Risk-adjusted cesarean section rates for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan

A population-based study

Chao Hsiun Tang, Han I. Wang, Chun-Sen Hsu, Hung Wen Su, Mei Ju Chen, Herng Ching Lin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Over the past decade, about one-third of all births nationwide in Taiwan were delivered by cesarean section (CS). Previous studies in the US and Europe have documented the need for risk adjustment for fairer comparisons among providers. In this study, we set out to determine the impact that adjustment for patient-specific risk factors has on CS among different physicians in Taiwan. Methods: There were 172,511 live births which occurred in either hospitals or obstetrics/ gynecology clinics between 1 January and 31 December 2003, and for whom birth certificate data could be linked with National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data, available as the sample for this study. Physicians were divided into four equivalent groups based upon the quartile distribution of their crude (actual) CS rates. Stepwise logistic regressions were conducted to develop a predictive model and to determine the expected (risk-adjusted) CS rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each physician. The actual rates were then compared with the expected CS rates to see the proportion of physicians whose actual rates were below, within, or above the predicted CI in each quartile. Results: The proportion of physicians whose CS rates were above the predicted CI increased as the quartile moved to the higher level. However, more than half of the physicians whose actual rates were higher than the predicted CI were not in the highest quartile. Conversely, there were some physicians (40 of 258 physicians) in the highest quartile who were actually providing obstetric care that was appropriate to the risk. When a stricter standard was applied to the assessment of physician performance by excluding physicians in quartile 4 for predicting CS rates, as many as 60% of physicians were found to have higher CS rates than the predicted CI, and indeed, the CS rates of no physicians in either quartile 3 or quartile 4 were below the predicted CI. Conclusion: Overall, our study found that the comparison of unadjusted CS rates might not provide a valid reflection of the quality of obstetric care delivered by physicians, and may ultimately lead to biased judgments by purchasers. Our study has also shown that when we changed the standard of quality assessment, the evaluation results also changed.

Original languageEnglish
Article number246
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 9 2006

Fingerprint

Taiwan
Cesarean Section
Physicians
Population
Confidence Intervals
Obstetrics
Birth Certificates
Risk Adjustment
Quality of Health Care
National Health Programs
Live Birth
Gynecology
Logistic Models
Parturition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Risk-adjusted cesarean section rates for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan : A population-based study. / Tang, Chao Hsiun; Wang, Han I.; Hsu, Chun-Sen; Su, Hung Wen; Chen, Mei Ju; Lin, Herng Ching.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 6, 246, 09.10.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e28b602c9c81444da756eeddeb98801c,
title = "Risk-adjusted cesarean section rates for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan: A population-based study",
abstract = "Background: Over the past decade, about one-third of all births nationwide in Taiwan were delivered by cesarean section (CS). Previous studies in the US and Europe have documented the need for risk adjustment for fairer comparisons among providers. In this study, we set out to determine the impact that adjustment for patient-specific risk factors has on CS among different physicians in Taiwan. Methods: There were 172,511 live births which occurred in either hospitals or obstetrics/ gynecology clinics between 1 January and 31 December 2003, and for whom birth certificate data could be linked with National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data, available as the sample for this study. Physicians were divided into four equivalent groups based upon the quartile distribution of their crude (actual) CS rates. Stepwise logistic regressions were conducted to develop a predictive model and to determine the expected (risk-adjusted) CS rate and 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) for each physician. The actual rates were then compared with the expected CS rates to see the proportion of physicians whose actual rates were below, within, or above the predicted CI in each quartile. Results: The proportion of physicians whose CS rates were above the predicted CI increased as the quartile moved to the higher level. However, more than half of the physicians whose actual rates were higher than the predicted CI were not in the highest quartile. Conversely, there were some physicians (40 of 258 physicians) in the highest quartile who were actually providing obstetric care that was appropriate to the risk. When a stricter standard was applied to the assessment of physician performance by excluding physicians in quartile 4 for predicting CS rates, as many as 60{\%} of physicians were found to have higher CS rates than the predicted CI, and indeed, the CS rates of no physicians in either quartile 3 or quartile 4 were below the predicted CI. Conclusion: Overall, our study found that the comparison of unadjusted CS rates might not provide a valid reflection of the quality of obstetric care delivered by physicians, and may ultimately lead to biased judgments by purchasers. Our study has also shown that when we changed the standard of quality assessment, the evaluation results also changed.",
author = "Tang, {Chao Hsiun} and Wang, {Han I.} and Chun-Sen Hsu and Su, {Hung Wen} and Chen, {Mei Ju} and Lin, {Herng Ching}",
year = "2006",
month = "10",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2458-6-246",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk-adjusted cesarean section rates for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan

T2 - A population-based study

AU - Tang, Chao Hsiun

AU - Wang, Han I.

AU - Hsu, Chun-Sen

AU - Su, Hung Wen

AU - Chen, Mei Ju

AU - Lin, Herng Ching

PY - 2006/10/9

Y1 - 2006/10/9

N2 - Background: Over the past decade, about one-third of all births nationwide in Taiwan were delivered by cesarean section (CS). Previous studies in the US and Europe have documented the need for risk adjustment for fairer comparisons among providers. In this study, we set out to determine the impact that adjustment for patient-specific risk factors has on CS among different physicians in Taiwan. Methods: There were 172,511 live births which occurred in either hospitals or obstetrics/ gynecology clinics between 1 January and 31 December 2003, and for whom birth certificate data could be linked with National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data, available as the sample for this study. Physicians were divided into four equivalent groups based upon the quartile distribution of their crude (actual) CS rates. Stepwise logistic regressions were conducted to develop a predictive model and to determine the expected (risk-adjusted) CS rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each physician. The actual rates were then compared with the expected CS rates to see the proportion of physicians whose actual rates were below, within, or above the predicted CI in each quartile. Results: The proportion of physicians whose CS rates were above the predicted CI increased as the quartile moved to the higher level. However, more than half of the physicians whose actual rates were higher than the predicted CI were not in the highest quartile. Conversely, there were some physicians (40 of 258 physicians) in the highest quartile who were actually providing obstetric care that was appropriate to the risk. When a stricter standard was applied to the assessment of physician performance by excluding physicians in quartile 4 for predicting CS rates, as many as 60% of physicians were found to have higher CS rates than the predicted CI, and indeed, the CS rates of no physicians in either quartile 3 or quartile 4 were below the predicted CI. Conclusion: Overall, our study found that the comparison of unadjusted CS rates might not provide a valid reflection of the quality of obstetric care delivered by physicians, and may ultimately lead to biased judgments by purchasers. Our study has also shown that when we changed the standard of quality assessment, the evaluation results also changed.

AB - Background: Over the past decade, about one-third of all births nationwide in Taiwan were delivered by cesarean section (CS). Previous studies in the US and Europe have documented the need for risk adjustment for fairer comparisons among providers. In this study, we set out to determine the impact that adjustment for patient-specific risk factors has on CS among different physicians in Taiwan. Methods: There were 172,511 live births which occurred in either hospitals or obstetrics/ gynecology clinics between 1 January and 31 December 2003, and for whom birth certificate data could be linked with National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data, available as the sample for this study. Physicians were divided into four equivalent groups based upon the quartile distribution of their crude (actual) CS rates. Stepwise logistic regressions were conducted to develop a predictive model and to determine the expected (risk-adjusted) CS rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each physician. The actual rates were then compared with the expected CS rates to see the proportion of physicians whose actual rates were below, within, or above the predicted CI in each quartile. Results: The proportion of physicians whose CS rates were above the predicted CI increased as the quartile moved to the higher level. However, more than half of the physicians whose actual rates were higher than the predicted CI were not in the highest quartile. Conversely, there were some physicians (40 of 258 physicians) in the highest quartile who were actually providing obstetric care that was appropriate to the risk. When a stricter standard was applied to the assessment of physician performance by excluding physicians in quartile 4 for predicting CS rates, as many as 60% of physicians were found to have higher CS rates than the predicted CI, and indeed, the CS rates of no physicians in either quartile 3 or quartile 4 were below the predicted CI. Conclusion: Overall, our study found that the comparison of unadjusted CS rates might not provide a valid reflection of the quality of obstetric care delivered by physicians, and may ultimately lead to biased judgments by purchasers. Our study has also shown that when we changed the standard of quality assessment, the evaluation results also changed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750525485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750525485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2458-6-246

DO - 10.1186/1471-2458-6-246

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

M1 - 246

ER -