American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ResearchObstetricsCross-sectional survey of California childbirth hospitals: implications for defining maternal levels of risk-appropriate care
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
This is a cross-sectional assessment of childbirth hospital services designed to determine the extent to which hospitals can be classified by increasingly sophisticated maternal levels of care. Information was obtained from a survey of labor and delivery nurse managers for childbirth hospitals in California that included an array of items regarding hospital services, resources, and patient care activities. The study was approved by the Cedars-Sinai Institutional Review Board (protocol
Results
The survey response rate was 96% (239 of 248 hospitals). Nine hospitals (ie, four integrated delivery system and 5 community hospitals) did not respond. The majority of respondents were administrative directors and nurses (n = 141; 59.0%), followed by clinical directors or nurse managers (n = 85; 35.6%), and others (n = 13; 5.4%). The mean (SD) number of years working at the current hospital was 12.4 (10.1) (median, 11.0; range, 0.1–46 years), and the mean (SD) number of years in the current
Comment
National efforts to examine and stem the rise in severe maternal morbidity have encouraged interest in strategies to classify childbirth hospitals by their resources and patient care activities and thus develop systems for maternal risk-appropriate care, or maternal levels of care.14, 16 However, our data demonstrated that given the wide variation in childbirth services that exists, only one third of hospitals could be assigned to a maternal level of care category using a scheme that had been
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the many individuals and organizations that have contributed to this effort, including the staff of all of the participating hospitals. We want to specifically acknowledge the Regional Perinatal Programs of California for their assistance in providing introductions and contact information for participants and Kevin Van Otterloo of the Community Perinatal Network in Yorba Linda, CA, for his assistance with recruitment and scheduling participant interviews.
References (41)
- et al.
Putting the “M” back in maternal-fetal medicine
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2013) - et al.
The continuum of maternal morbidity and mortality: factors associated with severity
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2004) - et al.
Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity: a multistate analysis, 2008–2010
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2014) - et al.
Monitoring childbirth morbidity using hospital discharge data: further development and application of a composite measure
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2014) - et al.
Changing patterns in regionalization of perinatal care and the impact on neonatal mortality
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1998) - et al.
Maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States: where are we now?
J Womens Health
(2014) - et al.
Preventability of pregnancy-related deaths: results of a state-wide review
Obstet Gynecol
(2005) - et al.
California pregnancy-associated mortality review: mixed methods approach for improved case identification, cause of death analyses and translation of findings
Matern Child Health J
(2014) - et al.
Severe obstetric morbidity in the United States: 1998-2005
Obstet Gynecol
(2009) - et al.
Overview of maternal morbidity during hospitalization for labor and delivery in the United States: 1993–1997 and 2001–2005
Obstet Gynecol
(2009)
Severe maternal morbidity in Canada, 1991–2001
CMAJ
Predictors of maternal mortality and near-miss maternal morbidity
J Perinatol
Facility-based identification of women with severe maternal morbidity: it’s time to start
Obstet Gynecol
Standardized severe maternal morbidity review
Obstet Gynecol
Levels of maternal care. ACOG Obstetric Care Consensus no. 2
Obstet Gynecol
Births: final data for 2012
Natl Vital Stat Rep
Maternal mortality, near misses, and severe morbidity
Obstet Gynecol
Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants
N Engl J Med
Perinatal regionalization for very low-birth-weight and very preterm infants
JAMA
The effect of neonatal intensive care level and hospital volume on mortality of very low birth weight infants
Med Care
Cited by (8)
Improving hospital quality to reduce disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality
2017, Seminars in PerinatologyCitation Excerpt :These underlie the 2015 recommendations by ACOG and SMFM to introduce maternal levels of care, analogous to those that exist for newborn nurseries.33 However, these levels of care have not yet been used to assess risk of severe maternal morbidity; a recent study of hospital characteristics in California was not able to classify most hospitals into these levels of care as many did not meet the required set of basic criteria.34 Much of the research on the contribution of organizational factors and clinical processes to maternal deaths or near-misses utilize audits or case reviews.
Association between Off-Peak Hour Birth and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality among Very Low Birth Weight Infants
2017, Journal of PediatricsCitation Excerpt :Two structural factors that may contribute to the higher IVH risk among infants born overnight are lower staffing levels or less availability of in-house physicians during off peak hours and greater nighttime fatigue leading to lower provider mental alertness. A recent survey of California childbirth hospitals found that only 64% were capable of performing a cesarean delivery within 30 minutes at all times of the day, and only 56% had a pediatrician, family practitioner, or neonatologist available in-house to attend nighttime deliveries.28 Unfortunately, our dataset does not include information on hospital staffing levels.
Clues for understanding hospital variation among obstetric services
2015, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyAssociations Between Hospital Maternal Service Level and Delivery Outcomes
2019, Women's Health IssuesCitation Excerpt :This finding suggests hospitals in Georgia do accurately report their maternal service level according to guidelines provided (see Supplement A for guidelines). Researchers have reported difficulty matching existing hospital resources to specific levels of obstetric service (Korst et al., 2015), which is likely an inherent limitation of leveling systems that use non–resource-specific criteria. This suggests that the findings of this study are not caused by misclassification, but by a leveling system that does not categorize hospitals according to resources.
Do Hospitals with a Higher Level of Maternal Care Designation Have Better Maternal Outcomes?
2019, American Journal of PerinatologyQuality assurance practices in obstetric care: A survey of hospitals in California
2018, Obstetrics and Gynecology
The funding sources had no involvement in the conduct of the research or in the preparation of the manuscript.
This study was supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant 5 R01 HS020915 (all investigators except D.S.F.). Additional support was provided by the March of Dimes (L.M.K., M.F., and D.L.B.) and by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Duchesnay USA Research Award in Quality Improvement in Maternity Care (D.S.F.).
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Cite this article as: Korst LM, Feldman DS, Bollman DL, et al. Cross-sectional survey of California childbirth hospitals: implications for defining maternal levels of risk-appropriate care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:527.e1-12.