Measuring Childbirth Outcomes Using Administrative and Birth Certificate Data.

BACKGROUND: The number of pregnancy-related deaths and severe maternal complications continues to rise in the United States, and the quality of obstetrical care across U.S. hospitals is uneven. Providing hospitals with performance feedback may help reduce the rates of severe complications in mothers and their newborns. The aim of this study was to develop a risk-adjusted composite measure of severe maternal morbidity and severe newborn morbidity based on administrative and birth certificate data. METHODS: This study was conducted using linked administrative data and birth certificate data from California. Hierarchical logistic regression prediction models for severe maternal morbidity and severe newborn morbidity were developed using 2011 data and validated using 2012 data. The composite metric was calculated using the geometric mean of the risk-standardized rates of severe maternal morbidity and severe newborn morbidity. RESULTS: The study was based on 883,121 obstetric deliveries in 2011 and 2012. The rates of severe maternal morbidity and severe newborn morbidity were 1.53% and 3.67%, respectively. Both the severe maternal morbidity model and the severe newborn models exhibited acceptable levels of discrimination and calibration. Hospital risk-adjusted rates of severe maternal morbidity were poorly correlated with hospital rates of severe newborn morbidity (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.016). Hospital rankings based on the composite measure exhibited moderate levels of agreement with hospital rankings based either on the maternal measure or the newborn measure (κ statistic 0.49 and 0.60, respectively.) However, 10% of hospitals classified as average using the composite measure had below-average maternal outcomes, and 20% of hospitals classified as average using the composite measure had below-average newborn outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal and newborn outcomes should be jointly reported because hospital rates of maternal morbidity and newborn morbidity are poorly correlated. This can be done using a childbirth composite measure alongside separate measures of maternal and newborn outcomes.

Impact of the Choice of Risk Model for Identifying Low-risk Patients Using the 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Perioperative Guidelines.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: The 2014 American College of Cardiology Perioperative Guideline recommends risk stratifying patients scheduled to undergo noncardiac surgery using either: (1) the Revised Cardiac Index; (2) the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator; or (3) the Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest calculator. The aim of this study is to determine how often these three risk-prediction tools agree on the classification of patients as low risk (less than 1%) of major adverse cardiac event. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study using a sample of 10,000 patient records. The risk of cardiac complications was calculated for the Revised Cardiac Index and the Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest models using published coefficients, and for the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator using the publicly available website. The authors used the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa analysis to quantify the degree of agreement between these three risk-prediction tools. RESULTS: There is good agreement between the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest estimates of major adverse cardiac events (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.70), while only poor agreement between (1) American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator and the Revised Cardiac Index (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.40), and (2) Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest and Revised Cardiac Index (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.30). The three prediction models disagreed 29% of the time on which patients were low risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in the predicted risk of cardiac complications using different risk-prediction tools. Including more than one prediction tool in clinical guidelines could lead to differences in decision-making for some patients depending on which risk calculator is used.