Hospital obstetric volume and maternal outcomes: Does hospital size matter?

Introduction

In recent decades, centralization of health care has resulted in a number of obstetric unit closures. While studies support better infant outcomes in larger facilities, few have investigated maternal outcomes. We investigated obstetric unit closures over time and whether obstetric volume is associated with onset of labor, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS).

Material and methods

All births registered in Sweden between 1992 and 2019 (Medical Birth Register, N = 2 931 140), linked with data on sociodemographic characteristics and maternal/infant diagnoses, were used to describe obstetric unit closures. After excluding congenital malformations, obstetric volume was categorized (low: 0-1999, medium: 2000-3999, high: ≥4000 births per year). Restricting to 2004 onwards (after most closures), the association between volume and onset of labor (spontaneous as reference) was estimated. Restricting to spontaneous, full-term (≥37 weeks gestation) cephalic births, we then investigated the association between volume and PPH and, after excluding planned cesarean sections, OASIS. Odds ratios from multilevel (logistic) models clustered by hospital were estimated.

Results

The 20 dissolved obstetric units (1992-2019) had relatively stable volume until their closure. Compared to the average, women birthing in the highest volume hospitals were older (31.3 years vs. 30.4) and a higher proportion had >12 years of education (57 vs. 51%). Compared to high-volume hospitals, there was no significant difference in labor starting by elective cesarean section or induction, rather than spontaneously, among low (OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73-1.06) and medium (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-1.01) volume hospitals. There were lower odds of PPH among low (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.85) and medium (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.97) volume hospitals. No significant association was found between obstetric volume and OASIS (low: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.18; medium: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05).

Conclusions

There was not a strong relationship between obstetric volume and maternal outcomes. Reduced odds of PPH for women birthing in smaller units may be due to triaging high-risk pregnancies to larger hospitals. While there was no significant association between obstetric volume and onset of labor or OASIS, other important factors related to closures, such as workload and overcrowding, should be investigated.

References:

• Christiansen T, Vrangbæk K. Hospital centralization and performance in Denmark‐ten years on. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2018;122:321‐328.
• Engjom HM, Morken NH, Norheim OF, Klungsøyr K. Availability and access in modern obstetric care: a retrospective population‐based study. BJOG. 2014;121:290‐299.
• Snowden JM, Cheng YW, Kontgis CP, Caughey AB. The association between hospital obstetric volume and perinatal outcomes in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(478):e1‐e7.
• Hemminki E, Heino A, Gissler M. Should births be centralised in higher level hospitals? Experiences from regionalised health care in Finland. BJOG. 2011;118:1186‐1195.
• Phibbs CS, Bronstein JM, Buxton E, Phibbs RH. The effects of patient volume and level of care at the hospital of birth on neonatal mortality. JAMA. 1996;2(276):1054‐1059.