Using administrative data to identify indications for elective primary cesarean delivery

Health Services Research

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 1387-1401

  Gregory, Kimberly D ^a,b   Korst, Lisa M ^b   Gornbein, Jeffrey A ^c   Platt, Lawrence D ^c  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Case mix; Cesarean section; Classification and regression trees; Recursive partitioning; Risk adjustment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POPULATION RESEARCH; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT INDICATION;

ALGORITHMS; CALIFORNIA; CESAREAN SECTION; COMORBIDITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ADJUSTMENT; STATE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 0036813745     PISSN: 00179124     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.10762     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 1982. Guidelines for Vaginal Delivery After A Previous Cesarean Birth. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
2. 1988. Guidelines for Vaginal Delivery after a Cesarean Childbirth. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion no. 7, Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
3. 1991. Quality Assurance in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
4. 1995. Vaginal Delivery After A Previous Cesarean Birth. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion no. 143, Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
5. 1998. Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean Delivery. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee, Opinion no. 7, Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
6. 2000. Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
7. Brook, R. H., K. Lohr, M. Chassin, J. Kosecoff, A. Fink, and D. Solomon. 1984. "Geographic variations in the use of services: Do they have any clinical significance?" Health Affairs 3 (2): 63-73.
8. Elliott, J. P., M. M. Russell, and L. A. Dickason. 1997. "The labor-adjusted cesarean section rate - A more informative method than the cesarean section 'rate' for assessing a practitioner's labor and delivery skills." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 177 (1): 139-43.
9. Feinglass, J., P. R. Yarnold, W. J. McCarthy, and G. Martin. 1998. "A classification tree analysis of selection for discretionary treatment." Medical Care 36 (5): 740-7.
10. Fetter, R. B., Y. Shin, J. L. Freeman, R. F. Averill, and J. D. Thompson. 1980. "Case Mix Definition by Diagnosis-Related Groups." Medical Care 18 (2, supplement): iii, 1-53.
11. Flamm, B. I., D. M. Berwick, and A. Kabrenell. 1998. "Reducing cesarean section rates safely: Lessons from a 'breakthrough series' collaborative." Birth 25 (2): 117-24.
12. Gregory, K. D., L. M. Korst, and L. D. Platt. 2001. "Variation in elective primary cesarean rates by hospital organizational factors." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 184 (7): 1521-34.
13. Hannah, M. E., W. J. Hannah, S. A. Hewson, E. D. Hodnett, S. Saigal, and A. R. Willan. 2000. "Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: A randomised multicentre trial." Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356 (9239): 1375-83.
14. Harer, W. B. 2000. "Patient choice cesarean." ACOG Clinical Review 5 (2): 12-6.
15. Healthy People 2010. Available at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
16. Henry, O. A., K. D. Gregory, C. J. Hobel, and L. D. Platt. 1995. "Using the ICD-9 coding system to identify indications for both primary and repeat cesarean sections." American Journal of Public Health 85 (8): 1143-6.
17. How, H. Y., B. J. Harris, M. Pietrantoni, J. C. Evans, S. Dutton, J. Khoury, and T. A. Siddiqui. 2000. "Is vaginal delivery preferable to elective cesarean delivery in fetuses with a known ventral wall defect?" American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 182 (6): 1527-34.
18. Iezzoni, L. I. 1994. "Using risk-adjusted outcomes to assess clinical practice: An overview of issues pertaining to risk adjustment." Annals of Thoracic Surgery 58 (6): 1822-6.
19. Joint Commission. 1994. 1995 Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, Vol. 1, Standards, Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).
20. Lopez-Zeno, J. A., A. M. Peaceman, J. A. Adashek, and M. L. Socol. 1992. "A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor." New England Journal of Medicine 326 (7): 450-4.
21. Lurie, S., D. Sherman, and I. Bukovsky. 1999. "Omphalocele delivery enigma: The best mode of delivery still remains dubious." European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 82 (1): 19-22.
22. Merrill, D. C., and F.J. Zlanik. 1999. "Randomized double-masked comparison of oxytocin dosage in induction and augmentation of labor." Obstetrics and Gynecology 94 (3): 455-63.
23. National Institutes of Health. 1981. Cesarean Childbirth. Publication no. 82-2067, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
24. National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). 2000. State of Managed Care Quality 2000. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance.
25. O'Driscoll, F., M. Foley, and D. MacDonald. 1984. "Active management of labour as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia." Obstetrics and Gynecology 63 (4): 485-90.
26. Paul, R. H., and D. A. Miller. 1995. "Cesarean birth: How to reduce the rate." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 172 (6): 1903-11.
27. Public Health Service (PHS). 1991. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Publication No. 91-50212.
28. 2000. Healthy People 2010, 2d Ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
29. 1998. Generic ICD-9-CM Hospital Version 1998. Complete Official ICD-9-CM text as standardized by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Care Financing Administration.
30. SAS Institute Inc. 1989-1996. SAS v 6.12. Cary, NC. SAS Institute.
31. Sachs, B. P., C. Kobelin, M. A. Castro, and F. Frigoletto. 1999. "The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate." New England Journal of Medicine 340 (1): 54-7.
32. Shelton, D. L. 1999. "Ob-Gyn: Let Women Choose C-sections." American Medical News. December, Health and Science section, pp. 1-4.
33. Showalter, E., and A. Griffin. 1999. "All Women Should Have Choice." Commentary. British Medical Journal 319 (7222): 1401.
34. SPSS Incorporated. 1998. Answer Tree 2.0. Chicago, IL. SPSS Incorporated.
35. Tranquilli, A. L., and C. G. Garzetti. 1997. "A New Ethical and Clinical Dilemma in Obstetric Practice; Cesarean Section 'on Maternal Request.'" Letter to the editor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 177 (1): 245-6.
36. Ventura, S. J., J. A. Martin, S. C. Curtin, T.J. Mathews, and M. M. Park. 2000. "Births: Final Data for 1998." National Vital Statistics Reports 48 (3): 1-100.