Validated Calculators Predicting Cesarean Delivery After Induction: Accuracy in an External Population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of two previously published calculators in predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor in an external population. METHODS: This was a cohort study including all nulliparous pregnant patients with singleton, term, vertex fetuses; intact membranes; and unfavorable cervices who underwent induction of labor between 2015 and 2017 at an academic tertiary care institution. Individual predicted cesarean risk scores were calculated with two previously published calculators. For each calculator, patients were stratified into three risk groups (lower, middle, and upper thirds) of approximately equivalent size. Predicted and observed incidences of cesarean delivery were compared with two-tailed binomial tests of probability in the overall population and in each risk group. RESULTS: A total of 846 patients met inclusion criteria, and 262 (31.0%) had cesarean deliveries, which was significantly lower than overall predicted rates of 40.0% and 36.2% with the two calculators (both P <.01). Both calculators significantly overestimated risk of cesarean delivery in higher risk tertiles (all P <.05). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic for both calculators were 0.57 or less in the overall population and in each risk group, suggesting poor predictive value. Higher predicted risk tertile in both calculators was not associated with any maternal or neonatal outcomes except wound infection. CONCLUSION: Both previously published calculators had poor performance in this population, with neither calculator accurately predicting the incidence of cesarean delivery. Patients and health care professionals might be discouraged regarding trial of labor induction by falsely high predicted risk-of-cesarean scores. We caution against widespread implementation of these calculators without further population-specific refinement and adjustment.

Evaluation of Patient Access to Spanish-Language-Concordant Care on a Postpartum Unit.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient access to Spanish-language-concordant care on a postpartum unit and to identify facilitators and barriers to the use of interpretation services. DESIGN: Mixed-methods research study, comprising a cross-sectional chart review from September to December 2019 and semistructured interviews from June to December 2020. SETTING/LOCAL PROBLEM: A tertiary academic medical center in the southeastern United States where individuals with limited English proficiency are at risk for poor health outcomes when they are unable to communicate with clinicians in their preferred language. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a chart review of 50 randomly selected birthing parent-newborn couplets and interviews with 14 inpatient health care team members. MEASUREMENTS: The chart review examined patient characteristics, health care team composition including Spanish language proficiency, length of stay, number of interpreter requests, and time between clinician interpreter requests and interpreter arrival on the unit. Interviews evaluated facilitators and barriers to interpreter use. RESULTS: Access to a clinician certified in medical Spanish or an interpreter was offered to 12 of 50 (24%) couplets upon admission to the unit and to 7 of 50 (14%) of couplets for daily maternal and newborn medical rounds. Clinicians reported long and unpredictable wait times to access interpreters, which led them to rely on hand gestures, broken Spanish, and smartphone apps to "get by" when communicating with patients without certified interpretation services. Participants described low usage of interpreters for "noncritical" encounters. CONCLUSION: Interpreters and other forms of Spanish-language-concordant care were underused on the postpartum unit. This deviation from national standards may put families at risk for harm. Recommendations from this study include advancing a culture of respectful care, improving the interpreter request workflow, addressing safe staffing, facilitating direct patient access to interpreters, and providing ongoing evaluation and support.

