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.

How do pregnant women use quality measures when choosing their obstetric provider?

BACKGROUND: Given increased public reporting of the wide variation in hospital obstetric quality, we sought to understand how women incorporate quality measures into their selection of an obstetric hospital. METHODS: We surveyed 6141 women through Ovia Pregnancy, an application used by women to track their pregnancy. We used t tests and chi-square tests to compare response patterns by age, parity, and risk status. RESULTS: Most respondents (73.2%) emphasized their choice of obstetrician/midwife over their choice of hospital. Over half of respondents (55.1%) did not believe that their choice of hospital would affect their likelihood of having a cesarean delivery. While most respondents (74.9%) understood that quality of care varied across hospitals, few prioritized reported hospital quality metrics. Younger women and nulliparous women were more likely to be unfamiliar with quality metrics. When offered a choice, only 43.6% of respondents reported that they would be willing to travel 20 additional miles farther from their home to deliver at a hospital with a 20 percentage point lower cesarean delivery rate. DISCUSSION: Women's lack of interest in available quality metrics is driven by differences in how women and clinicians/researchers conceptualize obstetric quality. Quality metrics are reported at the hospital level, but women care more about their choice of obstetrician and the quality of their outpatient prenatal care. Additionally, many women do not believe that a hospital's quality score influences the care they will receive. Presentations of hospital quality data should more clearly convey how hospital-level characteristics can affect women's experiences, including the fact that their chosen obstetrician/midwife may not deliver their baby.

The effect of the MFM obesity protocol on cesarean delivery rates.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in pregnancy has an impact on both the mother and the fetus. To date, no universal protocol has been established to guide the management of pregnancy in obese woman. In April 2011, the Geisinger Maternal-Fetal Medicine Department implemented an obesity protocol in which women meeting the following criteria were delivered by their estimated due dates: (1) class III obese or (2) class II obese with additional diagnoses of a large-for-gestational-age fetus or pregnancy complicated by gestational diabetes or (3) class I obese with large-for-gestational-age and gestational diabetes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the impact of this protocol on the rate of cesarean deliveries in obese women. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 5000 randomly selected women who delivered at Geisinger between January 2009 and September 2013, excluding those who delivered in 2011. The data were stratified into obese and nonobese and divided into before protocol and after protocol. Comparison across all groups was accomplished using Wilcoxon rank sum and Pearson's χ(2) tests. Potential confounders were controlled for using logistic regression. RESULTS: The cesarean delivery rate in the obese/after protocol group was 10.8% lower than in the obese/before protocol group (42.4% vs 31.6%, respectively; P < .0001). In addition, when controlling for age, race, smoking status, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and intrauterine growth restriction, obese women were 37% less likely to have a cesarean delivery after the protocol than they were before (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.52, 0.76, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a maternal-fetal medicine obesity protocol did not increase the rate of cesarean deliveries in obese women. On the contrary, obese women were less likely to have a cesarean delivery after implementation of the protocol.

Geographic and socioeconomic inequities in cesarean delivery rates at the district level in Madhya Pradesh, India: A secondary analysis of the national family health survey-5.

BACKGROUND: In India, caesarean delivery (CD) accounts for 17% of the births, of which 41% occur in private facilities. However, areas to CD in rural areas are limited, particularly for the poor populations. Little information is available on state-wise district-level CD rates by geography and the population wealth quintiles, especially in Madhya Pradesh (MP), the fifth most populous and third poorest state. OBJECTIVE: Investigate geographic and socioeconomic inequities of CD across the 51 districts in MP and compare the contribution of public and private healthcare facilities to the overall state CD rate. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilised the summary fact sheets of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-5 performed from January 2019 to April 2021. Women aged 15 to 49 years, with live births two years preceding the survey were included. District-level CD rates in MP were used to determine the inequalities in accessing CD in the poorer and poorest wealth quintiles. CD rates were stratified as <10%, 10-20% and >20% to measure equity of access. A linear regression model was used to examine the correlation between the fractions of the population in the two bottom wealth quintiles and CD rates. RESULTS: Eighteen districts had a CD rate below 10%, 32 districts were within the 10%-20% threshold and four had a rate of 20% or higher. Districts with a higher proportion of poorer population and were at a distance from the capital city Bhopal were associated with lower CD rates. However, this decline was steeper for private healthcare facilities (R2 = 0.382) revealing a possible dependency of the poor populations on public healthcare facilities (R2 = 0.009) for accessing CD. CONCLUSION: Although CD rates have increased across MP, inequities within districts and wealth quintiles exist, warranting closer attention to the outreach of government policies and the need to incentivise CDs where underuse is significant.

