American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 200, Issue 6 , Pages 681.e1-681.e7 , June 2009

Global measures of quality- and patient safety-related childbirth outcomes: should we monitor adverse or ideal rates?

Presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Obstetrical and Gynecological Society, Victoria, BC, Canada, Oct. 15-19, 2008.

  • Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Burns Allen Research Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, and the Department of Community Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA
    • ,
  • Moshe Fridman, PhD

      Affiliations

    • AMF Consulting, Los Angeles, CA
    • ,
  • Sonal Shah, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Burns Allen Research Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
    • ,
  • Lisa M. Korst, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Received 15 August 2008 ,Revised 31 December 2008 ,Accepted 26 February 2009.

References 

  1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001;
  2. Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. In:  Kohn LT,  Corrigan JM,  Donaldson MS editor. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999;
  3. McMahon MF, Luther ER, Watson AB, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:689–695
  4. Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, et al. Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safe for women with a prior vaginal delivery?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1143–1147
  5. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2581–2589
  6. Mann S, Pratt S, Gluck P, et al. Assessing quality obstetrical care: development of standardized measures. Joint Commission J Qual Patient Safety. 2006;32:497–505
  7. Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, Landon MB, Gilbert S National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU) Network. Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes from primary cesarean delivery during the second compared with the first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:917–921
  8. Montori VM, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, et al. Use of composite end points as the main outcome in randomized trials can hide wide differences in the individual measures (How should you apply the results to clinical practice?). BMJ. 2005;330:594–596
  9. Montori VM, Busse JW, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Guyatt G. How should clinicians interpret results reflecting the effect of an intervention on composite end points: should I dump this lump?. Evid Based Med. 2005;10:162–163
  10. Hilden J. How should clinicians interpret results reflecting the effect of an intervention on composite end points?. Evid Based Med. 2007;12:92
  11. Henry OA, Gregory KD, Hobel CJ, Platt LD. Using the ICD-9 coding system to identify indications for both primary and repeat cesarean sections. Am J Pub Health. 1995;85:1143–1146
  12. International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9-CM) 2005. Hart AC, Hopkins CA, Ford B, eds. Ingenix St Anthony Publishing, Salt Lake City, UT.
  13. NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. Anonymous NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2006;23:1–29
  14. California Healthcare Foundation. www.calhospitalcompare.orgAccessed Dec. 22, 2008
  15. HealthGrades. www.healthgrades.comAccessed Dec. 22, 2008
  16. Childbirth Connection. www.childbirthconnection.orgAccessed Dec. 20, 2008
  17. National Quality Forum. www.quality.forum.org/news.releases/102708-endorsed-measures-pcAccessed Dec. 3, 2008
  18. Department of Human Health Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnetAccessed Aug. 1, 2008
  19. Online ICD9/ICD9CM codes. www.icd9cm.chrisendres.com/icd9cm/Accessed Dec. 22, 2008
  20. Rowe JW. Pay-for-performance and accountability: related themes in improving health care. Ann Int Med. 2006;145:695–699
  21. Profit J, Zupancic JA, Gould JB, Petersen LA. Implementing pay-for-performance in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2007;119:975–982

 Cite this article as: Gregory KD, Fridman M, Shah S, et al. Global measures of quality- and patient safety-related childbirth outcomes: should we monitor adverse or ideal rates? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:681.e1-681.e7.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0002-9378(09)00224-5

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.033

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 200, Issue 6 , Pages 681.e1-681.e7 , June 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution