Literature DB >> 11232133

The effect of income pooling within a call group on rates of obstetric intervention.

E S Bland1, L W Oppenheimer, P Holmes, S W Wen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: On July 1, 1997, the call group at a tertiary referral hospital in Ottawa changed its remuneration. The authors tested the hypothesis that change in an obstetric call group's remuneration from individual fee-for-service billing to equal sharing of the pooled group income would result in reduced rates of obstetric intervention.
METHODS: Intervention rates were compared for the 12 months before (1678 births) and the 12 months after (1934 births) the change. Data were collected on onset of labour, indication for induction of labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.
RESULTS: The mean rate of elective induction of labour was 38.6% in the year before the change and 33.3% in the year after the change (p = 0.01). There were small but statistically significant increases in the mean duration of labour and mean length of the second stage (p = 0.03).
INTERPRETATION: Billing policy may affect clinical decisions. Our findings add weight to the literature showing increased intervention rates with fee-for-service remuneration.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11232133      PMCID: PMC80726     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  8 in total

1.  The impact of the fee-for-service reimbursement system on the utilisation of health services. Part III. A comparison of caesarean section rates in white nulliparous women in the private and public sectors.

Authors:  M R Price; J Broomberg
Journal:  S Afr Med J       Date:  1990-08-04

2.  Large differences in obstetrical intervention rates among Dutch hospitals, even after adjustment for population differences.

Authors:  P M Elferink-Stinkens; R Brand; S le Cessie; O J Van Hemel
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.435

3.  Practice environment is associated with obstetric decision making regarding abnormal labor.

Authors:  M W Carpenter; D Soule; W T Yates; C I Meeker
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Variation in caesarean and instrumental delivery rates in New Zealand hospitals.

Authors:  N Johnson; D Ansell
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 2.100

5.  Cesarean section rates by type of maternity unit and level of obstetric care: an area-based study in central Italy.

Authors:  D Di Lallo; C A Perucci; R Bertollini; S Mallone
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Relation of private or clinic care to the cesarean birth rate.

Authors:  R H de Regt; H L Minkoff; J Feldman; R H Schwarz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-09-04       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The physician factor in cesarean birth rates.

Authors:  G L Goyert; S F Bottoms; M C Treadwell; P C Nehra
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-03-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Temporal variation in rates of cesarean section for dystocia: does "convenience" play a role?

Authors:  W Fraser; R H Usher; F H McLean; C Bossenberry; M E Thomson; M S Kramer; L P Smith; H Power
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 8.661

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  A time series would have been better.

Authors:  C van Walraven; A J Forster
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-06-26       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Caesarean sections and for-profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ilir Hoxha; Lamprini Syrogiannouli; Xhyljeta Luta; Kali Tal; David C Goodman; Bruno R da Costa; Peter Jüni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Group practice impacts on patients, physicians and healthcare systems: a scoping review.

Authors:  Terry Zwiep; San Hilalion Ahn; Jamie Brehaut; Fady Balaa; Daniel I McIsaac; Susan Rich; Tom Wallace; Husein Moloo
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 2.692

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.