Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 1997 Oct;32(4):511–528.

Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix.

E B Keeler 1, R E Park 1, R M Bell 1, D S Gifford 1, J Keesey 1
PMCID: PMC1070208  PMID: 9327816

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the issues in developing a clinical predictor of cesarean delivery that could be used to adjust reported cesarean rates for case mix, and (2) to compare its performance to other, simpler predictors using clinical and statistical criteria. DATA SOURCES: Singleton births greater than 2,500 grams in Washington State in 1989 and 1990 for whom mothers and infant hospital discharge records could be matched to birth certificate data. DESIGN: Statistical analysis of retrospective merged hospital and birth certificate data, which were used to develop variables and models to predict the probability that any particular delivery would be a cesarean. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Merged data led to better predictor variables than those based on one source. A simple four-category hierarchical classification into births with prior cesarean, breech but no prior cesarean, first birth, and other explains 30 percent of the variance in individual cesarean rates. The full clinical model fit the data well and explained 37 percent of the variance. Multiparas without serious complications comprised 35 percent of the mothers and averaged less than 2 percent cesareans. A hospital's predicted cesarean rate depends strongly on the proportion of its births that are first births. CONCLUSION: Government and private agencies have reported cesarean rates as measures of hospital performance. Depending on data and resources available, both simple and complex measures of case mix can be used to adjust reported rates. These adjustments should not include all variables related to the rates. Proper adjustments may not alter hospital rankings greatly, but they will improve the validity and acceptability of the reports.

Full text

PDF
511

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berwick D. M., Wald D. L. Hospital leaders' opinions of the HCFA mortality data. JAMA. 1990 Jan 12;263(2):247–249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Braveman P., Egerter S., Edmonston F., Verdon M. Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California. Am J Public Health. 1995 May;85(5):625–630. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.5.625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Burns L. R., Geller S. E., Wholey D. R. The effect of physician factors on the cesarean section decision. Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4):365–382. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199504000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Donner C., Vermeylen D., Kirkpatrick C., de Maertelaer V., Rodesch F. Management of the growth-restricted fetus: the role of noninvasive tests and fetal blood sampling. Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jun;85(6):965–970. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00055-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hueston W. J. Development of a cesarean delivery risk score. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Dec;84(6):965–968. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jones L., LoGerfo J., Shy K., Connell F., Holt V., Parrish K., McCandless K. StORQS: Washington's Statewide Obstetrical Review and Quality System: overview and provider evaluation. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1993 Apr;19(4):110–118. doi: 10.1016/s0097-5990(16)30603-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lemeshow S., Hosmer D. W., Jr A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am J Epidemiol. 1982 Jan;115(1):92–106. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Notzon F. C., Cnattingius S., Bergsjø P., Cole S., Taffel S., Irgens L., Daltveit A. K. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Feb;170(2):495–504. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70217-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Parrish K. M., Holt V. L., Easterling T. R., Connell F. A., LoGerfo J. P. Effect of changes in maternal age, parity, and birth weight distribution on primary cesarean delivery rates. JAMA. 1994 Feb 9;271(6):443–447. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Paul R. H., Miller D. A. Cesarean birth: how to reduce the rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jun;172(6):1903–1911. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(95)91430-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stafford R. S. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA. 1991 Jan 2;265(1):59–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tussing A. D., Wojtowycz M. A. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986. Economic and noneconomic aspects. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):529–540. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Witter F. R., Caulfield L. E., Stoltzfus R. J. Influence of maternal anthropometric status and birth weight on the risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jun;85(6):947–951. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00082-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES