A new index for obstetrics safety and quality of care: integrating cesarean delivery rates with maternal and neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cesarean delivery rates have been used as obstetrical quality indicators. However, these approaches do not consider the accompanying maternal and neonatal morbidities. A challenge in the field of obstetrics has been to establish a valid outcomes quality measure that encompasses preexisting high-risk maternal factors and associated maternal and neonatal morbidities and is universally acceptable to all stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, payers, and governmental agencies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) establish a new single metric for obstetrical quality improvement among nulliparous patients with term singleton vertex-presenting fetus, integrating cesarean delivery rates adjusted for preexisting high-risk maternal factors with associated maternal and neonatal morbidities, and (2) determine whether obstetrician quality ranking by this new metric is different compared with the rating based on individual crude and/or risk-adjusted cesarean delivery rates. The single metric has been termed obstetrical safety and quality index. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of all nulliparous patients with term singleton vertex-presenting fetuses delivered by 12 randomly chosen obstetricians in a single institution. A review of all records was performed, including a review of maternal high-risk factors and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Maternal and neonatal medical records were reviewed to determine crude and adjusted cesarean delivery rates by obstetricians and quantify maternal and neonatal complications. We estimated the obstetrician-specific crude cesarean delivery rates and rates adjusted for obstetrician-specific maternal and neonatal complications from logistic regression models. From this model, we derived the obstetrical safety and quality index for each obstetrician. The final ranking based on the obstetrical safety and quality index was compared with the initial ranking by crude cesarean delivery rates. Maternal and neonatal morbidities were analyzed as ≥1 and ≥2 maternal and/or neonatal complications. RESULTS: These 12 obstetricians delivered a total of 535 women; thus, 1070 (535 maternal and 535 neonatal) medical records were reviewed to determine crude and adjusted cesarean delivery rates by obstetricians and quantify maternal and neonatal complications. The ranking of crude cesarean delivery rates was not correlated (rho=0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.54 to 0.60) to the final ranking based on the obstetrical safety and quality index. Of note, 8 of 12 obstetricians shifted their rank quartiles after adjustments for high-risk maternal conditions and maternal and neonatal outcomes. There was a strong correlation between the ranking based on ≥1 maternal and/or neonatal complication and ranking based on ≥2 maternal and/or neonatal complications (rho=0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.88). CONCLUSION: Ranking based on crude cesarean delivery rates varied significantly after considering high-risk maternal conditions and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes. Therefore, the obstetrical safety and quality index, a single metric, was developed to identify ways to improve clinician practice standards within an institution. Use of this novel quality measure may help to change initiatives geared toward patient safety, balancing cesarean delivery rates with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. This metric could be used to compare obstetrical quality not only among individual obstetricians but also among hospitals that practice obstetrics.

Identification of factors associated with delayed treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Obstetric hypertensive emergency is defined as having systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg, confirmed 15 minutes apart. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that acute-onset, severe hypertension be treated with first line-therapy (intravenous labetalol, intravenous hydralazine or oral nifedipine) within 60 minutes to reduce risk of maternal morbidity and death. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify barriers that lead to delayed treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed that compared women who were treated appropriately within 60 minutes vs those with delay in first-line therapy. We identified 604 patients with discharge diagnoses of chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, or preeclampsia using International Classification of Diseases-10 codes and obstetric antihypertensive usage in a pharmacy database at 1 academic institution from January 2017 through June 2018. Of these, 267 women (44.2%) experienced obstetric hypertensive emergency in the intrapartum period or within 2 days of delivery; the results from 213 women were used for analysis. We evaluated maternal characteristics, presenting symptoms and circumstances, timing of hypertensive emergency, gestational age at presentation, and administered medications. Chi square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and sample t-tests were used to compare the 2 groups. Univariable logistic regression was applied to determine predictors of delayed treatment. Multivariable regression model was also performed; C-statistic and Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess the model fit. A result was considered statistically significant at P<.05. RESULTS: Of the 213 women, 110 (51.6%) had delayed treatment vs 103 (48.4%) who were treated within 60 minutes. Patients who had delayed treatment were 3.2 times more likely to have an initial blood pressure in the nonsevere range vs those who had timely treatment (odds ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-5.68). Timeliness of treatment was associated with presence or absence of preeclampsia symptoms; patients without preeclampsia symptoms were 2.7 times more likely to have delayed treatment (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.80). Patients with hypertensive emergencies that occurred overnight between 10 pm and 6 am were 2.7 times more likely to have delayed treatment vs those emergencies that occurred between 6 am and 10 pm (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-5.83). Delayed treatment also had an association with race, with white patients being 1.8 times more likely to have delayed treatment (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.08). Patients who were treated at <60 minutes had a lower gestational age at presentation vs those with delayed treatment (34.6±5 vs 36.6±4 weeks, respectively; P<.001). For every 1-week increase in gestational age at presentation, there was a 9% increase in the likelihood of delayed treatment (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.19). Another factor that was associated with delay of treatment was having a complaint of labor symptoms, which made patients 2.2 times as likely to experience treatment delay (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.41). CONCLUSION: Initial blood pressure in the nonsevere range, absence of preeclampsia symptoms, presentation overnight, white race, having complaint of labor symptoms, and increasing gestational age at presentation are barriers that lead to a delay in the treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency. Quality improvement initiatives that target these barriers should be instituted to improve timely treatment.