings and highlights inappropriateness of some hospitals. By adjusting for only actual confounders valid and more precise estimates could be obtained.

Project description:Rising caesarean section (CS) rates have been observed worldwide in recent decades. This study sought to analyse trends in CS rates and outcomes among a variety of obstetric groups at a university hospital in a low-income country.We conducted a hospital-based panel study at Muhimbili National Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. All deliveries between 2000 and 2011 with gestational age???28 weeks were included in the study. The 12 years were divided into four periods: 2000 to 2002, 2003 to 2005, 2006 to 2008, and 2009 to 2011. Main outcome measures included CS rate, relative size of obstetric groups, contribution to overall CS rate, perinatal mortality ratio, neonatal distress, and maternal mortality ratio. Time trends were analysed within the ten Robson groups, based on maternal and obstetric characteristics. We applied the ?2 test for trend to determine whether changes were statistically significant. Odds ratios of CS were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression, accounting for maternal age, referral status, and private healthcare insurance.We included 137,094 deliveries. The total CS rate rose from 19% to 49%, involving nine out of ten groups. Multipara without previous CS with single, cephalic pregnancies in spontaneous labour had a CS rate of 33% in 2009 to 2011. Adjusted analysis explained some of the increase. Perinatal mortality and neonatal distress decreased in multiple pregnancies (p?<?0.001 and p?=?0.003) and nullipara with breech pregnancies (p?<?0.001 and p?=?0.024). Although not statistically significant, there was an increase in perinatal mortality (p?=?0.381) and neonatal distress (p?=?0.171) among multipara with single cephalic pregnancies in spontaneous labour. The maternal mortality ratio increased from 463/100, 000 live births in 2000 to 2002 to 650/100, 000 live births in 2009 to 2011 (p?=?0.031).The high CS rate among low-risk groups suggests that many CSs might have been performed on questionable indications. Such a trend may result in even higher CS rates in the future. While CS can improve perinatal outcomes, it does not necessarily do so if performed routinely in low-risk groups.

Project description:BackgroundRising national cesarean section rates (CSRs) and unexplained inter-hospital differences in CSRs, led national and international bodies to select CSR as a quality indicator. Using hospital discharge abstracts, we aimed to document in Belgium (1) inter-hospital differences in CSRs among low risk deliveries, (2) a national upward CSR trend, (3) lack of better neonatal outcomes in hospitals with high CSRs, and (4) possible under-use of CS.MethodsWe defined a population of low risk deliveries (singleton, vertex, full-term, live born, <4500 g, >2499 g). Using multivariable logistic regression techniques, we provided degrees of evidence regarding the observed departure ([relative risk-1]*100) of each hospital (N = 107) from the national CSR and its trend. To determine a benchmark, we defined three CSR groups (high, average and low) and compared them regarding 1 minute Apgar scores and other neonatal endpoints. An anonymous feedback is provided to the hospitals, the College of Physicians (with voluntary disclosure of the outlying hospitals for quality improvement purposes) and to the policy makers.ResultsCompared with available information, the completeness and accuracy of the data, regarding the variables selected to determine our study population, showed adequate. Important inter-hospital differences were found. Departures ranged from -65% up to +75%, and 9 "high CSR" and 13 "low CSR" outlying hospitals were identified. We observed a national increasing trend of 1.019 (95%CI [1.015; 1.022]) per semester, adjusted for age groups. In the "high CSR" group 1 minute Apgar scores <4 were over-represented in the subgroup of vaginal deliveries, suggesting CSs not carried out for medical reasons. Under-use of CS was also observed. Given their questionable completeness, except Apgar scores, our neonatal results, showing a significant association of CS with adverse neonatal endpoints, are to be cautiously interpreted. Taking the available evidence into account, the "Average CSR" group seemed to be the best benchmark candidate.ConclusionRather than firm statements about quality of care, our results are to be considered a useful screening. The inter-hospital differences in CSR, the national CS upward trend, the indications of over-use and under-use, the geographically different obstetric patterns and the admission day-related concentration of deliveries, whether or not by CS, may trigger initiatives aiming at improving quality of care.

