Teresa Janevic1,2, Natalia N Egorova1, Jennifer Zeitlin1,3, Amy Balbierz1, Paul L Hebert4, Elizabeth A Howell1,2. 1. Departments of Population Health Science and Policy. 2. Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Women's Health Research Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 3. Inserm UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, DHU Risks in Pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 4. University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elective delivery (ED) before 39 weeks, low-risk cesarean delivery, and episiotomy are routinely reported obstetric quality measures and have been the focus of quality improvement initiatives over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To estimate trends and differences in obstetric quality measures by race/ethnicity. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used 2008-2014 linked birth certificate-hospital discharge data from New York City to measure ED before 39 gestational weeks (ED <39), low-risk cesarean, and episiotomy by race/ethnicity. Measures were following the Joint Commission and National Quality Forum specifications. Average annual percent change (AAPC) was estimated using Poisson regression for each measure by race/ethnicity. Risk differences (RD) for non-Hispanic black women, Hispanic women, and Asian women compared with non-Hispanic white women were calculated. RESULTS: ED<39 decreased among whites [AAPC=-2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.7 to -1.7), while it increased among blacks (AAPC=1.3; 95% CI, 0.1-2.6) and Hispanics (AAPC=2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). Low-risk cesarean decreased among whites (AAPC=-2.8; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.0), and episiotomy decreased among all groups. In 2008, white women had higher risk of most measures, but by 2014 incidence of ED<39 was increased among Hispanics (RD=2/100 deliveries; 95% CI, 2-4) and low-risk cesarean was increased among blacks (RD=3/100; 95% CI, 0.5-6), compared with whites. Incidence of episiotomy was lower among blacks and Hispanics than whites, and higher among Asian women throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Existing measures do not adequately assess health care disparities due to modest risk differences; nonetheless, continued monitoring of trends is warranted to detect possible emergent disparities.
BACKGROUND: Elective delivery (ED) before 39 weeks, low-risk cesarean delivery, and episiotomy are routinely reported obstetric quality measures and have been the focus of quality improvement initiatives over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To estimate trends and differences in obstetric quality measures by race/ethnicity. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used 2008-2014 linked birth certificate-hospital discharge data from New York City to measure ED before 39 gestational weeks (ED <39), low-risk cesarean, and episiotomy by race/ethnicity. Measures were following the Joint Commission and National Quality Forum specifications. Average annual percent change (AAPC) was estimated using Poisson regression for each measure by race/ethnicity. Risk differences (RD) for non-Hispanic black women, Hispanic women, and Asian women compared with non-Hispanic white women were calculated. RESULTS: ED<39 decreased among whites [AAPC=-2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.7 to -1.7), while it increased among blacks (AAPC=1.3; 95% CI, 0.1-2.6) and Hispanics (AAPC=2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). Low-risk cesarean decreased among whites (AAPC=-2.8; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.0), and episiotomy decreased among all groups. In 2008, white women had higher risk of most measures, but by 2014 incidence of ED<39 was increased among Hispanics (RD=2/100 deliveries; 95% CI, 2-4) and low-risk cesarean was increased among blacks (RD=3/100; 95% CI, 0.5-6), compared with whites. Incidence of episiotomy was lower among blacks and Hispanics than whites, and higher among Asian women throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Existing measures do not adequately assess health care disparities due to modest risk differences; nonetheless, continued monitoring of trends is warranted to detect possible emergent disparities.
Authors: Tanjala S Purnell; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Sherita H Golden; Jacqueline R Halladay; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Bradley M Appelhans; Lisa A Cooper Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Azad A Kabir; Gabriella Pridjian; William C Steinmann; Eduardo A Herrera; M Mahmud Khan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Elizabeth A Howell; Natalia Egorova; Amy Balbierz; Jennifer Zeitlin; Paul L Hebert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jonathan M Snowden; Sarah S Osmundson; Menolly Kaufman; Cori Blauer Peterson; Katy Backes Kozhimannil Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.402