Do Not Use Hierarchical Logistic Regression Models with Low-incidence Outcome Data to Compare Anesthesiologists in Your Department

Health equity research in obstetric anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Health equity is an important priority for obstetric anesthesia, but describing disparities in perinatal care process and health outcome is insufficient to achieve this goal. Conceptualizing and framing disparity is a prerequisite to pose meaningful research questions. We emphasize the need to hypothesize and test which mechanisms and drivers are instrumental for disparities in perinatal processes and outcomes, in order to target, test and refine effective countermeasures.

RECENT FINDINGS

With an emphasis on methodology and measurement, we sketch how health systems and disparity research may advance maternal health equity by narrating, conceptualizing, and investigating social determinants of health as key drivers of perinatal disparity, by identifying the granular mechanism of this disparity, by making the economic case to address them, and by testing specific interventions to advance obstetric health equity.

SUMMARY

Measuring social determinants of health and meaningful perinatal processes and outcomes precisely and accurately at the individual, family, community/neighborhood level is a prerequisite for healthcare disparity research. A focus on elucidating the precise mechanism driving disparity in processes of obstetric care would inform a more rational effort to promote health equity. Implementation scientists should rigorously investigate in prospective trials, which countermeasures are most efficient and effective in mitigating perinatal outcome disparities.

Association between leniency of anesthesiologists when evaluating certified registered nurse anesthetists and when evaluating didactic lectures

Daily evaluations of certified registered nurse anesthetists' (CRNAs') work habits by anesthesiologists should be adjusted for rater leniency. The current study tested the hypothesis that there is a pairwise association by rater between leniencies of evaluations of CRNAs' daily work habits and of didactic lectures. The historical cohorts were anesthesiologists' evaluations over 53 months of CRNAs' daily work habits and 65 months of didactic lectures by visiting professors and faculty. The binary endpoints were the Likert scale scores for all 6 and 10 items, respectively, equaling the maximums of 5 for all items, or not. Mixed effects logistic regression estimated the odds of each ratee performing above or below average adjusted for rater leniency. Bivariate errors in variables least squares linear regression estimated the association between the leniency of the anesthesiologists' evaluations of work habits and didactic lectures. There were 29/107 (27%) raters who were more severe in their evaluations of CRNAs' work habits than other anesthesiologists (two-sided P < 0.01); 34/107 (32%) raters were more lenient. When evaluating lectures, 3/81 (4%) raters were more severe and 8/81 (10%) more lenient. Among the 67 anesthesiologists rating both, leniency (or severity) for work habits was not associated with that for lectures (P = 0.90, unitless slope between logits 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.30). Rater leniency is of large magnitude when making daily clinical evaluations, even when using a valid and psychometrically reliable instrument. Rater leniency was context dependent, not solely a reflection of raters' personality or rating style.