Project description:BackgroundEven though the caesarean section is an essential component of comprehensive obstetric and newborn care for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality, there is a lack of data regarding caesarean section rates, its determinants and health outcomes among tribal communities in India.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to estimate and compare rates, determinants, indications and outcomes of caesarean section. The article provides an assessment on how the inequitable utilization can be addressed in a community-based hospital in tribal areas of Gujarat, India.MethodProspectively collected data of deliveries (N = 19923) from April 2010 to March 2016 in Kasturba Maternity Hospital was used. The odds ratio of caesarean section was estimated for tribal and non-tribal women. Decomposition analysis was done to decompose the differences in the caesarean section rates between tribal and non-tribal women.ResultsThe caesarean section rate was significantly lower among tribal compared to the non-tribal women (9.4% vs 15.6%, p-value < 0.01) respectively. The 60% of the differences in the rates of caesarean section between tribal and non-tribal women were unexplained. Within the explained variation, the previous caesarean accounted for 96% (p-value < 0.01) of the variation. Age of the mother, parity, previous caesarean and distance from the hospital were some of the important determinants of caesarean section rates. The most common indications of caesarean section were foetal distress (31.2%), previous caesarean section (23.9%), breech (16%) and prolonged labour (11.2%). There was no difference in case fatality rate (1.3% vs 1.4%, p-value = 0.90) and incidence of birth asphyxia (0.3% vs 0.6%, p-value = 0.26) comparing the tribal and non-tribal women.ConclusionSimilar to the prior evidences, we found higher caesarean rates among non-tribal compare to tribal women. However, the adverse outcomes were similar between tribal and non-tribal women for caesarean section deliveries.

Project description:IntroductionWHO has recommended using Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) to monitor and analyze CD rates. Its failure to take some maternal and organizational factors into account, however, could limit the interpretation of CD rate comparisons, because it may contribute to variations in hospital CD rates.ObjectiveTo study the contribution of maternal socioeconomic and clinical characteristics and hospital organizational factors to the variation in CD rates when using Robson's ten-group classification system for CD rate comparisons.MethodsThis prospective, observational, population-based study included all deliveries at a gestational age > 24 weeks at the 10 hospitals of the French MYPA perinatal network in the Paris area. CD rates were calculated for each TGCS group in each hospital. Interhospital variations in these rates were investigated with hierarchical logistic regression models to quantify the variation explained by differences in patient and hospital characteristics when the TGCS is considered. Variations in CD rates between hospitals were estimated with median odds ratios (MOR) to express interhospital variance on the standard odds ratio scale. The percentage of variation explained by TGCS and maternal and hospital characteristics was also calculated.ResultsThe global CD rate was 24.0% (interhospital range: 17-32%). CD rates within each TGCS group differed significantly between hospitals (P<0.001). CD was significantly associated with maternal age (>40 years), severe preeclampsia, and two organizational factors: hospital status (private maternities) and the deliveries per staff member per 24 hours. The MOR in the empty model was 1.27 and did not change after taking the TGCS into account. Adding maternal characteristics and hospital organizational factors lowered the MOR to 1.14 and reduced the variation between hospital CD rates by 70%.ConclusionMaternal characteristics and hospital factors are needed to address variation in CD rates among the TGCS groups. Therefore, comparisons of these rates that do not consider these factors should be interpreted carefully.

Project description:Widespread increases in caesarean section (CS) rates have sparked concerns about risks to mothers and infants and rising healthcare costs. A multicentre, two-arm, cluster-randomized trial in Quebec, Canada assessed whether an audit and feedback intervention targeting health professionals would reduce CS rates for pregnant women compared to usual care, and concluded that it reduced CS rates without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal health. The effect was statistically significant but clinically small. We assessed cost-effectiveness to inform scale-up decisions.A prospective economic evaluation was undertaken using individual patient data from the Quality of Care, Obstetrics Risk Management, and Mode of Delivery (QUARISMA) trial (April 2008 to October 2011). Analyses took a healthcare payer perspective. The time horizon captured hospital-based costs and clinical events for mothers and neonates from labour onset to 3 months postpartum. Resource use was identified and measured from patient charts and valued using standardized government sources. We estimated the changes in CS rates and costs for the intervention group (versus controls) between the baseline and post-intervention periods. We examined heterogeneity between clinical subgroups of high-risk versus low-risk pregnancies and estimated the joint uncertainty in cost-effectiveness over 20,000 trial simulations. We decomposed costs to identify drivers of change.The intervention group experienced per-patient reductions of 0.005 CS (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.015 to 0.004, P?=?0.09) and $180 (95% CI: -$277 to?-?$83, P?<?0.001). Women with low-risk pregnancies experienced statistically significant reductions in CS rates and costs; changes for the high-risk subgroup were not significant. The intervention was "dominant" (effective in reducing CS and less costly than usual care) in 86.08% of simulations. It reduced costs in 99.99% of simulations. Cost reductions were driven by lower rates of neonatal complications in the intervention group (-$190, 95% CI: -$255 to?-?$125, P?<?0.001). Given 88,000 annual provincial births, a similar intervention could save $15.8 million (range: $7.3 to $24.4 million) in Quebec annually.From a healthcare payer perspective, a multifaceted intervention involving audits and feedback resulted in a small reduction in caesarean deliveries and important cost savings. Cost reductions are consistent with improved quality of care in intervention group hospitals.International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN95086407 . Registered on 23 October 2007.

Dataset Information

Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets