Frank I Jackson, Anthony M Vintzileos, Sarah H Abelman, Fernando Suarez, Adrianne Combs, Victor Klein, Adi Davidoff, Burton L Rochelson, Matthew J Blitz
{"title":"一种新的围产期质量测量方法:将剖宫产率、产妇和新生儿结局整合到一个单一的产妇-新生儿双元指标中。","authors":"Frank I Jackson, Anthony M Vintzileos, Sarah H Abelman, Fernando Suarez, Adrianne Combs, Victor Klein, Adi Davidoff, Burton L Rochelson, Matthew J Blitz","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2025.05.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, hospital perinatal quality and rankings have been based on cesarean rates among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) patients, and recently added unexpected term newborn complication rates as a separate outcome category. The drawbacks of this methodology are two-fold: first, maternal complications are not considered and second, the maternal-newborn outcomes, which may not be aligned with each other, are reported separately.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives were to: 1) evaluate the relationships between cesarean, maternal and neonatal complication rates in NTSV patients; 2) develop unified measures incorporating cesarean, maternal, and neonatal complications, utilizing desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology, to evaluate individual hospital performances; and 3) compare hospital rankings using the most desirable dyadic outcome \"vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications\" to cesarean rate-based rankings for the overall population, as well as for low- and high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This retrospective cross-sectional study included all NTSV deliveries at seven hospitals of the Northwell Health system from January 2019 to December 2024. Maternal complications included \"severe obstetric complications\" as per the Joint Commission criteria. Neonatal complications included the conditions described by the Joint Commission as \"unexpected complications in term newborns\". First, statistical analyses were performed to evaluate correlations among cesarean, maternal and neonatal complication rates in the seven hospitals. Second, we employed dyadic maternal-newborn outcomes using a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) integrating cesarean, maternal, and neonatal complication rates for each hospital. Third, we used the most desirable outcome, \"vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications\" to derive a new seven-hospital ranking which was then compared to the cesarean rate-based ranking. The same comparisons of rankings were also performed after stratification of the data to low and high-risk patients based on the obstetric comorbidity index score on admission (0-3 and ≥4, respectively).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 55,841 NTSV deliveries during the years 2019-2024 were analyzed. There was a significant negative correlation between cesarean and neonatal complication rates (r = -0.79, p=0.04), and no correlations between cesarean versus maternal complication rates (r=-0.08, p=0.86) or maternal complication versus neonatal complication rates (r=-0.33, p=0.47) indicating the need for a combined metric. Based on the DOOR methodology, four groups of dyadic outcomes were formed: a) vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications; b) cesarean with no maternal and no neonatal complications; c) vaginal delivery with maternal and/or neonatal complications; and d) cesarean with maternal and/or neonatal complications. The rates of dyadic outcomes were recorded for each hospital and the best possible dyadic outcome (vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications) was used to create a new hospital ranking which was then compared with the (referent) cesarean rate-based ranking. There were significant changes in the overall ranking based on the new maternal-newborn dyadic measure: 2/7 (29%) hospitals changed ranking in the overall population (Kendall's Tau 0.905, p=0.002); 3/7 (43%) in the low-risk group (Kendall's Tau 0.810, p=0.01) and 5/7 (71%) in the high-risk group (Kendall's Tau 0.714, p=0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study demonstrates the need for a dyadic maternal-newborn perinatal quality measures that incorporates cesarean rates, maternal and neonatal complication rates. Our findings suggest that separate reliance on cesarean or neonatal complication rates may provide an inaccurate representation of perinatal care quality. We propose that our Northwell composite dyadic measure \"vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications\" allows for a comprehensive assessment of quality of perinatal care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A New Perinatal Quality Measure in Nulliparous Term Singleton Vertex (NTSV) Births: Integrating Cesarean Rate, Maternal, and Neonatal Outcomes into a Single Maternal-Newborn Dyadic Metric.\",\"authors\":\"Frank I Jackson, Anthony M Vintzileos, Sarah H Abelman, Fernando Suarez, Adrianne Combs, Victor Klein, Adi Davidoff, Burton L Rochelson, Matthew J Blitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajog.2025.05.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, hospital perinatal quality and rankings have been based on cesarean rates among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) patients, and recently added unexpected term newborn complication rates as a separate outcome category. The drawbacks of this methodology are two-fold: first, maternal complications are not considered and second, the maternal-newborn outcomes, which may not be aligned with each other, are reported separately.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives were to: 1) evaluate the relationships between cesarean, maternal and neonatal complication rates in NTSV patients; 2) develop unified measures incorporating cesarean, maternal, and neonatal complications, utilizing desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology, to evaluate individual hospital performances; and 3) compare hospital rankings using the most desirable dyadic outcome \\\"vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications\\\" to cesarean rate-based rankings for the overall population, as well as for low- and high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This retrospective cross-sectional study included all NTSV deliveries at seven hospitals of the Northwell Health system from January 2019 to December 2024. Maternal complications included \\\"severe obstetric complications\\\" as per the Joint Commission criteria. Neonatal complications included the conditions described by the Joint Commission as \\\"unexpected complications in term newborns\\\". First, statistical analyses were performed to evaluate correlations among cesarean, maternal and neonatal complication rates in the seven hospitals. Second, we employed dyadic maternal-newborn outcomes using a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) integrating cesarean, maternal, and neonatal complication rates for each hospital. Third, we used the most desirable outcome, \\\"vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications\\\" to derive a new seven-hospital ranking which was then compared to the cesarean rate-based ranking. The same comparisons of rankings were also performed after stratification of the data to low and high-risk patients based on the obstetric comorbidity index score on admission (0-3 and ≥4, respectively).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 55,841 NTSV deliveries during the years 2019-2024 were analyzed. There was a significant negative correlation between cesarean and neonatal complication rates (r = -0.79, p=0.04), and no correlations between cesarean versus maternal complication rates (r=-0.08, p=0.86) or maternal complication versus neonatal complication rates (r=-0.33, p=0.47) indicating the need for a combined metric. Based on the DOOR methodology, four groups of dyadic outcomes were formed: a) vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications; b) cesarean with no maternal and no neonatal complications; c) vaginal delivery with maternal and/or neonatal complications; and d) cesarean with maternal and/or neonatal complications. The rates of dyadic outcomes were recorded for each hospital and the best possible dyadic outcome (vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications) was used to create a new hospital ranking which was then compared with the (referent) cesarean rate-based ranking. There were significant changes in the overall ranking based on the new maternal-newborn dyadic measure: 2/7 (29%) hospitals changed ranking in the overall population (Kendall's Tau 0.905, p=0.002); 3/7 (43%) in the low-risk group (Kendall's Tau 0.810, p=0.01) and 5/7 (71%) in the high-risk group (Kendall's Tau 0.714, p=0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study demonstrates the need for a dyadic maternal-newborn perinatal quality measures that incorporates cesarean rates, maternal and neonatal complication rates. Our findings suggest that separate reliance on cesarean or neonatal complication rates may provide an inaccurate representation of perinatal care quality. We propose that our Northwell composite dyadic measure \\\"vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications\\\" allows for a comprehensive assessment of quality of perinatal care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.05.016\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.05.016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:传统上,医院围产期质量和排名是基于无产、足月、单胎、顶点(NTSV)患者的剖宫产率,最近增加了意外足月新生儿并发症发生率作为一个单独的结果类别。这种方法的缺点是双重的:首先,没有考虑产妇并发症,其次,产妇-新生儿结局可能不一致,单独报告。目的:目的是:1)评估NTSV患者剖宫产、产妇和新生儿并发症发生率之间的关系;2)制定纳入剖宫产、孕产妇和新生儿并发症的统一措施,利用结果排序可取性(DOOR)方法,评估各医院的表现;3)比较使用最理想的双重结果“无产妇和新生儿并发症的阴道分娩”的医院排名与基于剖宫产率的总体人群排名以及低危和高危患者排名。研究设计:这项回顾性横断面研究包括2019年1月至2024年12月诺斯韦尔卫生系统七家医院的所有NTSV分娩。根据联合委员会的标准,产妇并发症包括“严重产科并发症”。新生儿并发症包括联合委员会所描述的“足月新生儿意外并发症”。首先,统计分析7家医院剖宫产、产妇和新生儿并发症发生率之间的相关性。其次,我们采用了双重的产妇-新生儿结局,采用了结局期望排序(DOOR),综合了每家医院的剖宫产、产妇和新生儿并发症发生率。第三,我们使用最理想的结果,“无产妇和新生儿并发症的阴道分娩”,得出一个新的七家医院排名,然后与基于剖宫产率的排名进行比较。根据入院时产科合并症指数评分(分别为0-3分和≥4分)对数据分层后,对低危患者和高危患者进行相同的排名比较。结果:2019-2024年共分析了55,841例NTSV分娩。剖宫产与新生儿并发症发生率呈显著负相关(r= -0.79, p=0.04),剖宫产与产妇并发症发生率(r=-0.08, p=0.86)或产妇并发症与新生儿并发症发生率(r=-0.33, p=0.47)之间无相关性,表明需要采用联合指标。根据DOOR方法,形成了四组双结果:a)无产妇和新生儿并发症的阴道分娩;B)无产妇和新生儿并发症的剖宫产;C)有产妇和/或新生儿并发症的阴道分娩;d)有产妇和/或新生儿并发症的剖宫产。记录每家医院的双重结局率,并使用最佳可能的双重结局(无产妇和新生儿并发症的阴道分娩)来创建新的医院排名,然后与(参考)剖宫产率排名进行比较。基于新母新生儿二元指标的总体排名发生了显著变化:2/7(29%)医院在总体人群中排名发生了变化(Kendall's Tau = 0.905, p=0.002);低危组3/7 (43%)(Kendall's Tau = 0.810, p=0.01),高危组5/7 (71%)(Kendall's Tau = 0.714, p=0.03)。结论:该研究表明,需要一个双元母婴围产期质量措施,包括剖宫产率,孕产妇和新生儿并发症的发生率。我们的研究结果表明,单独依赖剖宫产或新生儿并发症的发生率可能提供围产儿护理质量的不准确代表。我们建议,我们的诺斯韦尔复合二元测量“阴道分娩无产妇和新生儿并发症”允许围产期护理质量的综合评估。
A New Perinatal Quality Measure in Nulliparous Term Singleton Vertex (NTSV) Births: Integrating Cesarean Rate, Maternal, and Neonatal Outcomes into a Single Maternal-Newborn Dyadic Metric.
