BackgroundWhen used judiciously, cesarean sections can save lives; but in the United States, prior research indicates that cesarean birth rates have risen beyond the threshold to help women and infants and become a contributor to increased maternal mortality and rising healthcare costs. Healthy People 2020 has set the goal for nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) cesarean birth rate at no more than 23.9% of births. Currently, cesarean rates vary from 6% to 69% in US hospitals, unexplained by clinical or demographic factors. This wide variation in cesarean use is also seen among individual providers of intrapartum care. Previous research of birth attitudes found providers of intrapartum care hold widely differing views, which may be a key underlying factor influencing practice variation; however, further study is needed to determine if differences in attitudes are associated with differences in clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the association between individual provider attitudes towards birth and their low-risk primary cesarean rate.MethodsFour hundred providers were drawn from a stratified random sample of all California providers of intrapartum care in 2013 and surveyed for their attitudes towards various aspects of labor and birth. Providers’ NTSV cesarean birth rates were obtained for 2013 and 2014. Covariates included gender, years of experience, practice location, and primary hospital’s NTSV cesarean rate. We used adjusted multivariate Poisson regression to compare cesarean rates and linear regression to compare attitude scores of providers meeting versus not meeting the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) goal.ResultsTwo hundred nine total participants (obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives) completed surveys, of which 109 perform cesareans. Providers’ NTSV cesarean rate was significantly associated with their composite attitudes score [IRR for each one-point increase 1.21 (95% CI 1.002–1.45)]. Physicians meeting the HP2020 goal held attitudes which were significantly more favorable towards vaginal birth: mean 2.70 (95% CI 2.58–2.83) versus 2.91 (95% CI 2.82–3.00), p < 0.01.ConclusionsProvider attitudinal differences are associated with NTSV cesarean rates. Those meeting the HP2020 goal hold attitudes more favorable towards vaginal birth. These findings may present a modifiable target for quality improvement initiatives to decrease low risk primary cesareans.

Background Cesarean delivery rates in the United States vary widely between hospitals, which cannot be fully explained by hospital or patient factors. Cultural factors are hypothesized to play a role in cesarean overuse, yet tools to measure labor culture are lacking. The aim of this study was to revise and validate a survey tool to measure hospital culture specific to cesarean overuse. Methods A panel of clinicians and researchers compiled an item bank from validated surveys, added newly created items, and performed four rounds of iterative revision and consolidation. Obstetricians, family physicians, midwives, anesthesiologists, and labor nurses were recruited from 79 hospitals in California. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the number of survey items and identify latent constructs to form the basis of subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis examined reliability in 31 additional hospitals. Poisson regression assessed associations between hospitals’ mean score on each individual item and cesarean rates. Results A total of 1718 individuals from 70 hospitals were included in the exploratory factor analysis. The final Labor Culture Survey (LCS) consisted of 29 items and six subscales: “Best Practices to Reduce Cesarean Overuse,” “Fear of Vaginal Birth,” “Unit Microculture,” “Physician Oversight,” “Maternal Agency,” and “Cesarean Safety.” Conclusions The revised LCS is a valid and reliable tool to measure constructs shown to be associated with cesarean rates. These findings support prior research that has shown that hospital culture is measurable, and that clinician attitudes are predictive of clinician behaviors. Unique to our survey is the construct of labor and delivery unit microculture.

Background Perinatal quality improvement lacks valid tools to measure adverse hospital experiences disproportionately impacting Black mothers and birthing people. Measuring and mitigating harm requires using a framework that centers the lived experiences of Black birthing people in evaluating inequitable care, namely, obstetric racism. We sought to develop a valid patient‐reported experience measure (PREM) of Obstetric Racism© in hospital‐based intrapartum care designed for, by, and with Black women as patient, community, and content experts. Methods PROMIS© instrument development standards adapted with cultural rigor methodology. Phase 1 included item pool generation, modified Delphi method, and cognitive interviews. Phase 2 evaluated the item pool using factor analysis and item response theory. Results Items were identified or written to cover 7 previously identified theoretical domains. 806 Black mothers and birthing people completed the pilot test. Factor analysis concluded a 3 factor structure with good fit indices (CFI = 0.931‐0.977, RMSEA = 0.087‐0.10, R2 > .3, residual correlation < 0.15). All items in each factor fit the IRT model and were able to be calibrated. Factor 1, “Humanity,” had 31 items measuring experiences of safety and accountability, autonomy, communication, and empathy. A 12‐item short form was created to ease respondent burden. Factor 2, “Racism,” had 12 items measuring experiences of neglect and mistreatment. Factor 3, “Kinship,” had 7 items measuring hospital denial and disruption of relationships between Black mothers and their child or support system. Conclusions The PREM‐OB Scale™ suite is a valid tool to characterize and quantify obstetric racism for use in perinatal improvement initiatives.

Objective To assess hospital unit culture and clinician attitudes associated with varying rates of primary cesarean delivery. Data Sources/Study Setting Intrapartum nurses, midwives, and physicians recruited from 79 hospitals in California participating in efforts to reduce cesarean overuse. Study Design Labor unit culture and clinician attitudes measured using a survey were linked to the California Maternal Data Center for birth outcomes and hospital covariates. Methods Association with primary cesarean delivery rates was assessed using multivariate Poisson regression adjusted for hospital covariates. Principal Findings 1718 respondents from 70 hospitals responded to the Labor Culture Survey. The “Unit Microculture” subscale was strongly associated with primary cesarean rate; the higher a unit scored on 8‐items describing a culture supportive of vaginal birth (eg, nurses are encouraged to spend time in rooms with patients, and doulas are welcomed), the cesarean rate decreased by 41 percent (95% CI = −47 to −35 percent, P < 0.001). Discordant attitudes between nurses and physicians were associated with increased cesarean rates. Conclusions Hospital unit culture, clinician attitudes, and consistency between professions are strongly associated with primary cesarean rates. Improvement efforts to reduce cesarean overuse must address culture of care as a key part of the change process.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: One Key Question ® (OKQ) is a tool that embeds a patient-centered screening into routine visits with the goal of making pregnancy intention screening universal, but widespread implementation has not yet been adopted. We aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators of OKQ implementation to better understand how to best implement the tool across different settings. Methods: We invited staff and clinicians from one obstetrics and gynecology clinic and one family medicine clinic, which previously implemented OKQ, to complete surveys and qualitative interviews about their experiences with the tool. The interview guide and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Main Findings: Major facilitators of OKQ implementation are the simplicity of the tool, engagement of clinic leadership, and compatibility between the perceived goals of the tool and those of practice staff and clinicians. Although participants indicated that OKQ had a minimal impact on clinic workflow during its implementation, preimplementation time concerns were a major barrier to implementation in both clinics. Barriers seen in the family medicine practice included OKQ distracting from the visit agenda, and concerns about the OKQ gold standard protocol of screening each patient at every visit. Participants even suggested asking OKQ only during annual check-up appointments. Conclusions: The perceived alignment between the tool's goals and those of clinic stakeholders was an important facilitator of OKQ implementation success. However, characteristics of the clinic setting, such as competing medical priorities and time constraints, influenced initial attitudes toward the feasibility of the intervention. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03947788