Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study

Objective To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors. Design A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was performed. A multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of women having a caesarean section given their maternal characteristics (age, ethnicity, parity, and socioeconomic deprivation) and clinical risk factors (previous caesarean section, breech presentation, and fetal distress). Adjusted rates of caesarean section for each NHS trust were produced from this model. Setting 146 English NHS trusts. Population Women aged between 15 and 44 years with a singleton birth between 1 January and 31 December 2008. Main outcome measure Rate of caesarean sections per 100 births (live or stillborn). Results Among 620 604 singleton births, 147 726 (23.8%) were delivered by caesarean section. Women were more likely to have a caesarean section if they had had one previously (70.8%) or had a baby with breech presentation (89.8%). Unadjusted rates of caesarean section among the NHS trusts ranged from 13.6% to 31.9%. Trusts differed in their patient populations, but adjusted rates still ranged from 14.9% to 32.1%. Rates of emergency caesarean section varied between trusts more than rates of elective caesarean section. Conclusion Characteristics of women delivering at NHS trusts differ, and comparing unadjusted rates of caesarean section should be avoided. Adjusted rates of caesarean section still vary considerably and attempts to reduce this variation should examine issues linked to emergency caesarean section.

[1]  J. Simpson,et al.  Cross-sectional reporting of previous Cesarean birth was validated using longitudinal linked data. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  J. Ford,et al.  Monitoring the quality of maternity care: how well are labour and delivery events reported in population health data? , 2009, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[3]  T. Dowswell,et al.  Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  A. Shorten Maternal and neonatal effects of caesarean section , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  S. Wen,et al.  Association of caesarean delivery for first birth with placenta praevia and placental abruption in second pregnancy , 2007, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[6]  F. Althabe,et al.  Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. , 2006, Birth.

[7]  V. Sundararajan,et al.  Quality of Diagnosis and Procedure Coding in ICD-10 Administrative Data , 2006, Medical care.

[8]  Gérard Bréart,et al.  Postpartum Maternal Mortality and Cesarean Delivery , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  C. Perucci,et al.  Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony , 2006, BMC Health Services Research.

[10]  A. Donner,et al.  Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America , 2006, The Lancet.

[11]  W. Gilbert,et al.  Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  D. Chestnut Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated With a Trial of Labor After Prior Cesarean Delivery , 2006 .

[13]  Z. Alfirevic,et al.  Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  S. Paranjothy,et al.  How much variation in CS rates can be explained by case mix differences? , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  C. Dibben,et al.  The English indices of deprivation 2004 , 2011 .

[17]  Steve N Caritis,et al.  Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  D. Bick Caesarean Section. Clinical Guideline. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health: commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. , 2004, Worldviews on evidence-based nursing.

[19]  B. Tennison,et al.  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection , 2004 .

[20]  S. Paranjothy,et al.  The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report , 2001 .

[21]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[23]  S. Peiró,et al.  Inter-hospital variations in caesarean sections. A risk adjusted comparison in the Valencia public hospitals , 2000, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[24]  F. Barros,et al.  Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. , 1999, BMJ.

[25]  D. Aron,et al.  Impact of risk-adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. , 1998, JAMA.

[26]  R. Écochard,et al.  Study of the variations of the cesarean sections rate in the Rhône-Alpes region (France): effect of women and maternity service characteristics. , 1998, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[27]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Assessment of the reproducibility of clinical coding in routinely collected hospital activity data: a study in two hospitals. , 1998, Journal of public health medicine.

[28]  J. Thorp,et al.  The cesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[29]  K. Kahn,et al.  Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis. , 1996, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[30]  M. Robson,et al.  Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[31]  C. Middle,et al.  Labour and delivery of ‘normal’ primiparous women: analysis of routinely collected data , 1995, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[32]  C. Hobel,et al.  Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. , 1995, American journal of public health.

[33]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[34]  Ben Moore,et al.  APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR BIRTH , 1985, The Lancet.

[35]  Appropriate technology for birth , 1985, The Lancet.