The standard primipara as a basis for inter‐unit comparisons of maternity care

Abstract

Objective To assess the suitability of the standard primipara (a subset of the obstetric population that has relatively low risk or intervention and of adverse outcome) for making inter‐unit comparisons of indicators of the process and outcome of maternity care. Design Inter‐unit comparison of 10 indicators of obstetric intervention and adverse outcome derived from routinely collected computerised data held on the St Mary's Maternity Information System. Setting Fifteen maternity units in the former North West Thames Region. Participants 15,463 primiparae who were delivered in 1992. Main outcome measures Proportion of primiparae within the standard definition; degree to which standard primiparae are associated with lower rates of intervention and adverse outcome, as compared to other primiparae. Results Within the database, 42.6% of all primiparae were found to be standard, with rates varying between units from 25.9% to 57.7%. As expected, the standard primiparous woman is at less risk of intervention or adverse outcome than other primiparae. All but one component variable of the standard definition is a significant risk factor for at least four of the 10 indicators. Statistically significant differences in indicator rates are seen between standard and nonstandard primiparae within units. Within the standard group, significant differences in rates of intervention and adverse outcome are seen between units. Units with relatively high levels of intervention within the higher risk nonstandard group also have relatively high levels of intervention within the standard group. Conclusions Use of the standard primipara, rather than the whole obstetric population, as the basis for inter‐unit comparisons of maternity care will control for the substantial difference in case mix seen in different units, thereby increasing the validity of those comparisons. The technique has the additional benefit of clarifying the relationship between everyday clinical decision making and a unit's performance in comparative indicator reports. The approach must be combined with a separate study of the other groups in the case mix, such as multiparae and high risk primiparae. Additional nonoverlapping groups, homogeneous in terms of risk factors, should be defined and used to extend the basis on which comparisons may be made.

Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review

“…A total of 20 relevant studies were retrieved and 27 different classifications were included (Table 2); one study[4] presented three classifications and two studies [13], [14] presented two classifications each. These 27 classifications were grouped into 4 general types, according to the main unit being classified: indication (N = 12),[4], [7], [15]–[24] degree of urgency (N = 5),[13], [14], [25], [26] woman characteristics (N = 4)[6], [27]–[29] and other systems (N = 6) [4], [13], [30]–[32]Table 2 presents the main characteristics and performance of the 27 classifications, the overall score obtained and the results of the 12 case scenarios.…”

Obstetrician and Nurse–Midwife Collaboration

“…5,6 Medical record data were extracted from the First Pregnancy and Delivery database, a regional quality initiative of Sutter Health that uses a standardized primiparous patient population to facilitate comparisons between hospitals within and outside of the Sutter Health system. [7][8][9] The use of de-identified First Pregnancy and Delivery data for this quality assessment project did not require approval from the Sutter Health Central Area Institutional Review Committee. Clinicians and administrative staff prospectively enter First Pregnancy and Delivery data during routine clinical charting, billing, and interface with county and state birth certificate and newborn screening programs.…”

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes

“…The infant is of normal weight (10-90 th centile for birthweight) and born between 37 and 41 completed weeks of pregnancy. Comparison of intervention rates in this group of women effectively controls for differences in population or case mix between groups [26,27,30]. …”