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

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 6, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Fantini, Maria P ^a   Stivanello, Elisa ^a   Frammartino, Brunella ^a   Barone, Anna P ^b   Fusco, Danilo ^b   Dallolio, Laura ^a   Cacciari, Paolo ^c   Perucci, Carlo A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b Local Health Authority RM E ^*  (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELIVERY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; MATERNAL CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; ADULT; BIRTH CERTIFICATE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; ITALY; MEDICAL AUDIT; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK; RISK FACTOR; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; BENCHMARKING; BIRTH CERTIFICATES; CESAREAN SECTION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HUMANS; ITALY; MEDICAL AUDIT; OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; ODDS RATIO; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; RISK ADJUSTMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 33749488686     PISSN: 14726963     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-100     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Di Lallo D, Perucci CA, Bertollini R, Mallone : Cesarean section rates by type of maternity unit and level of obstetric care: an area-based study in central Italy. Prev Med 1996, 25:178-185.
2. Leitch CR, Walker JJ: The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998, 105:621-626.
3. Thomas J, Paranjothy S: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. In National Sentinel Cesarean Section Audit Report RCOG Press; 2001.
4. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. In Cesarean Section, clinical guideline London: RCOG Press; 2004.
5. Kritchevsky SB, Braun BI, Gross PA, Newcomb CS, Kelleher CA, Simmons BP: Definition and adjustment of caesarean section rates and assessments of hospital performance. Int J Qual Health Care 1999, 11:283-291.
6. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Lawrence DP: Variation in elective primary caesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001, 184:1521-1531.
7. Shearer EI: Caesarean section: medical benefits and costs. Soc Science Medicine 1993, 37:1223-1231.
8. Aron DC, Harper DL, Shepardson LB, Rosenthal GE: Impact of risk- adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. JAMA 1998, 279:1968-1972.
9. Iezzoni LI: Risk Adjustment for measuring healthcare outcomes 2nd edition. Health Administration Press; 1997.
10. Rabilloud M, Ecochard R, Estève J: Maternity hospital ranking on prophylactic caesarian section rates: uncertainty associated with ranks. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001, 94:139-144.
11. Bailit JL, Dooley SL, Peaceman AN: Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary caesarean rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999, 181:1425-1431.
12. Linton A, Peterson RP, Williams TV: Clinical Case Mix adjustment of caesarean delivery rates in US militaty hospitals, 2002. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:598-606.
13. Gregory KD: Monitoring, risk adjustment and strategies to decrease caesarean rates. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2000, 12:481-486.
14. Arcà M, Fusco D, Barone AP, Perucci CA: Risk adjustment and outcome research. Part I. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine in press.
15. Librero J, Peirò S, Calderon SM: Interhospital variations in caesarean sections. A risk adjusted comparison in the Valencia public hospitals. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000, 54:631-636.
16. Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, Lawrence WL: A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:751-756.
17. Capon A, Di Lallo D, Perucci CA, Panepuccia L: Case mix adjusted odds ratios as an alternative way to compare hospital performances. Eur J Epidemiol 2005, 20:497-500.
18. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, Cohen A: Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 1998, 92:1-7.
19. Rothman KJ, Greenland , eds: Modern epidemiology Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
20. Greenland S: Modeling and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis. Am J Public Health 1989, 79:340-349.
21. Mickey RM: Greenland S. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiology 1989, 129:125-137.
22. Akaike H: A new look at the statistical identification model. IEEE Trans Auto Control 1974, 19:716-723.
23. Signorelli C, Cattaruzza MS, Osborn JF: Risk factors for caesarean section in Italy: Results of a multicentre study. Public Health 1995, 109:191-199.
24. Khawaja M, Kabakian-Khasholian T, Jurdi R: Determinants of Cesarean section in Egypt: evidence from the demographic and health survey. Health Policy 2004, 69:273-281.
25. Bailit JL, Love TE, Mercer B: Rising cesarean rates: are patients sicker? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191:800-3.
26. Peipert JF, Bracken MB: Maternal age: an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1993, 81:200-5.
27. Ecker JL, Chen KT, Cohen AP, Riley LE, Lieberman ES: Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing maternal age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001, 185:883-7.
28. Herng-Ching Lin, Tzong-Chyi Sheen, Chao-Hsiun Tang, Senyeong Kao: Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a population-based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004, 83:1178-1183.
29. Keeler EB, Park RE, Bell RM, Gifford GS, Keesey J: Adjusting caesarean delivery rates for case mix. Health Serv Res 1997, 32:511-528.
30. Elliott JP, Russell MM, Dickason LA: The labor-adjusted caesarean section rate: a more informative method than the cesarean section "rate" for assessing a practitioner's labor and delivery skills. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997, 177:139-143.
31. Glantz JC: Caesarean delivery risk adjustment for regional interhospital comparisons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999, 181:1425-31.
32. Chun-Chyang Hsu , Guahn-Ren Shieh , Chuan-Song Wu , Hsi-che Shen , Chao-Hsiun Tang : Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparisons of caesarean section rates in Taipei municipal hospitals. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology in press.
33. Korst LM, Gornbein JA, Gregory KD: Rethinking the Cesarean Rate. How Pregnancy Complications May Affect Interhospital Comparisons. Med Care 2005, 43:237-245.
34. DiGiuseppe DL, Aron DC, Payne SM, Snow RJ, Dierker L, Rosenthal GE: Risk adjusting cesarean delivery rates: a comparison of hospital profiles based on medical record and birth certificate data. Health Serv Res 2001, 36:959-977.
35. Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Schwarz M, Daley J, Hughes JS, Mackiernan YD: Predicting who dies depends on how severity is measured: implications for evaluating patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1995, 123:763-770.
36. Korst LM, Gregory KD, Gornbein JA: Elective primary cesarean delivery: accuracy of administrative data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2004, 18:112-119.
37. Parrish KM, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Connell FA, LoGerfo JP: Effect of changes in maternal age, parity and birth weight distribution on primary caesarean delivery rates. JAMA 1994, 271:443.