Literature DB >> 9327816

Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix.

E B Keeler1, R E Park, R M Bell, D S Gifford, J Keesey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the issues in developing a clinical predictor of cesarean delivery that could be used to adjust reported cesarean rates for case mix, and (2) to compare its performance to other, simpler predictors using clinical and statistical criteria. DATA SOURCES: Singleton births greater than 2,500 grams in Washington State in 1989 and 1990 for whom mothers and infant hospital discharge records could be matched to birth certificate data.
DESIGN: Statistical analysis of retrospective merged hospital and birth certificate data, which were used to develop variables and models to predict the probability that any particular delivery would be a cesarean. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Merged data led to better predictor variables than those based on one source. A simple four-category hierarchical classification into births with prior cesarean, breech but no prior cesarean, first birth, and other explains 30 percent of the variance in individual cesarean rates. The full clinical model fit the data well and explained 37 percent of the variance. Multiparas without serious complications comprised 35 percent of the mothers and averaged less than 2 percent cesareans. A hospital's predicted cesarean rate depends strongly on the proportion of its births that are first births.
CONCLUSION: Government and private agencies have reported cesarean rates as measures of hospital performance. Depending on data and resources available, both simple and complex measures of case mix can be used to adjust reported rates. These adjustments should not include all variables related to the rates. Proper adjustments may not alter hospital rankings greatly, but they will improve the validity and acceptability of the reports.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9327816      PMCID: PMC1070208     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  13 in total

1.  The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986. Economic and noneconomic aspects.

Authors:  A D Tussing; M A Wojtowycz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Hospital leaders' opinions of the HCFA mortality data.

Authors:  D M Berwick; D L Wald
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-01-12       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Cesarean birth: how to reduce the rate.

Authors:  R H Paul; D A Miller
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  StORQS: Washington's Statewide Obstetrical Review and Quality System: overview and provider evaluation.

Authors:  L Jones; J LoGerfo; K Shy; F Connell; V Holt; K Parrish; K McCandless
Journal:  QRB Qual Rev Bull       Date:  1993-04

5.  A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Effect of changes in maternal age, parity, and birth weight distribution on primary cesarean delivery rates.

Authors:  K M Parrish; V L Holt; T R Easterling; F A Connell; J P LoGerfo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-09       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Development of a cesarean delivery risk score.

Authors:  W J Hueston
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section.

Authors:  R S Stafford
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-01-02       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California.

Authors:  P Braveman; S Egerter; F Edmonston; M Verdon
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 10.  The effect of physician factors on the cesarean section decision.

Authors:  L R Burns; S E Geller; D R Wholey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  9 in total

1.  Random output and hospital performance.

Authors:  Pedro Pita Barros
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2003-11

2.  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

3.  Do longer postpartum stays reduce newborn readmissions? Analysis using instrumental variables.

Authors:  J D Malkin; M S Broder; E Keeler
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  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

5.  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

6.  The active management of risk in multiparous pregnancy at term: association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes.

Authors:  James M Nicholson; Aaron B Caughey; Morghan H Stenson; Peter Cronholm; Lisa Kellar; Ian Bennett; Katie Margo; Joseph Stratton
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony.

Authors:  Maria P Fantini; Elisa Stivanello; Brunella Frammartino; Anna P Barone; Danilo Fusco; Laura Dallolio; Paolo Cacciari; Carlo A Perucci
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Risk-adjusted cesarean section rates for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan: a population-based study.

Authors:  Chao-Hsiun Tang; Han-I Wang; Chun-Sen Hsu; Hung-Wen Su; Mei-Ju Chen; Herng-Ching Lin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-10-09       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Risk adjustment for cesarean delivery rates: how many variables do we need? An observational study using administrative databases.

Authors:  Elisa Stivanello; Paola Rucci; Elisa Carretta; Giulia Pieri; Maria P Fantini
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 2.655

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.