Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Aug 15:6:100.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-100.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Maria P Fantini et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Cesarean section rates is often used as an indicator of quality of care in maternity hospitals. The assumption is that lower rates reflect in developed countries more appropriate clinical practice and general better performances. Hospitals are thus often ranked on the basis of caesarean section rates. The aim of this study is to assess whether the adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic variables of the mother and the fetus is necessary for inter-hospital comparisons of cesarean section (c-section) rates and to assess whether a risk adjustment model based on a limited number of variables could be identified and used.

Methods: Discharge abstracts of labouring women without prior cesarean were linked with abstracts of newborns discharged from 29 hospitals of the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy) from 2003 to 2004. Adjusted ORs of cesarean by hospital were estimated by using two logistic regression models: 1) a full model including the potential confounders selected by a backward procedure; 2) a parsimonious model including only actual confounders identified by the "change-in-estimate" procedure. Hospital rankings, based on ORs were examined.

Results: 24 risk factors for c-section were included in the full model and 7 (marital status, maternal age, infant weight, fetopelvic disproportion, eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, placenta previa/abruptio placentae, malposition/malpresentation) in the parsimonious model. Hospital ranking using the adjusted ORs from both models was different from that obtained using the crude ORs. The correlation between the rankings of the two models was 0.92. The crude ORs were smaller than ORs adjusted by both models, with the parsimonious ones producing more precise estimates.

Conclusion: Risk adjustment is necessary to compare hospital c-section rates, it shows differences in rankings and highlights inappropriateness of some hospitals. By adjusting for only actual confounders valid and more precise estimates could be obtained.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    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. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1996.0044. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. National Sentinel Cesarean Section Audit Report. RCOG Press; 2001. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit.
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists . Cesarean Section, clinical guideline. London: RCOG Press; 2004. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.4.283. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms