Search

Introduction: audits of indications for cesarean section (CS), feedback for health professionals, and implementation of best practices, as compared with usual care (QUARISMA study), resulted in a small reduction in the rate of CS in Quebec and important cost savings from a health care payer perspective. Determining the budget impact would enable estimation of the financial consequences if the program is extended nationwide., Material and Methods: a retrospective pre-post study design was used to estimate cost prior to and after the implementation of QUARISMA in Quebec (105,351 subjects). A prospective analysis was performed to measure the budget impact in Canada's provinces. The primary analytic perspective was that of the Minister of Health, for a 4-year time horizon. Data were taken from the trial for Quebec and extrapolated to Canada's provinces. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying more than one probability at a time., Findings: over 4 years, there was a decrease of more than $7.8 million in CS burden in Quebec, $11.9 million in vaginal birth and $9.8 million for neonatal complications. The impact on high-risk women was lower than that on low-risk. In years 1 and 2, the provinces would have to cover the cost of program implementation., Conclusions: QUARISMA led to savings of $27 million in Quebec over 4 years. In the short to medium term, extending the QUARISMA program nationwide could lead to savings of $150.5 million., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Widespread increases in caesarean section (CS) rates have sparked concerns about risks to mothers and infants and rising healthcare costs. A multicentre, two-arm, cluster-randomized trial in Quebec, Canada assessed whether an audit and feedback intervention targeting health professionals would reduce CS rates for pregnant women compared to usual care, and concluded that it reduced CS rates without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal health. The effect was statistically significant but clinically small. We assessed cost-effectiveness to inform scale-up decisions., Methods: A prospective economic evaluation was undertaken using individual patient data from the Quality of Care, Obstetrics Risk Management, and Mode of Delivery (QUARISMA) trial (April 2008 to October 2011). Analyses took a healthcare payer perspective. The time horizon captured hospital-based costs and clinical events for mothers and neonates from labour onset to 3 months postpartum. Resource use was identified and measured from patient charts and valued using standardized government sources. We estimated the changes in CS rates and costs for the intervention group (versus controls) between the baseline and post-intervention periods. We examined heterogeneity between clinical subgroups of high-risk versus low-risk pregnancies and estimated the joint uncertainty in cost-effectiveness over 20,000 trial simulations. We decomposed costs to identify drivers of change., Results: The intervention group experienced per-patient reductions of 0.005 CS (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.015 to 0.004, P = 0.09) and $180 (95% CI: -$277 to - $83, P < 0.001). Women with low-risk pregnancies experienced statistically significant reductions in CS rates and costs; changes for the high-risk subgroup were not significant. The intervention was "dominant" (effective in reducing CS and less costly than usual care) in 86.08% of simulations. It reduced costs in 99.99% of simulations. Cost reductions were driven by lower rates of neonatal complications in the intervention group (-$190, 95% CI: -$255 to - $125, P < 0.001). Given 88,000 annual provincial births, a similar intervention could save $15.8 million (range: $7.3 to $24.4 million) in Quebec annually., Conclusions: From a healthcare payer perspective, a multifaceted intervention involving audits and feedback resulted in a small reduction in caesarean deliveries and important cost savings. Cost reductions are consistent with improved quality of care in intervention group hospitals., Trial Registration: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN95086407 . Registered on 23 October 2007.

Background: The rate of avoidable caesarean sections (CS) could be reduced through multifaceted strategies focusing on the involvement of health professionals and compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Quality improvements for CS (QICS) programmes (QICS) based on this approach, have been implemented in Canada and Spain., Objectives: Their objectives are as follows: 1) Toto identify clusters in each setting with similar results in terms of cost-consequences, 2) Toto investigate whether demographic, clinical or context characteristics can distinguish these clusters, and 3) Toto explore the implementation of QICS in the 2 regions, in order to identify factors that have been facilitators in changing practices and reducing the use of obstetric intervention, as well as the challenges faced by hospitals in implementing the recommendations., Methods: Descriptive study with a quantitative and qualitative approach. 1) Cluster analysis at patient level with data from 16 hospitals in Quebec (Canada) (n = 105,348) and 15 hospitals in Andalusia (Spain) (n = 64,760). The outcome measures are CS and costs. For the cost, we will consider the intervention, delivery and complications in mother and baby, from the hospital perspective. Cluster analysis will be used to identify participants with similar patterns of CS and costs based, and t tests will be used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of characteristics: Hospital level (academic status of hospital, level of care, supply and demand factors), patient level (mother age, parity, gestational age, previous CS, previous pathology, presentation of the baby, baby birth weight). 2) Analysis of in-depth interviews with obstetricians and midwives in hospitals where the QICS were implemented, to explore the differences in delivery-related practices, and the importance of the different constructs for positive or negative adherence to CPGs. Dimensions: political/management level, hospital level, health professionals, mothers and their birth partner., Discussion: This work sets out a new approach for programme evaluation, using different techniques to make it possible to take into account the specific context where the programmes were implemented.