Once a cesarean, always a cesarean? Obstetricians' approach to counseling for trial of labor after cesarean.

BACKGROUND: Despite no observed increase in obstetrical complication rates, cesarean delivery rates are increasing worldwide. A significant proportion of planned cesarean deliveries are performed for patients with 1 previous cesarean delivery who opt for an elective repeat cesarean delivery rather than a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. The facilitation of informed decision-making by healthcare professionals may influence patient choices and could affect the trial of labor after cesarean delivery uptake rates. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess how obstetricians in the Middle Eastern region approach counseling of patients with a previous cesarean delivery concerning birth choices in the current pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective survey-based study. An online survey of obstetricians in the 2 largest state maternity hospitals in Doha, Qatar, was conducted with participation offered voluntarily. The survey gathered background demographic data and investigated the obstetrician's awareness of factors that could influence the success of the trial of labor after cesarean delivery and the obstetrician's approach to counseling women. The data collected were transferred to SPSS (version 23.0; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) for analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed, and nonparametric analysis of continuous variables and chi-squared analysis of discrete variables were cross-referenced with gender, length of time of specialist qualification, and personal family experience of cesarean delivery. RESULTS: Most respondents had training in the Middle East and generally practiced obstetrics in this region, and >80% of the respondents had more than 5 years of experience in the specialty. The obstetrician's gender or length of experience did not significantly influence the attitude to the assessment of risks and benefits. Furthermore, there was little consensus among the group about factors that were the most and the least important for the success of the trial of labor after cesarean delivery. The group emphasized the importance of the patient's wishes in choosing the mode of birth. If a relative contraindication to the trial of labor after cesarean delivery was present, half of the obstetricians would emphasize the various negatives of the approach to the patient during counseling. Most participants favored a dedicated trial of labor after cesarean delivery clinic to reduce cesarean delivery rates. The participants did not feel that supporting the trial of labor after cesarean delivery would be improved with legal department support. CONCLUSION: Obstetricians had different approaches in the counseling for trial of labor after cesarean delivery, and this can influence the patients' acceptance of the trial of labor after cesarean delivery, thereby affecting cesarean delivery rates.

Association between hospital-level cesarean delivery rates and severe maternal morbidity and unexpected newborn complications.