Background: Traditionally, hospital perinatal quality and rankings have been based on cesarean rates among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) patients, and recently added unexpected term newborn complication rates as a separate outcome category. The drawbacks of this methodology are two-fold: first, maternal complications are not considered and second, the maternal-newborn outcomes, which may not be aligned with each other, are reported separately.
Objectives: The objectives were to: 1) evaluate the relationships between cesarean, maternal and neonatal complication rates in NTSV patients; 2) develop unified measures incorporating cesarean, maternal, and neonatal complications, utilizing desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology, to evaluate individual hospital performances; and 3) compare hospital rankings using the most desirable dyadic outcome "vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications" to cesarean rate-based rankings for the overall population, as well as for low- and high-risk patients.
Study design: This retrospective cross-sectional study included all NTSV deliveries at seven hospitals of the Northwell Health system from January 2019 to December 2024. Maternal complications included "severe obstetric complications" as per the Joint Commission criteria. Neonatal complications included the conditions described by the Joint Commission as "unexpected complications in term newborns". First, statistical analyses were performed to evaluate correlations among cesarean, maternal and neonatal complication rates in the seven hospitals. Second, we employed dyadic maternal-newborn outcomes using a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) integrating cesarean, maternal, and neonatal complication rates for each hospital. Third, we used the most desirable outcome, "vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications" to derive a new seven-hospital ranking which was then compared to the cesarean rate-based ranking. The same comparisons of rankings were also performed after stratification of the data to low and high-risk patients based on the obstetric comorbidity index score on admission (0-3 and ≥4, respectively).
Results: A total of 55,841 NTSV deliveries during the years 2019-2024 were analyzed. There was a significant negative correlation between cesarean and neonatal complication rates (r = -0.79, p=0.04), and no correlations between cesarean versus maternal complication rates (r=-0.08, p=0.86) or maternal complication versus neonatal complication rates (r=-0.33, p=0.47) indicating the need for a combined metric. Based on the DOOR methodology, four groups of dyadic outcomes were formed: a) vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications; b) cesarean with no maternal and no neonatal complications; c) vaginal delivery with maternal and/or neonatal complications; and d) cesarean with maternal and/or neonatal complications. The rates of dyadic outcomes were recorded for each hospital and the best possible dyadic outcome (vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications) was used to create a new hospital ranking which was then compared with the (referent) cesarean rate-based ranking. There were significant changes in the overall ranking based on the new maternal-newborn dyadic measure: 2/7 (29%) hospitals changed ranking in the overall population (Kendall's Tau 0.905, p=0.002); 3/7 (43%) in the low-risk group (Kendall's Tau 0.810, p=0.01) and 5/7 (71%) in the high-risk group (Kendall's Tau 0.714, p=0.03).
Conclusions: The study demonstrates the need for a dyadic maternal-newborn perinatal quality measures that incorporates cesarean rates, maternal and neonatal complication rates. Our findings suggest that separate reliance on cesarean or neonatal complication rates may provide an inaccurate representation of perinatal care quality. We propose that our Northwell composite dyadic measure "vaginal delivery with no maternal and no neonatal complications" allows for a comprehensive assessment of quality of perinatal care.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare.
Focus Areas:
Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders.
Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases.
Content Types:
Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles.
Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology.
Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field.
Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews.
Peer Review Process:
All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.