HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by BAILIT, J. L. Articles by PEACEMAN, A. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by BAILIT, J. L. Articles by PEACEMAN, A. N.

Risk Adjustment for Interhospital Comparison of Primary Cesarean Rates

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois.

Address reprint requests to: Jennifer Bailit, MD Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program CB# 7105, 5034 Old Clinic Building University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599 E-mail: jennifer_bailit{at}unc.edu

Objective: To create a method of controlling for case mix so that inferences could be made about variation in cesarean rates among hospitals.

Methods: A total of 160,753 births from 1991 Illinois birth certificate data were analyzed. A multivariate model of characteristics independently associated with cesarean delivery was developed from a random 25% sample, validated on the other 75%, and used to create a probability of cesarean delivery for each woman. The validated model was used to calculate a predicted primary cesarean delivery rate for the 154 hospitals in Illinois that did at least 100 deliveries per year.

Results: The final model included both medical and sociodemographic risk factors and predicted primary cesarean rates accurately over a full range of rates. Thirty-five hospitals (23%) had actual rates that were higher than their individual predicted 95% confidence interval (CI). Eighty-nine hospitals (58%) had actual rates within predicted CIs. Thirty hospitals (20%) had actual rates that were lower than the predicted 95% CI. Twenty-three percent of hospitals with actual rates greater than predicted rates were not in the top quartile of actual rates. Twenty-seven percent of hospitals with actual rates in the top quartile were doing cesarean deliveries appropriate for the risk status of the population served.

Conclusion: Risk adjusting for hospital case mix more accurately identifies outlier hospitals than raw, unadjusted primary cesarean delivery rates. We believe that risk adjusting should be the first step in understanding variations in primary cesarean delivery rates.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Linton, M. R. Peterson, and T. V. Williams Clinical Case Mix Adjustment of Cesarean Delivery Rates in U.S. Military Hospitals, 2002 Obstet. Gynecol., March 1, 2005; 105(3): 598 - 606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Gould, B. Danielsen, L. M. Korst, R. Phibbs, K. Chance, E. Main, D. D. Wirtschafter, and D. K. Stevenson Cesarean Delivery Rates and Neonatal Morbidity in a Low-Risk Population Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2004; 104(1): 11 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Bailit and J. Garrett Comparison of Risk-Adjustment Methodologies for Cesarean Delivery Rates Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2003; 102(1): 45 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Peaceman, J. Feinglass, and L. M. Manheim Risk-Adjustment of Cesarean Delivery Rates: A Practical Method for Use in Quality Improvement American Journal of Medical Quality, May 1, 2002; 17(3): 113 - 117. [Abstract] [PDF]