 |
|
Impact of Risk-Adjusting Cesarean Delivery Rates When Reporting Hospital Performance
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.
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
Clinical Case Mix Adjustment of Cesarean Delivery Rates in U.S. Military Hospitals, 2002
Linton et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:598-606.
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
Comparison of Risk-Adjustment Methodologies for Cesarean Delivery Rates
Bailit and Garrett
Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:45-51.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
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
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 for Interhospital Comparison of Primary Cesarean Rates
BAILIT et al.
Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:1025-1030.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Risk-Adjustment of C-Section and Hospital Ranking
JWatch Women's Health 1998;1998:24-24.
FULL TEXT
|
