Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals

Jennifer L. Bailit, William A. Grobman, Madeline Murguia Rice, Catherine Y. Spong, Ronald J. Wapner, Michael W. Varner, John M. Thorp, Kenneth J. Leveno, Steve N. Caritis, Phillip J. Shubert, Alan T. Tita, George Saade, Yoram Sorokin, Dwight J. Rouse, Sean C. Blackwell, Jorge E. Tolosa, J. Peter Van Dorsten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective Regulatory bodies and insurers evaluate hospital quality using obstetrical outcomes, however meaningful comparisons should take preexisting patient characteristics into account. Furthermore, if risk-adjusted outcomes are consistent within a hospital, fewer measures and resources would be needed to assess obstetrical quality. Our objective was to establish risk-adjusted models for 5 obstetric outcomes and assess hospital performance across these outcomes. Study Design We studied a cohort of 115,502 women and their neonates born in 25 hospitals in the United States from March 2008 through February 2011. Hospitals were ranked according to their unadjusted and risk-adjusted frequency of venous thromboembolism, postpartum hemorrhage, peripartum infection, severe perineal laceration, and a composite neonatal adverse outcome. Correlations between hospital risk-adjusted outcome frequencies were assessed. Results Venous thromboembolism occurred too infrequently (0.03%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.04%) for meaningful assessment. Other outcomes occurred frequently enough for assessment (postpartum hemorrhage, 2.29%; 95% CI, 2.20-2.38, peripartum infection, 5.06%; 95% CI, 4.93-5.19, severe perineal laceration at spontaneous vaginal delivery, 2.16%; 95% CI, 2.06-2.27, neonatal composite, 2.73%; 95% CI, 2.63-2.84). Although there was high concordance between unadjusted and adjusted hospital rankings, several individual hospitals had an adjusted rank that was substantially different (as much as 12 rank tiers) than their unadjusted rank. None of the correlations between hospital-adjusted outcome frequencies was significant. For example, the hospital with the lowest adjusted frequency of peripartum infection had the highest adjusted frequency of severe perineal laceration. Conclusion Evaluations based on a single risk-adjusted outcome cannot be generalized to overall hospital obstetric performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume209
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Obstetrics
Peripartum Period
Confidence Intervals
Lacerations
Postpartum Hemorrhage
Venous Thromboembolism
Infection
Insurance Carriers
Newborn Infant

Keywords

  • obstetrics
  • performance improvement
  • quality
  • risk adjustment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Bailit, J. L., Grobman, W. A., Rice, M. M., Spong, C. Y., Wapner, R. J., Varner, M. W., ... Van Dorsten, J. P. (2013). Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 209(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.019

Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals. / Bailit, Jennifer L.; Grobman, William A.; Rice, Madeline Murguia; Spong, Catherine Y.; Wapner, Ronald J.; Varner, Michael W.; Thorp, John M.; Leveno, Kenneth J.; Caritis, Steve N.; Shubert, Phillip J.; Tita, Alan T.; Saade, George; Sorokin, Yoram; Rouse, Dwight J.; Blackwell, Sean C.; Tolosa, Jorge E.; Van Dorsten, J. Peter.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 209, No. 5, 11.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bailit, JL, Grobman, WA, Rice, MM, Spong, CY, Wapner, RJ, Varner, MW, Thorp, JM, Leveno, KJ, Caritis, SN, Shubert, PJ, Tita, AT, Saade, G, Sorokin, Y, Rouse, DJ, Blackwell, SC, Tolosa, JE & Van Dorsten, JP 2013, 'Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals', American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 209, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.019
Bailit, Jennifer L. ; Grobman, William A. ; Rice, Madeline Murguia ; Spong, Catherine Y. ; Wapner, Ronald J. ; Varner, Michael W. ; Thorp, John M. ; Leveno, Kenneth J. ; Caritis, Steve N. ; Shubert, Phillip J. ; Tita, Alan T. ; Saade, George ; Sorokin, Yoram ; Rouse, Dwight J. ; Blackwell, Sean C. ; Tolosa, Jorge E. ; Van Dorsten, J. Peter. / Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals. In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013 ; Vol. 209, No. 5.
@article{64cdf2a345144088af2889738b8cb684,
title = "Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals",
abstract = "Objective Regulatory bodies and insurers evaluate hospital quality using obstetrical outcomes, however meaningful comparisons should take preexisting patient characteristics into account. Furthermore, if risk-adjusted outcomes are consistent within a hospital, fewer measures and resources would be needed to assess obstetrical quality. Our objective was to establish risk-adjusted models for 5 obstetric outcomes and assess hospital performance across these outcomes. Study Design We studied a cohort of 115,502 women and their neonates born in 25 hospitals in the United States from March 2008 through February 2011. Hospitals were ranked according to their unadjusted and risk-adjusted frequency of venous thromboembolism, postpartum hemorrhage, peripartum infection, severe perineal laceration, and a composite neonatal adverse outcome. Correlations between hospital risk-adjusted outcome frequencies were assessed. Results Venous thromboembolism occurred too infrequently (0.03{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.04{\%}) for meaningful assessment. Other outcomes occurred frequently enough for assessment (postpartum hemorrhage, 2.29{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 2.20-2.38, peripartum infection, 5.06{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 4.93-5.19, severe perineal laceration at spontaneous vaginal delivery, 2.16{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 2.06-2.27, neonatal composite, 2.73{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 2.63-2.84). Although there was high concordance between unadjusted and adjusted hospital rankings, several individual hospitals had an adjusted rank that was substantially different (as much as 12 rank tiers) than their unadjusted rank. None of the correlations between hospital-adjusted outcome frequencies was significant. For example, the hospital with the lowest adjusted frequency of peripartum infection had the highest adjusted frequency of severe perineal laceration. Conclusion Evaluations based on a single risk-adjusted outcome cannot be generalized to overall hospital obstetric performance.",
keywords = "obstetrics, performance improvement, quality, risk adjustment",
author = "Bailit, {Jennifer L.} and Grobman, {William A.} and Rice, {Madeline Murguia} and Spong, {Catherine Y.} and Wapner, {Ronald J.} and Varner, {Michael W.} and Thorp, {John M.} and Leveno, {Kenneth J.} and Caritis, {Steve N.} and Shubert, {Phillip J.} and Tita, {Alan T.} and George Saade and Yoram Sorokin and Rouse, {Dwight J.} and Blackwell, {Sean C.} and Tolosa, {Jorge E.} and {Van Dorsten}, {J. Peter}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "209",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals

