Measuring the quality of inpatient obstetrical care

被引:49
作者
Bailit, Jennifer L.
机构
[1] Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Cleveland, OH 44109 USA
[2] Case Western Reserve Univ, Metrohlth Med Ctr, Ctr Hlth Care Res & Policy, Cleveland, OH USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.ogx.0000256800.21193.ce
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Obstetric admissions are the leading cause of hospitalization for women in the United States, accounting for over 4 million hospital discharges each year. Measuring the quality of inpatient obstetrical care provided to these women is becoming increasingly important to patients, providers, and insurers. While numerous quality measures have been proposed, there is no agreement as to which measures should be used. An ideal quality measure for inpatient obstetrics would encompass 5 major characteristics: 1) association with meaningful maternal and neonatal outcomes, 2) relation to outcomes that are influenced by physician/healith system behaviors, 3) affordability for application on a large scale basis, 4) acceptability to practicing obstetricians as a meaningful marker of quality, and 5) reliability/reproducibility. Traditional quality measurement tools such as maternal mortality, neonatal mortality and cesarean delivery rate are flawed measures. New measurements such as risk-adjusted primary cesarean rates, the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth (NTSV) rate, and the Adverse Outcomes Index (AOI) are currently being studied but these measures require further validation before widespread adoption. Target Audience: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians Learning Objectives: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to summarize that quality measures of inpatient obstetrical care are numerous, explain that no one agrees on which measures should be used, and state that newer measures, once validated, should be considered.
引用
收藏
页码:207 / 213
页数:7
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]  
*AM COLL OBST GYN, 1999, PRACT B ACOG, V5
[2]  
[Anonymous], EV CES DEL
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2000, HLTH PEOPL 2010, V2nd
[4]   Impact of risk-adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance [J].
Aron, DC ;
Harper, DL ;
Shepardson, LB ;
Rosenthal, GE .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 279 (24) :1968-1972
[5]   Comparison of risk-adjustment methodologies for cesarean delivery rates [J].
Bailit, J ;
Garrett, J .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 102 (01) :45-51
[6]   Quality of obstetric care and risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates [J].
Bailit, JL ;
Love, TE ;
Dawson, NV .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 194 (02) :402-407
[7]   Hospital primary cesarean delivery rates and the risk of poor neonatal outcomes [J].
Bailit, JL ;
Garrett, JM ;
Miller, WC ;
McMahon, MJ ;
Cefalo, RC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 187 (03) :721-727
[8]   THE QUALITY OF THE NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATA - A VALIDATION-STUDY IN NORTH-CAROLINA [J].
BUESCHER, PA ;
TAYLOR, KP ;
DAVIS, MH ;
BOWLING, JM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1993, 83 (08) :1163-1165
[9]  
*CDCP, 2003, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V52, pSS2
[10]  
DEFRANCES CJ, 2005, ADV DATA VITAL HLTH, V359