This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (41)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David C. Aron, MD, MS; Dwain L. Harper, DO; Laura B. Shepardson, MS; Gary E. Rosenthal, MD

JAMA. 1998;279:1968-1972.

Context.— Hospitals and health plans are often ranked on rates of cesarean delivery, under the assumption that lower rates reflect more appropriate, more efficient care. However, most rankings do not account for patient factors that affect the likelihood of cesarean delivery.

Objective.— To compare hospital cesarean delivery rates before and after adjusting for clinical risk factors that increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery.

Design.— Retrospective cohort study.

Setting.— Twenty-one hospitals in northeast Ohio.

Patients.— A total of 26127 women without prior cesarean deliveries admitted for labor and delivery from January 1993 through June 1995.

Main Outcome Measures.— Hospital rankings based on observed and risk-adjusted cesarean delivery rates.

Results.— The overall cesarean delivery rate was 15.9% and varied (P<.001) from 6.3% to 26.5% in individual hospitals. Adjusted rates varied from 8.4% to 22.0%. The correlation between unadjusted and adjusted hospital rankings (ie, 1-21) was only modest (R=0.35, P=.12). Whereas 7 hospitals were classified as outliers (ie, had rates higher or lower [P<.05] than overall rate) on the basis of both unadjusted and adjusted rates, outlier status changed for 5 hospitals (24%), including 2 that changed from outliers to nonoutliers, 2 that changed from nonoutliers to outliers, and 1 that changed from a high outlier to a low outlier.

Conclusions.— Cesarean delivery rates varied across hospitals in a single metropolitan region. However, rankings that fail to account for clinical factors that increase the risk of cesarean delivery may be methodologically biased and misleading to the public.

From the Divisions of Clinical and Molecular Endocrinology (Dr Aron) and General Internal Medicine (Ms Shepardson and Dr Rosenthal), Department of Medicine and Institute of Health Care Research, Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, and the Quality Information Management Program (Dr Harper), Cleveland, Ohio.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Preventive Approach to Obstetric Care in a Rural Hospital: Association Between Higher Rates of Preventive Labor Induction and Lower Rates of Cesarean Delivery
Nicholson et al.
Ann Fam Med 2007;5:310-319.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Risk-Adjustor Selection More Important Than Statistical Approach for Provider Profiling? Asthma as an Example
Huang et al.
Med Decis Making 2005;25:20-34.
ABSTRACT  

Risk-Adjustment of Cesarean Delivery Rates: A Practical Method for Use in Quality Improvement
Peaceman et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2002;17:113-117.
ABSTRACT  

Decision-Case Mix Model for Analyzing Variation in Cesarean Rates
Eldenburg and Waller
Med Decis Making 2001;21:170-179.
ABSTRACT  

Impact of Risk Adjusted Clinical Outcomes Methodology-Quality Measures on Hospital Mortality Data: A Statistical and Case Study Approach
Lied et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 1999;14:255-261.
ABSTRACT  

Risk-Adjustment of C-Section and Hospital Ranking
JWatch Women's Health 1998;1998:24-24.
FULL TEXT