AU - Bailit, Jennifer L.

AU - Grobman, William A.

AU - Rice, Madeline Murguia

AU - Spong, Catherine Y.

AU - Wapner, Ronald J.

AU - Varner, Michael W.

AU - Thorp, John M.

AU - Leveno, Kenneth J.

AU - Caritis, Steve N.

AU - Shubert, Phillip J.

AU - Tita, Alan T.

AU - Saade, George

AU - Sorokin, Yoram

AU - Rouse, Dwight J.

AU - Blackwell, Sean C.

AU - Tolosa, Jorge E.

AU - Van Dorsten, J. Peter

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Objective Regulatory bodies and insurers evaluate hospital quality using obstetrical outcomes, however meaningful comparisons should take preexisting patient characteristics into account. Furthermore, if risk-adjusted outcomes are consistent within a hospital, fewer measures and resources would be needed to assess obstetrical quality. Our objective was to establish risk-adjusted models for 5 obstetric outcomes and assess hospital performance across these outcomes. Study Design We studied a cohort of 115,502 women and their neonates born in 25 hospitals in the United States from March 2008 through February 2011. Hospitals were ranked according to their unadjusted and risk-adjusted frequency of venous thromboembolism, postpartum hemorrhage, peripartum infection, severe perineal laceration, and a composite neonatal adverse outcome. Correlations between hospital risk-adjusted outcome frequencies were assessed. Results Venous thromboembolism occurred too infrequently (0.03%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.04%) for meaningful assessment. Other outcomes occurred frequently enough for assessment (postpartum hemorrhage, 2.29%; 95% CI, 2.20-2.38, peripartum infection, 5.06%; 95% CI, 4.93-5.19, severe perineal laceration at spontaneous vaginal delivery, 2.16%; 95% CI, 2.06-2.27, neonatal composite, 2.73%; 95% CI, 2.63-2.84). Although there was high concordance between unadjusted and adjusted hospital rankings, several individual hospitals had an adjusted rank that was substantially different (as much as 12 rank tiers) than their unadjusted rank. None of the correlations between hospital-adjusted outcome frequencies was significant. For example, the hospital with the lowest adjusted frequency of peripartum infection had the highest adjusted frequency of severe perineal laceration. Conclusion Evaluations based on a single risk-adjusted outcome cannot be generalized to overall hospital obstetric performance.

AB - Objective Regulatory bodies and insurers evaluate hospital quality using obstetrical outcomes, however meaningful comparisons should take preexisting patient characteristics into account. Furthermore, if risk-adjusted outcomes are consistent within a hospital, fewer measures and resources would be needed to assess obstetrical quality. Our objective was to establish risk-adjusted models for 5 obstetric outcomes and assess hospital performance across these outcomes. Study Design We studied a cohort of 115,502 women and their neonates born in 25 hospitals in the United States from March 2008 through February 2011. Hospitals were ranked according to their unadjusted and risk-adjusted frequency of venous thromboembolism, postpartum hemorrhage, peripartum infection, severe perineal laceration, and a composite neonatal adverse outcome. Correlations between hospital risk-adjusted outcome frequencies were assessed. Results Venous thromboembolism occurred too infrequently (0.03%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.04%) for meaningful assessment. Other outcomes occurred frequently enough for assessment (postpartum hemorrhage, 2.29%; 95% CI, 2.20-2.38, peripartum infection, 5.06%; 95% CI, 4.93-5.19, severe perineal laceration at spontaneous vaginal delivery, 2.16%; 95% CI, 2.06-2.27, neonatal composite, 2.73%; 95% CI, 2.63-2.84). Although there was high concordance between unadjusted and adjusted hospital rankings, several individual hospitals had an adjusted rank that was substantially different (as much as 12 rank tiers) than their unadjusted rank. None of the correlations between hospital-adjusted outcome frequencies was significant. For example, the hospital with the lowest adjusted frequency of peripartum infection had the highest adjusted frequency of severe perineal laceration. Conclusion Evaluations based on a single risk-adjusted outcome cannot be generalized to overall hospital obstetric performance.

KW - obstetrics

KW - performance improvement

KW - quality

KW - risk adjustment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886772428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886772428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.019

DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 23891630

AN - SCOPUS:84886772428

VL - 209

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 5

ER -