Systems Factors in Obstetric Care: The Role of Daily Obstetric Volume.

and the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 5.18). 10/2013; 122(4):851-857. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a2dd93
Source: PubMed


To evaluate whether relatively high-volume days are associated with measures of obstetric care in California hospitals.
This is a population-based retrospective cohort study of linked data from birth certificates and antepartum and postpartum hospital discharge records for California births in 2006. Birth asphyxia and nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean delivery rates were analyzed as markers of quality of obstetric care. Rates were compared between hospital-specific relatively high-volume days (days when the number of births exceeded the 75th percentile of daily volume for that hospital) and low-volume or average-volume days. Analyses were stratified by weekend and weekday and overall hospital obstetric volume. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for confounders.
On weekends, relatively high-volume days were significantly associated with an elevated risk of asphyxia (27 out of 10,000 compared with 17 out of 10,000; P=.013), whereas no association was present on weekdays (13 out of 10,000 on high-volume days and 15 out of 10,000 on low-volume or average-volume days; P=.182). The cesarean delivery rate among the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex population was significantly lower on high-volume weekend days (22.0% compared with 23.6% on low-volume or average-volume weekend days; P=.009), whereas no association was present on weekdays (27.1% on high-volume days and 27.6% on low-volume or average-volume days; P=.092).
Delivery on relatively high-volume weekend days is a risk factor for birth asphyxia in California. High-volume weekend days also are associated with a lower rate of cesarean delivery in nulliparous women with singleton, vertex presentation pregnancies at term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: II.

13 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between an obstetrician's delivery volume and a patient's risk for cesarean delivery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined patient-level and obstetrician-level data between 2000 and 2012 at a large academic hospital. All laboring patients who delivered viable, liveborn, singleton new-borns (N=58,328) were included. We measured the association of delivery volume and cesarean delivery using a multivariate logistic regression. We also assessed the association of volume by calculating adjusted cesarean delivery rates using the least squares means method. These analyses were performed on the subset of nulliparous patients with term, singleton, vertex-presenting fetuses. In addition, the association of obstetrician experience was compared against delivery volume. RESULTS: There was a twofold increase in the odds of cesarean delivery for patients whose obstetricians performed fewer than the median (60) number of deliveries per year (quartile 1: odds ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.68-2.38; quartile 2: odds ratio 2.73, 95% CI 2.40-3.11) as compared with quartile 4. The adjusted cesarean delivery rate decreased from 18.2% to 9.2% from the highest to lowest volume quartile (P<.001). Compared with the volume effects, an obstetrician's experience had a smaller effect on a patient's risk of cesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: Patients delivered by obstetricians with low delivery volume are at significantly increased risk for cesarean delivery after controlling for patient and obstetrician characteristics. In contrast, obstetrician experience had a less significant effect. These findings may prompt discussions regarding the role of volume in credentialing and practice models that direct patients to obstetricians with high delivery volume.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 09/2014; 124(4). DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000473 · 5.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thousands of physicians attend scientific meetings annually. Although hospital physician staffing and composition may be affected by meetings, patient outcomes and treatment patterns during meeting dates are unknown. To analyze mortality and treatment differences among patients admitted with acute cardiovascular conditions during dates of national cardiology meetings compared with nonmeeting dates. Retrospective analysis of 30-day mortality among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, or cardiac arrest from 2002 through 2011 during dates of 2 national cardiology meetings compared with identical nonmeeting days in the 3 weeks before and after conferences (AMI, 8570 hospitalizations during 82 meeting days and 57 471 during 492 nonmeeting days; heart failure, 19 282 during meeting days and 11 4591 during nonmeeting days; cardiac arrest, 1564 during meeting days and 9580 during nonmeeting days). Multivariable analyses were conducted separately for major teaching hospitals and nonteaching hospitals and for low- and high-risk patients. Differences in treatment utilization were assessed. Hospitalization during cardiology meeting dates. Thirty-day mortality, procedure rates, charges, length of stay. Patient characteristics were similar between meeting and nonmeeting dates. In teaching hospitals, adjusted 30-day mortality was lower among high-risk patients with heart failure or cardiac arrest admitted during meeting vs nonmeeting dates (heart failure, 17.5% [95% CI, 13.7%-21.2%] vs 24.8% [95% CI, 22.9%-26.6%]; P < .001; cardiac arrest, 59.1% [95% CI, 51.4%-66.8%] vs 69.4% [95% CI, 66.2%-72.6%]; P = .01). Adjusted mortality for high-risk AMI in teaching hospitals was similar between meeting and nonmeeting dates (39.2% [95% CI, 31.8%-46.6%] vs 38.5% [95% CI, 35.0%-42.0%]; P = .86), although adjusted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates were lower during meetings (20.8% vs 28.2%; P = .02). No mortality or utilization differences existed for low-risk patients in teaching hospitals or high- or low-risk patients in nonteaching hospitals. In sensitivity analyses, cardiac mortality was not affected by hospitalization during oncology, gastroenterology, and orthopedics meetings, nor was gastrointestinal hemorrhage or hip fracture mortality affected by hospitalization during cardiology meetings. High-risk patients with heart failure and cardiac arrest hospitalized in teaching hospitals had lower 30-day mortality when admitted during dates of national cardiology meetings. High-risk patients with AMI admitted to teaching hospitals during meetings were less likely to receive PCI, without any mortality effect.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 12/2014; 175(2). DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6781 · 13.12 Impact Factor

Similar Publications