Advertisement

Nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates: institutional and individual level predictors

      Objective

      This study was undertaken to determine individual and institutional level variables predictive of variations in nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates.

      Study Design

      Retrospective cohort study of 28,863 nulliparous term singleton vertex births at 40 Arizona hospitals.

      Results

      The average nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rate was 22.0%, the lowest hospital rate was 10.3%, high, 34.2%. The following individual level variables increased the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rate in a multivariable model: increased mother's age, African American race, increased birthweight, labor induction, and the presence of medical conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. Of the institutional variables, after adjustment, the highest level of nursery or a higher percentage of government-paid births was associated with lower risks, whereas delivery at a hospital with the lowest level of care or with an obstetric and gynecology residency was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

      Conclusion

      Substantial variations in nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates were seen in this comparative analysis of 40 hospitals.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Glantz J.C.
        Cesarean delivery risk adjustment for regional interhospital comparisons.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181: 1425-1431
        • Bailit J.L.
        • Dooley S.L.
        • Peaceman A.N.
        Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary cesarean rates.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 93: 1025-1030
        • Parrish K.M.
        • Holt V.L.
        • Easterling T.R.
        • Connell F.A.
        • LoGerfo J.P.
        Effect of changes in maternal age, parity, and birth weight distribution on primary cesarean delivery rates.
        JAMA. 1994; 271: 443-447
        • Lieberman E.
        • Lang J.M.
        • Heffner L.J.
        • Cohen A.
        Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 1-7
        • Bailit J.
        • Garrett J.
        Comparison of risk-adjustment methodologies for cesarean delivery rates.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102: 45-51
        • Cleary R.
        • Beard R.W.
        • Chapple J.
        • et al.
        The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care.
        BJOG. 1996; 103: 223-229
        • US Department of Health and Human Services
        Maternal, infant and child health.
        Objectives for improving health. Volume II. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington (DC)2000
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Cesarean Delivery
        Evaluation of cesarean delivery.
        ACOG. 2000; : 1-59
        • Main E.K.
        • Moore D.
        • Farrell B.
        • et al.
        Is there a useful cesarean birth measure?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194 (discussion 1651-2): 1644-1651
        • Le Ray C.
        • Carayol M.
        • Zeitlin J.
        • Breart G.
        • Goffinet F.
        Level of perinatal care of the maternity unit and rate of cesarean in low-risk nulliparas.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 1269-1277
        • Fischer A.
        • LaCoursiere D.Y.
        • Barnard P.
        • Bloebaum L.
        • Varner M.
        Differences between hospitals in cesarean rates for term primigravidas with cephalic presentation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 816-821
        • Vrouenraets F.P.
        • Roumen F.J.
        • Dehing C.J.
        • van den Akker E.S.
        • Aarts M.J.
        • Scheve E.J.
        Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 690-697
        • American Hospital Association
        AHA Guide 2006.
        AHA, Chicago2005
        • Luke D.A.
        Multilevel modeling.
        Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA)2004
        • Efron B.
        • Tibshirani R.J.
        Monographs on statistics and applied probability: an introduction to the bootstrap.
        in: Chapman & Hall, New York1993: 242
        • Piper J.M.
        • Mitchel Jr, E.F.
        • Snowden M.
        • Hall C.
        • Adams M.
        • Taylor P.
        Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1993; 137: 758-768
        • Reichman N.E.
        • Schwartz-Soicher O.
        Accuracy of birth certificate data by risk factors and outcomes: analysis of data from New Jersey.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 32e1-32e8
        • Bailit J.L.
        Measuring the quality of inpatient obstetrical care.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007; 62: 207-213
        • DiGiuseppe D.L.
        • Aron D.C.
