Cargando…
Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2006
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1590020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16911770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-100 |
_version_ | 1782130359978164224 |
---|---|
author | Fantini, Maria P Stivanello, Elisa Frammartino, Brunella Barone, Anna P Fusco, Danilo Dallolio, Laura Cacciari, Paolo Perucci, Carlo A |
author_facet | Fantini, Maria P Stivanello, Elisa Frammartino, Brunella Barone, Anna P Fusco, Danilo Dallolio, Laura Cacciari, Paolo Perucci, Carlo A |
author_sort | Fantini, Maria P |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1590020 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2006 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-15900202006-10-05 Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony Fantini, Maria P Stivanello, Elisa Frammartino, Brunella Barone, Anna P Fusco, Danilo Dallolio, Laura Cacciari, Paolo Perucci, Carlo A BMC Health Serv Res Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2006-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC1590020/ /pubmed/16911770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-100 Text en Copyright © 2006 Fantini et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fantini, Maria P Stivanello, Elisa Frammartino, Brunella Barone, Anna P Fusco, Danilo Dallolio, Laura Cacciari, Paolo Perucci, Carlo A Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
title | Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
title_full | Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
title_fullStr | Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
title_full_unstemmed | Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
title_short | Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
title_sort | risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1590020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16911770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-100 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fantinimariap riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT stivanelloelisa riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT frammartinobrunella riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT baroneannap riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT fuscodanilo riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT dalloliolaura riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT cacciaripaolo riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony AT peruccicarloa riskadjustmentforinterhospitalcomparisonofprimarycesareansectionratesneedvalidityandparsimony |