RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Large-scale efforts to reduce cesarean deliveries have shown varied levels of impact; yet understanding factors that contribute to hospitals' success are lacking. We aimed to characterize unit culture differences at hospitals that successfully reduced their cesarean rates compared with those that did not. METHODS: A mixed methods study of California hospitals participating in a statewide initiative to reduce cesarean delivery. Participants included nurses, obstetricians, family physicians, midwives, and anesthesiologists practicing at participating hospitals. Hospitals' net change in nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex cesarean delivery rates classified them as successful if they achieved either a minimum 5 percentage point reduction or rate of fewer than 24%. The Labor Culture Survey was used to quantify differences in unit culture. Key informant interviews were used to explore quantitative findings and characterize additional cultural barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Out of 55 hospitals, 37 (n = 840 clinicians) meeting inclusion criteria participated in the Labor Culture Survey. Physicians' individual attitudes differed by hospital success on 5 scales: best practices (P = .003), fear (P = .001), cesarean safety (P = .014), physician oversight (P <.001), and microculture (P = .044) scales. Patient ability to make informed decisions showed poor agreement across all hospitals, but was higher at successful hospitals (38% vs 29%, P = .01). Important qualitative themes included: ease of access to shared resources on best practices, fear of bad outcomes, personal resistance to change, collaborative practice and effective communication, leadership engagement, and cultural flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Successful hospitals' culture and context was measurably different from nonresponders. Leveraging these contextual factors may facilitate success.
Asunto(s)
Cesárea , Hospitales , Femenino , Humanos , Médicos de Familia , Embarazo , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines for repeat screening and treatment monitoring intervals regarding the use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans are conflicting or lacking. The Choosing Wisely campaign recommends against repeating DXA scans within 2 years of initial screening. It is unclear how frequently physicians order repeat scans and what clinical factors contribute to their use. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cumulative incidence and predictors of repeat DXA for screening or treatment monitoring in a regional health system. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5992 women aged 40-84 years who received initial DXA screening from 2006 to 2011 within a regional health system in Sacramento, CA. MAIN MEASURES: Two- and five-year cumulative incidence and hazard rations (HR) of repeat DXA by initial screening result (classified into three groups: low or high risk of progression to osteoporosis, or osteoporosis) and whether women were prescribed osteoporosis drugs after initial DXA. KEY RESULTS: Among women not treated after initial DXA, 2-year cumulative incidence for low-risk, high-risk, and osteoporotic women was 8.0%, 13.8%, and 19.6%, respectively, increasing to 42.9%, 60.4%, and 57.4% by 5 years after initial screening. For treated women, median time to repeat DXA was over 3 years for all groups. Relative to women with low-risk initial DXA, high-risk initial DXA significantly predicted repeat screening for untreated women [adjusted HR 1.67 (95% CI 1.40-2.00)] but not within the treated group [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.91-1.30)]. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat DXA screening was common in women both at low and high risk of progression to osteoporosis, with a substantial proportion of women receiving repeat scans within 2 years of initial screening. Conversely, only 60% of those at high-risk of progression to osteoporosis were re-screened within 5 years. Interventions are needed to help clinicians make higher-value decisions regarding repeat use of DXA scans.