Variation in Cesarean Section Rates Among Hospitals in Washington State

Overview

Journal Am J Public Health

Specialty Public Health

Date 1993 Aug 1

PMID 8342718

Citations 9

Authors

L McKenzie

P A Stephenson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This study examined hospital characteristics and hospital population risk factors and their associations with hospital-specific cesarean section rates in Washington State.

Methods: Data were obtained from 1987 birth certificates. The study population included all hospitals that had 12 or more singleton live births.

Results: Hospital-specific cesarean section rates varied from 0% to 43% and were positively associated with proprietary ownership, size of delivery service, and the proportions of women who had complications or high-birthweight infants. The proportion of women who had late prenatal care was inversely associated with cesarean section rates. Although proprietary hospitals had higher cesarean section rates, their patient populations were lower risk than patients of public or teaching hospitals.

Conclusions: Variation in cesarean section rates among hospitals cannot be fully explained by either hospital or patient population characteristics. A combined strategy may be necessary to lower unjustifiably high cesarean section rates.

Citing Articles

Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hoxha I, Braha M, Syrogiannouli L, Goodman D, Juni P BMJ Open. 2019; 9(3):e025356.

PMID: 30833323 PMC: 6443081. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025356.

Impact of Provider Competition under Global Budgeting on the Use of Cesarean Delivery.

Chen B, Chen C, Liu T Health Serv Res. 2017; 53(2):747-767.

PMID: 28217938 PMC: 5867085. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12668.

Mind the information gap: fertility rate and use of cesarean delivery and tocolytic hospitalizations in Taiwan.

Ma K, Norton E, Lee S Health Econ Rev. 2012; 1(1):20.

PMID: 22828182 PMC: 3403178. DOI: 10.1186/2191-1991-1-20.

Adoption of diagnostic technology and variation in caesarean section rates: a test of the practice style hypothesis in Norway.

Grytten J, Monkerud L, Sorensen R Health Serv Res. 2012; 47(6):2169-89.

PMID: 22594486 PMC: 3523370. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01419.x.

Cesarean delivery among nulliparous women in Beirut: assessing predictors in nine hospitals.

Tamim H, El-Chemaly S, Nassar A, Aaraj A, Campbell O, Kaddour A Birth. 2007; 34(1):14-20.

PMID: 17324173 PMC: 1913632. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00141.x.

References

Newton E, Higgins C . Factors associated with hospital-specific cesarean birth rates. J Reprod Med. 1989; 34(6):407-11. View

Goyert G, Bottoms S, Treadwell M, Nehra P . The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med. 1989; 320(11):706-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198903163201106. View

Lomas J, Anderson G, Vayda E, Enkin M, Hannah W . Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321(19):1306-11. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198911093211906. View

Stafford R . Alternative strategies for controlling rising cesarean section rates. JAMA. 1990; 263(5):683-7. View

Porreco R . Meeting the challenge of the rising cesarean birth rate. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75(1):133-6. View

Stafford R . Cesarean section use and source of payment: an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80(3):313-5. PMC: 1404683. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.80.3.313. View

Williams R, Hawes W . Cesarean section, fetal monitoring, and perinatal mortality in California. Am J Public Health. 1979; 69(9):864-70. PMC: 1619226. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.69.9.864. View

Williams R, Chen P . Controlling the rise in cesarean section rates by the dissemination of information from vital records. Am J Public Health. 1983; 73(8):863-7. PMC: 1651116. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.73.8.863. View

Petitti D . Recent trends in cesarean delivery rates in California. Birth. 1985; 12(1):25-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1985.tb00926.x. View

10.

de Regt R, Minkoff H, Feldman J, Schwarz R . Relation of private or clinic care to the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med. 1986; 315(10):619-24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198609043151005. View

11.

Gold R, Kenney A . Paying for maternity care. Fam Plann Perspect. 1985; 17(3):103-11. View

12.

Fraser W, Usher R, McLean F, Bossenberry C, Thomson M, Kramer M . Temporal variation in rates of cesarean section for dystocia: does "convenience" play a role?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 156(2):300-4. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(87)90272-9. View

13.

Acker D, Haas S, OBrien E, Donahue Jr C, Porell M, Sachs B . Cesarean birth rate: small-geographic-area analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 159(2):386-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(88)80090-5. View

14.

Horton J, Cruess D, Korper M . Deliveries in U.S. military and non-federal hospitals, 1980. Mil Med. 1988; 153(12):611-4. View

15.

Placek P, Taffel S . Recent patterns in cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1988; 15(4):607-27. View

16.

Reid A, Carroll J, Ruderman J, Murray M . Differences in intrapartum obstetric care provided to women at low risk by family physicians and obstetricians. CMAJ. 1989; 140(6):625-33. PMC: 1268752. View

17.

Krikke E, Bell N . Relation of family physician or specialist care to obstetric interventions and outcomes in patients at low risk: a western Canadian cohort study. CMAJ. 1989; 140(6):637-43. PMC: 1268753. View

18.

Gould J, Davey B, Stafford R . Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321(4):233-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198907273210406. View