        • Payne S.M.
        • Snow R.J.
        • Dierker L.
        • Rosenthal G.E.
        Risk adjusting cesarean delivery rates: a comparison of hospital profiles based on medical record and birth certificate data.
        Health Serv Res. 2001; 36: 959-977
        • Dabelea D.
        • Snell-Bergeon J.K.
        • Hartsfield C.L.
        • Bischoff K.J.
        • Hamman R.F.
        • McDuffie R.S.
        Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) over time and by birth cohort: Kaiser Permanente of Colorado GDM Screening Program.
        Diabetes Care. 2005; 28: 579-584
        • Braveman P.
        • Egerter S.
        • Edmonston F.
        • Verdon M.
        Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California.
        Am J Public Health. 1995; 85: 625-630
        • Stafford R.S.
        The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section.
        JAMA. 1991; 265: 59-63
        • Stafford R.S.
        Cesarean section use and source of payment: an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts.
        Am J Public Health. 1990; 80: 313-315
        • Gregory K.D.
        • Korst L.M.
        • Platt L.D.
        Variation in elective primary cesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184 (discussion 1532-4): 1521-1532
        • Aron D.C.
        • Harper D.L.
        • Shepardson L.B.
        • Rosenthal G.E.
        Impact of risk-adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance.
        JAMA. 1998; 279: 1968-1972
        • Luthy D.A.
        • Malmgren J.A.
        • Zingheim R.W.
        • Leininger C.J.
        Physician contribution to a cesarean delivery risk model.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188 (discussion 1585-7): 1579-1585
        • Goyert G.L.
        • Bottoms S.F.
        • Treadwell M.C.
        • Nehra P.C.
        The physician factor in cesarean birth rates.
        N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 706-709
        • Localio A.R.
        • Lawthers A.G.
        • Bengtson J.M.
        • et al.
        Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery.
        JAMA. 1993; 269: 366-373
        • Tussing A.D.
        • Wojtowycz M.A.
        The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986: economic and noneconomic aspects.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 529-540
        • Althabe F.
        • Belizan J.M.
        Caesarean section: the paradox.
        Lancet. 2006; 368: 1472-1473
        • Sachs B.P.
        • Kobelin C.
        • Castro M.A.
        • Frigoletto F.
        The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate.
        N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 54-57
        • Gould J.B.
        • Danielsen B.
        • Korst L.M.
        • et al.
        Cesarean delivery rates and neonatal morbidity in a low-risk population.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104: 11-19
        • Foley M.E.
        • Alarab M.
        • Daly L.
        • Keane D.
        • Macquillan K.
        • O'Herlihy C.
        Term neonatal asphyxial seizures and peripartum deaths: lack of correlation with a rising cesarean delivery rate.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 102-108
        • Bailit J.L.
        • Garrett J.M.
        • Miller W.C.
        • McMahon M.J.
        • Cefalo R.C.
        Hospital primary cesarean delivery rates and the risk of poor neonatal outcomes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 721-727
        • Main E.K.
        Reducing cesarean birth rates with data-driven quality improvement activities.
        Pediatrics. 1999; 103: 374-383
        • Main E.K.
        • Bloomfield L.
        • Hunt G.
        Development of a large-scale obstetric quality-improvement program that focused on the nulliparous patient at term.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190 (discussion 1756-8): 1747-1756
        • Lagrew Jr, D.C.
        • Morgan M.A.
        Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 184-191

      References

        • Main E.L.
        • Bloomfield L.
        • Hunt G.
        Development of a large-scale obstetric quality improvement program that focused on the nulliparous patient at term.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190 (discussion 1756-8): 1747-1756
        • Cleary R.
        • Beard R.W.
        • Chappel J.
        • et al.
        The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care.
        BJOG. 1996; 103: 223-229
        • Gould J.B.
        • Danielssen B.
        • Korst L.M.
        • et al.
        Cesarean delivery rates and neonatal morbidity in a low-risk population.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104: 11-19
        • Keeler E.B.
        • Park R.E.
        • Bell R.M.
        • Gifford D.S.
        • Keesey J.
        Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix.
        Health Services Res. 1997; 32: 511-528