Differences in disease severity and delivery gestational age between black and white patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify racial differences in disease severity and delivery gestational age among Black and White patients with a diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort of all Black and White pregnant patients carrying non-anomalous singleton or twin gestations at a single tertiary healthcare system who were diagnosed with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, 2014-2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was delivery < 34 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes were delivery < 28 weeks', preeclampsia with severe features, acute renal insufficiency, HELLP syndrome, cesarean delivery, classical cesarean delivery, small for gestational age, severe maternal morbidity, and severe composite neonatal morbidity. Outcomes were compared by race. Data were analyzed using chi square, t-test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: 3,522 patients (29.8% Black) met inclusion criteria. Black patients had a higher odds of delivery < 34 weeks' [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.22, 95% CI 1.7-2.89] and < 28 weeks' (aOR 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-3.99) and developing preeclampsia with severe features (aOR 1.92, 95% CI 1.62-2.29) than White patients. Black patients also had higher aOR of classical cesarean, severe maternal morbidity, and a small for gestational age neonate. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients are more likely to experience severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm delivery compared to White patients. These findings suggest that Black-White disparities in preterm birth may be partially attributable to disparities in onset and severity of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Racial Disparities in the Rates of and Indications for Cesarean Delivery in California: Are They Changing Over Time?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether racial disparities in rates of and indications for cesarean delivery (CD) between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White birthing people in California changed from 2011 to 2017. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a database of birth certificates linked to discharge records. Singleton term live births in nulliparous Black and White birthing people in California between 2011 and 2017 were included. Those with noncephalic presentation, placenta previa, and placenta accreta were excluded. CD rate and indication were obtained from birth certificate variables and International Classification of Diseases codes. Differences in CD rate and indication were calculated for Black versus White individuals using univariable and multivariable logistic regression and adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 348,144 birthing people were included, 46,361 Black and 301,783 White. Overall, 30.9% of Black birthing people underwent CD compared with 25.3% of White (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.3). From 2011 to 2017, the CD rate fell 11% (26.4-23.7%, p < 0.0001) for White birthing people and 1% for Black birthing people (30.4-30.1%, p = 0.037). Over the study period, Black birthing people had a persistent 1.2- to 1.3-fold higher risk of CD and were persistently more likely to undergo CD for fetal intolerance (aRR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.1-1.2) and less likely for active phase arrest or arrest of descent (aRRs: 0.9 and 0.4; 95% CIs: 0.9-0.9 and 0.3-0.5). CONCLUSION: The CD rate decreased substantially for White birthing people and minimally for Black birthing people in our cohort over the study period. Meanwhile, disparities in CD rate and indications between the two groups persisted, despite controlling for confounders. Although care bundles for reducing CD may be effective among White birthing people, they are not associated with reduction in CD rates among Black birthing people nor improvements in racial disparities between Black and White birthing people. PRECIS: Despite increasing attention to racial inequities in obstetric outcomes, there were no changes in disparities in CD rates or indications in California from 2011 to 2017. KEY POINTS: · Black birthing people are more likely to undergo CD than White despite controlling for confounders.. · There are unexplained differences in CD indication among Black and White birthing people.. · These disparities persisted from 2011 to 2017 despite increasing efforts to decrease CD rates in CA..

Preterm birth among pregnant women living in areas with high social vulnerability.

BACKGROUND: Communities and individuals widely vary in their resources and ability to respond to external stressors and insults. To identify vulnerable communities, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the Social Vulnerability Index, an integrated tool to assess community resources and preparedness; it is based on 15 factors and includes individual scores in the following 4 themes: socioeconomic status (theme 1), household composition and disability (theme 2), minority status and language (theme 3), and housing type and transportation (theme 4) and an overall composite score. Several Social Vulnerability Index components have been independently associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the association of the Social Vulnerability Index for each patient's residence during pregnancy, personal clinical risk factors, and preterm birth. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of women carrying nonanomalous singleton or twin gestations delivering at a large university health system from April 2014 to January 2020. Women at high risk of spontaneous and medically indicated preterm birth were assigned to a census tract based on their geocoded home address, and a Social Vulnerability Index score was assigned to each individual by linking each patient's home address at the census tract level. Higher scores indicate greater social vulnerability. The primary outcome was preterm birth at <37 weeks' gestation; secondary outcomes were preterm birth at <34 and <28 weeks' gestation and composite major neonatal morbidity before initial hospital discharge (death, intraventricular leukomalacia or intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia). Data were analyzed using the chi-square test, t test, and backward stepwise logistic regression. In addition, because race is a social construct, we conducted regression models omitting Black race. For all regression models, independent variables with a P value of <.20 remained in the final models. RESULTS: Overall, 15,364 women met the inclusion criteria, of which 18.5%, 6.5%, 2.1% of women delivered at <37, <34, and <28 weeks' gestation, respectively, and 3.1% of neonates were diagnosed with major composite morbidity. Women delivering before term at <37, <34, and <28 weeks' gestation were more likely to live in an area with a higher overall Social Vulnerability Index and higher social vulnerability in each Social Vulnerability Index theme. In regression models, the adjusted odds ratio of preterm birth increased with increasing Social Vulnerability Index scores (across all themes and the composite value); these effects were the greatest at the earliest gestational ages (eg, for the composite Social Vulnerability Index: adjusted odds ratio of preterm birth at <37 weeks' gestation for models, including Black race, 1.32 [95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.53]; adjusted odds ratio at <34 weeks' gestation, 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.01]; adjusted odds ratio at <28 weeks' gestation, 2.21 [95% confidence interval, 1.50-3.25]; adjusted odds ratio for composite major neonatal morbidity, 2.30 [95% confidence interval, 1.67-3.17]). Similar trends were seen for each Social Vulnerability Index theme. In addition, an increased adjusted odds ratio of composite major neonatal morbidity was recognized for each Social Vulnerability Index theme. Results were similar when Black race was removed from the models. CONCLUSION: The Social Vulnerability Index is a valuable tool that may further identify communities and individuals at the highest risk of preterm birth and may enable clinicians to integrate information regarding the local home environment of their patients to further refine preterm birth risk assessment.