Measurement and risk adjustment of prelabor cesarean rates in a large sample of California hospitals
- PMID: 24315861
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.007
Measurement and risk adjustment of prelabor cesarean rates in a large sample of California hospitals
Abstract
Objective: Prelabor cesareans in women without a prior cesarean is an important quality measure, yet one that is seldom tracked. We estimated patient-level risks and calculated how sensitive hospital rankings on this proposed quality metric were to risk adjustment.
Study design: This retrospective cohort study linked Californian patient data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality with hospital-level operational and financial data. Using the outcome of primary prelabor cesarean, we estimated patient-level logistic regressions in progressively more detailed models. We assessed incremental fit and discrimination, and aggregated the predicted patient-level event probabilities to construct hospital-level rankings.
Results: Of 408,355 deliveries by women without prior cesareans at 254 hospitals, 11.0% were prelabor cesareans. Including age, ethnicity, race, insurance, weekend and unscheduled admission, and 12 well-known patient risk factors yielded a model c-statistic of 0.83. Further maternal comorbidities, and hospital and obstetric unit characteristics only marginally improved fit. Risk adjusting hospital rankings led to a median absolute change in rank of 44 places compared to rankings based on observed rates. Of the 48 (49) hospitals identified as in the best (worst) quintile on observed rates, only 23 (18) were so identified by the risk-adjusted model.
Conclusion: Models predict primary prelabor cesareans with good discrimination. Systematic hospital-level variation in patient risk factors requires risk adjustment to avoid considerably different classification of hospitals by outcome performance. An opportunity exists to define this metric and report such risk-adjusted outcomes to stakeholders.
Keywords: primary prelabor cesarean; quality measurement; risk adjustment.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Are the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality obstetric trauma indicators valid measures of hospital safety?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;195(3):868-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.020. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006. PMID: 16949428
-
Risk adjusting cesarean delivery rates: a comparison of hospital profiles based on medical record and birth certificate data.Health Serv Res. 2001 Oct;36(5):959-77. Health Serv Res. 2001. PMID: 11666112 Free PMC article.
-
Quality of obstetric care and risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;194(2):402-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.045. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006. PMID: 16458637
-
[What does the cesarean rate mean in France/].J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1998 Jan;27(1):62-70. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1998. PMID: 9583047 Review. French.
-
The use of quality control performance charts to analyze cesarean delivery rates nationally.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Jun;113(3):175-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.01.012. Epub 2011 Apr 11. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011. PMID: 21481388 Review.
Cited by
-
Design characteristics of studies on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates: a scoping review.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Aug 20;20(1):478. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03169-3. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020. PMID: 32819308 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Health system factors and caesarean sections in Kosovo: a cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 11;9(4):e026702. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026702. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 30975683 Free PMC article.
-
Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 3;9(3):e025356. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025356. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 30833323 Free PMC article.
-
Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 21;7(8):e016600. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016600. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28827257 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Caesarean sections and for-profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 17;7(2):e013670. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013670. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28213600 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
