Risk adjustment models for interhospital comparison of CS rates using Robson's ten group classification system and other socio-demographic and clinical variables

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Volumn 12, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Colais, Paola ^a   Fantini, Maria P ^b   Fusco, Danilo ^a   Carretta, Elisa ^b   Stivanello, Elisa ^b   Lenzi, Jacopo ^b   Pieri, Giulia ^b   Perucci, Carlo A ^c  

^a DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^c National Agency of Regional Health Services   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; MULTIPARA; NULLIPARA; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; ITALY; LABOR, INDUCED; LABOR, OBSTETRIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSTETRIC LABOR, PREMATURE; PARITY; PREGNANCY; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ADJUSTMENT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862499315     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712393     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-54     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Canadian Institute for Health Information Giving Birth in Canada: Providers of Maternity and Infart Care 2004, Ottawa. Canada: CIHI, Canadian Institute for Health Information.
2. MacDorman M, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol 2008, 35:293-307. 10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.007, 18456070.
3. Belizan J, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007, 18:485-486. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318068646a, 17568221.
4. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer A, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007, 21:98-113. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x, 17302638.
5. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros S, et al. Rates and implications of caesarean section in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999, 519:1397-1402.
6. World Health Organization Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2:436-437. World Health Organization.
7. Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Salute nelle Regioni Italiane Rapporto Osservasalute 2008. Stato di salute e qualità dell'assistenza nelle regioni italiane 2008, Milano: Press, Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Salute nelle Regioni Italiane.
8. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Birth after previous caesarean birth 2007, London (UK): RCOG Press, Green-top guideline; n°45, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
9. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 15:179-194. 10.1053/beog.2000.0156, 11359322.
10. Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, Lawrence WL. A national estimate of the elective primary caesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105(4):751-756. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000157435.67138.78, 15802401.
11. Main EK, Bloomfield L, Hunt G. Sutter Health, First Pregnancy and delivery Clinical Initiative Committee: Development of large-scale obstetric quality-improvement program that focused on the nulliparous patient at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 190:1747-56. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.02.055, 15284788.
12. Kontopoulos EV, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The impact of route of delivery and presentation on twin neonatal and infant mortality: a population-based study in the USA, 1995-97. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004, 15(4):219-24. 10.1080/14767050410001668707, 15280128.
13. Tamburrano MT, Iaccarino C, Castagnaro C. Un primo tentativo di analisi dei parti cesarei attraverso le classi di Robson: limiti e potenzialità dei CeDAP. Rapporto Osservasalute 2007, 1:244-250.
14. Regione E-R. La nascita in Emilia-Romagna. 5° Rapporto sui dati del Certificato di Assistenza al Parto (CedAP) - Anno 2007 2008, 77-107. Bologna: Regione Emilia-Romagna.
15. Fischer A, LaCoursiere DY, Barnard P, et al. Differences Between Hospitals in Cesarean Rates for Term Primigravidas With Cephalic Presentation. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105(4):816-821. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000156299.52668.e2, 15802411.
16. Robson M. Classification of cesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001, 12:23-9.
17. Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Health 2009, 6:18. 10.1186/1742-4755-6-18, 2779175, 19874598.
18. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classification for Cesarean Section: A Systemac Review. PLoS One 2011, 6(1):e14566. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566, 3024323, 21283801.
19. 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. 10.1067/mob.2001.115496, 11408876.
20. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Cesarean Section, clinical guideline 2004, London: RCOG Press, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
21. Shearer E. Caesarean section: medical benefits and costs. Soc Sci Med 1993, 37(10):1223-31. Review, 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90334-Z, 8272901.
22. Stivanello E, Rucci P, Carretta E, et al. Risk Adjustment for Inter-Hospital Comparison of Caesarean Delivery Rates in Low-risk Deliveries. PLoS One 2011, 6(11):e28060. 0028060, 10.1371/journal.pone, 3223220, 22132210.
23. Lazio Regional Health Service (RHS) Outcome Evaluation Program 2006-2008 2011, Available at: http://151.1.149.72/vislazio_en/metodi_statistici.php. Accessed March 16, 2011, Lazio Regional Health Service (RHS).
24. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology. An Introduction 2002, Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
25. Grayson DA. Confounding confounding. Am J Epidemiol 1987, 126:546-53.
26. Iezzoni LI. Risk adjustment for measuring healthcare outcomes 1997, Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press, 2.
27. Arcà M, Fusco D, Barone AP, Perucci CA. Risk adjustment and outcome research. Part I. J Cardiovasc Med 2006, 7(9):682-90.
28. Fantini MP, Stivanello E, Frammartino B, et al. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6:100. 10.1186/1472-6963-6-100, 1590020, 16911770.
29. Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, et al. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 201(3):308.e1-8.
30. McCarthy FP, Rigg L, Cady L, Cullinane F. A new way of looking at caesarean section births. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007, 47:316-320. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00753.x, 17627688.
31. Scarella A, Chamy V, Sepúlveda M, et al. Medical audit using the Ten Group Classification System and its impact on the cesarean section rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011, 154(2):136-40. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.09.005, 20970238.
32. AHRQ AHRQuality Indicators e-Newsletter: AHRQ-QI-TIPS: ICD-9-CM Coding Issues 2005, [http://www.qualityindica tors.ahrq.gov/newsletter/2005-September-AHRQ-QI-Newslet ter.htm, AHRQ.
33. Lazio Regional Health Service (RHS) Outcome Evaluation Program 2006-2008 2011, Available at: http://151.1.149.72/vislazio/vis_index.php. Accessed March 16, 2011, Lazio Regional Health Service (RHS).
34. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division " United Nations World Population Prospects: 2006 revision, Table A.15" 2007, New York: UN, Retrieved 7 December 2009, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.