BACKGROUND: Although there are many indications for a cesarean delivery, the "optimal" cesarean delivery rate is unknown. Neonatal and maternal morbidity have largely not been considered in the generation of hospital-level cesarean delivery rate targets. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine if the widely adopted and reported markers of maternal and neonatal morbidity were associated with hospital cesarean delivery rates to provide context for potential comparison and consideration for defining cesarean delivery rate targets. We hypothesized that hospitals with higher cesarean delivery rates would have increased rates of severe maternal morbidity, though we were less certain of the associations of the cesarean delivery rates with unexpected newborn complications. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional, ecological study using data from the 2016 Nationwide Readmission Database of hospitals with at least 100 deliveries per year. The exposure of interest was hospital cesarean delivery rate. The outcomes were (1) severe maternal morbidity with and without transfusion-in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definition, and (2) neonatal morbidity-defined using The Joint Commission's Perinatal Quality metric of moderate and severe unexpected newborn complications among term, singleton, and nonanomalous neonates. Before assuming a single linear relationship to model the associations between morbidity and cesarean delivery rates, the Joinpoint Regression Analysis program was used to examine for potential splines in the relationships with both severe maternal morbidity (with and without transfusion) and severe and moderate unexpected newborn complications. Poisson regression model was then used to determine the association between morbidity and cesarean delivery rates. RESULTS: The analysis included 831,111 deliveries from 621 hospitals. The mean cesarean delivery rate was 30.5%. The median severe maternal morbidity rate was 1.40 per 100 deliveries (interquartile range, 0.71-2.21 per 1000 deliveries). Excluding transfusion, the median severe maternal morbidity rate was 0.47 per 100 deliveries (interquartile range, 0.22-0.73 per 100 deliveries). The median rate of severe and moderate unexpected newborn complications was 1.01 per 100 low-risk newborns (interquartile range, 0.64-1.69 per 100 low-risk newborns) and 1.79 per 1000 low-risk newborns (interquartile range, 0.94-2.93 per 100 low-risk newborns), respectively. In the unadjusted analysis, every percentage point increase in a hospital's cesarean delivery rate was associated with a 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.3%-4.4%) and a 2.3% (95% confidence interval, 1.0%-3.5%) increase in severe maternal morbidity including and excluding transfusion, respectively. After adjustment for the case mix and hospital factors, only the relationship with severe maternal morbidity including transfusion remained significant: 3.3% (95% confidence interval, 1.7%-4.9%) increase in severe maternal morbidity per 1 percentage point increase in the cesarean delivery rate. There was no observed association between cesarean delivery rates and unexpected newborn complications CONCLUSION: Severe maternal morbidity and unexpected newborn complications occur in fewer than 5 in 100 births. Findings from this analysis of hospitals with cesarean delivery rates ranging from 6.8%-56.3% suggest that those with lower cesarean delivery rates have lower severe maternal morbidity (which includes transfusion) and similar unexpected newborn complications compared with hospitals with higher cesarean delivery rates. This work may provide a helpful context to providers, hospitals, and policymakers who are measuring and reporting outcomes. Regarding neonatal morbidity in particular, the Joint Commission manual notes that the unexpected newborn complication metric was specifically designed to be compared against maternal-focused metrics such as cesarean delivery rates. More work is needed to define and identify appropriate measures of maternal and neonatal morbidity for these types of comparisons.

Usefulness of the WHO C-Model to optimize the cesarean delivery rate in a tertiary hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess use of the C-Model in a tertiary hospital setting in terms of its validity and utility for optimizing the cesarean delivery (CD) rate. METHODS: A prospective observational study included women admitted for delivery at a university teaching hospital in Assiut, Egypt, in 2015. The women were asked about the demographic and obstetric information needed to calculate the probability of CD using the WHO C-Model. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve comparing the predicted and observed CD rates was constructed. In addition, the mean predicted CD rates were compared with the mean observed CD rates in the 10 groups of the Robson classification. RESULTS: In total, 1000 women were recruited; 38.6% had a previous CD and 13.5% had complications during the current pregnancy. The final mode of delivery was vaginal delivery in 38.7% and CD in 61.3%; the predicted CD rate for this cohort was 45.0%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.928 (95% confidence interval 0.912-0.945). Comparison of the predicted and observed CD rates in the 10 Robson groups showed an overuse of CD ranging from 2% to 50%. CONCLUSION: The WHO C-Model is valid and can be used in hospital settings to optimize CD rates.

The Influence of Epidural Anesthesia on the Progress of Labor and Perinatal Outcomes / 대한산부인과학회잡지

OBJECTIVE: To determine that epidural anesthesia need not increase Cesarean delivery rates and prolong labor. METHODS: From December 1999 to May 2002, 1,585 deliveries were in Ilsan Paik Hospital. We selected 70 (epidural group) and 87 (non-epidural group) singleton, nulliparous, term, cephalic presentation without antenatal complications. We compared duration of labor, rates of Cesarean delivery and perinatal outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: The duration of active and second stage of labor were not prolonged in the epidural group. Cesarean delivery rates was 8.6% (n=70) in the epidural group and 9.2% (n=87) in the non-epidural group, so there was no significant difference. Perinatal outcomes was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Epidural anesthesia during labor provides the best pain relief and does not increase the Cesarean delivery rates. The duration of the active, second stage of labor and perinatal outcomes was not different between these two groups.