Literature DB >> 10362175

Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary cesarean rates.

J L Bailit1, S L Dooley, A N Peaceman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To create a method of controlling for case mix so that inferences could be made about variation in cesarean rates among hospitals.
METHODS: A total of 160,753 births from 1991 Illinois birth certificate data were analyzed. A multivariate model of characteristics independently associated with cesarean delivery was developed from a random 25% sample, validated on the other 75%, and used to create a probability of cesarean delivery for each woman. The validated model was used to calculate a predicted primary cesarean delivery rate for the 154 hospitals in Illinois that did at least 100 deliveries per year.
RESULTS: The final model included both medical and sociodemographic risk factors and predicted primary cesarean rates accurately over a full range of rates. Thirty-five hospitals (23%) had actual rates that were higher than their individual predicted 95% confidence interval (CI). Eighty-nine hospitals (58%) had actual rates within predicted CIs. Thirty hospitals (20%) had actual rates that were lower than the predicted 95% CI. Twenty-three percent of hospitals with actual rates greater than predicted rates were not in the top quartile of actual rates. Twenty-seven percent of hospitals with actual rates in the top quartile were doing cesarean deliveries appropriate for the risk status of the population served.
CONCLUSION: Risk adjusting for hospital case mix more accurately identifies outlier hospitals than raw, unadjusted primary cesarean delivery rates. We believe that risk adjusting should be the first step in understanding variations in primary cesarean delivery rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10362175     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00536-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  16 in total

1.  Risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates for managed care plans in New York State, 1998.

Authors:  P J Roohan; R E Josberger; F C Gesten
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2001-09

2.  Machine learning for sub-population assessment: evaluating the C-section rate of different physician practices.

Authors:  Rich Caruana; Radu S Niculescu; R Bharat Rao; Cynthia Simms
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2002

3.  Risk adjusting cesarean delivery rates: a comparison of hospital profiles based on medical record and birth certificate data.

Authors:  D L DiGiuseppe; D C Aron; S M Payne; R J Snow; L Dierker; G E Rosenthal
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  The role of race in cesarean delivery rate case mix adjustment.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bailit; Thomas E Love
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  A Framework for the Development of maternal quality of care indicators.

Authors:  Lisa M Korst; Kimberly D Gregory; Michael C Lu; Carolina Reyes; Calvin J Hobel; Gilberto F Chavez
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2005-09

6.  Caesarean section and children's health: A quasi-experimental design.

Authors:  Jessica Polos; Jason Fletcher
Journal:  Popul Stud (Camb)       Date:  2019-07-04

7.  Evaluating risk-adjusted cesarean delivery rate as a measure of obstetric quality.

Authors:  Sindhu K Srinivas; Corinne Fager; Scott A Lorch
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Reliability of birth certificate data: a multi-hospital comparison to medical records information.

Authors:  David L DiGiuseppe; David C Aron; Lorin Ranbom; Dwain L Harper; Gary E Rosenthal
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2002-09

9.  Evaluating the C-section rate of different physician practices: using machine learning to model standard practice.

Authors:  Rich Caruana; Radu S Niculescu; R Bharat Rao; Cynthia Simms
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

10.  Hospital differences in cesarean deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004-2006: the case against case-mix artifact.

Authors:  Isabel A Cáceres; Mariana Arcaya; Eugene Declercq; Candice M Belanoff; Vanitha Janakiraman; Bruce Cohen; Jeffrey Ecker; Lauren A Smith; S V Subramanian
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.