Labor induction rate variation in upstate new york: What is the difference?

被引:37
作者
Glantz, JC [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
来源
BIRTH-ISSUES IN PERINATAL CARE | 2003年 / 30卷 / 03期
关键词
D O I
10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00241.x
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Labor induction rates in the United States rose from 9.0 percent in 1989 to 20.5 percent in 2001, but reasons for the increase are poorly defined. A birth database from a region of upstate New York, including 31,352 deliveries from 1998 through 1999, was used to determine the degree of variation of labor induction rates among hospitals and practitioners. Methods: Total and elective labor induction rates were calculated for 16 hospitals and individual staff, and then evaluated using chi-square testing and regression. Results: Using all laboring women as the denominator, the regional labor induction rate was 20.8 percent; of these inductions, 25 percent had no apparent medical indication. Total induction rates and percent of elective inductions that were elective varied significantly among hospitals (10%-39% and 12%-55%, respectively, p < 0.0001) and among practitioners within hospitals (7%-48% and 3%-76%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Hospitals varied in size, risk status, and cesarean section rates, but these factors did not correlate with induction rates. Conclusions: Labor induction rates are highly variable among and within hospitals. Delivery volume, population risk status, and differences in cesarean section rates did not explain this variation.
引用
收藏
页码:168 / 174
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
[11]   PREVALENCE OF PROCEDURES IN CHILDBIRTH [J].
FLEISSIG, A .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 306 (6876) :494-495
[12]  
Gabbe S.G., 1996, OBSTET NORMAL PROBLE
[13]   Cesarean delivery risk adjustment for regional interhospital comparisons [J].
Glantz, JC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 181 (06) :1425-1431
[14]   THE DUTCH OBSTETRIC INTERVENTION STUDY - VARIATIONS IN PRACTICE PATTERNS [J].
HERES, MHB ;
PEL, M ;
ELFERINKSTINKENS, PM ;
VANHEMEL, OJS ;
TREFFERS, PE .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 1995, 50 (02) :145-150
[15]   LABOR INDUCTION POLICY IN HOSPITALS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SPECIALIZATION [J].
JARVELIN, MR ;
HARTIKAINENSORRI, AL ;
RANTAKALLIO, P .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1993, 100 (04) :310-315
[16]   DOES INAPPROPRIATE USE EXPLAIN SMALL-AREA VARIATIONS IN THE USE OF HEALTH-CARE SERVICES [J].
LEAPE, LL ;
PARK, RE ;
SOLOMON, DH ;
CHASSIN, MR ;
KOSECOFF, J ;
BROOK, RH .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (05) :669-672
[17]  
Martin Joyce A, 2002, Natl Vital Stat Rep, V51, P1
[18]   SMALL-AREA VARIATIONS IN THE USE OF COMMON SURGICAL-PROCEDURES - AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF NEW-ENGLAND, ENGLAND, AND NORWAY [J].
MCPHERSON, K ;
WENNBERG, JE ;
HOVIND, OB ;
CLIFFORD, P .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1982, 307 (21) :1310-1314
[19]  
O'Brien WF, 1996, OBSTET NORMAL PROBLE, P371
[20]   SMALL AREA ANALYSIS - A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE NORTH-AMERICAN LITERATURE [J].
PAULSHAHEEN, P ;
CLARK, JD ;
WILLIAMS, D .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLITICS POLICY AND LAW, 1987, 12 (04) :741-809