Background The rate of avoidable caesarean sections (CS) could be reduced through multifaceted strategies focusing on the involvement of health professionals and compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Quality improvements for CS (QICS) programmes (QICS) based on this approach, have been implemented in Canada and Spain. Objectives Their objectives are as follows: 1) Toto identify clusters in each setting with similar results in terms of costconsequences, 2) Toto investigate whether demographic, clinical or context characteristics can distinguish these clusters, and 3) Toto explore the implementation of QICS in the 2 regions, in order to identify factors that have been facilitators in changing practices and reducing the use of obstetric intervention, as well as the challenges faced by hospitals in implementing the recommendations. Methods Descriptive study with a quantitative and qualitative approach. 1) Cluster analysis at patient level with data from 16 hospitals in Quebec (Canada) (n = 105,348) and 15 hospitals in Andalusia (Spain) (n = 64,760). The outcome measures are CS and costs. For the cost, we will consider the intervention, delivery and complications in mother and baby, from the hospital perspective. Cluster analysis will be used to identify participants with similar patterns of CS and costs based, and t tests will be used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of characteristics: Hospital level (academic status of hospital, level of care, supply and demand factors), patient level (mother age, parity, gestational age, previous CS, previous pathology, presentation of the baby, baby birth weight). 2) Analysis of in-depth interviews with obstetricians and midwives in hospitals where the QICS were implemented, to explore the differences in delivery-related practices, and the importance of the different constructs for positive or negative adherence to CPGs. Dimensions: political/management level, hospital level, health professionals, mothers and their birth partner. Discussion This work sets out a new approach for programme evaluation, using different techniques to make it possible to take into account the specific context where the programmes were implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with a previous caesarean delivery face a difficult choice in their next pregnancy: planning another caesarean or attempting vaginal delivery, both of which are associated with potential maternal and perinatal complications. This trial aimed to assess whether a multifaceted intervention, which promoted person-centred decision making and best practices, would reduce the risk of major perinatal morbidity among women with one previous caesarean delivery. We conducted an open, multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled trial of a multifaceted 2-year intervention in 40 hospitals in Quebec among women with one previous caesarean delivery, in which hospitals were the units of randomisation and women the units of analysis. Randomisation was stratified according to level of care, using blocked randomisation. Hospitals were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention group (implementation of best practices and provision of tools that aimed to support decision making about mode of delivery, including an estimation of the probability of vaginal delivery and an ultrasound estimation of the risk of uterine rupture), or the control group (no intervention). The primary outcome was a composite risk of major perinatal morbidity. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15346559. 21 281 eligible women delivered during the study period, from April 1, 2016 to Dec 13, 2019 (10 514 in the intervention group and 10 767 in the control group). None were lost to follow-up. There was a significant reduction in the rate of major perinatal morbidity from the baseline period to the intervention period in the intervention group as compared with the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] for incremental change over time, 0·72 [95% CI 0·52–0·99]; p=0·042; adjusted risk difference –1·2% [95% CI –2·0 to –0·1]). Major maternal morbidity was significantly reduced in the intervention group as compared with the control group (adjusted OR 0·54 [95% CI 0·33–0·89]; p=0·016). Minor perinatal and maternal morbidity, caesarean delivery, and uterine rupture rates did not differ significantly between groups. A multifaceted intervention supporting women in their choice of mode of delivery and promoting best practices resulted in a significant reduction in rates of major perinatal and maternal morbidity, without an increase in the rate of caesarean or uterine rupture. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, MOP-142448). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programs through mixed methods" is presented.