Cargando…
What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan
OBJECTIVES: The maternal near-miss case review (NMCR) cycle is a type of clinical audit aiming at improving quality of maternal healthcare by discussing near-miss cases. In several countries this approach has been introduced and supported by WHO and partners since 2004, but information on the qualit...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898291/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29654004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017696 |
_version_ | 1783314105282592768 |
---|---|
author | Bacci, Alberta Hodorogea, Stelian Khachatryan, Henrik Babojonova, Shohida Irsa, Signe Jansone, Maira Dondiuc, Iurie Matarazde, George Lazdane, Gunta Lazzerini, Marzia |
author_facet | Bacci, Alberta Hodorogea, Stelian Khachatryan, Henrik Babojonova, Shohida Irsa, Signe Jansone, Maira Dondiuc, Iurie Matarazde, George Lazdane, Gunta Lazzerini, Marzia |
author_sort | Bacci, Alberta |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The maternal near-miss case review (NMCR) cycle is a type of clinical audit aiming at improving quality of maternal healthcare by discussing near-miss cases. In several countries this approach has been introduced and supported by WHO and partners since 2004, but information on the quality of its implementation is missing. This study aimed at evaluating the quality of the NMCR implementation in selected countries within WHO European Region. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: Twenty-three maternity units in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova and Uzbekistan. ASSESSMENT TOOLS: A predefined checklist including 50 items, according to WHO methodology. Quality in the NMCR implementation was defined by summary scores ranging from 0 (totally inappropriate) to 3 (appropriate). RESULTS: Quality of the NMCR implementation was heterogeneous among different countries, and within the same country. Overall, the first part of the audit cycle (from case identification to case analysis) was fairly well performed (mean score 2.00, 95% CI 1.94 to 2.06), with the exception of the ‘inclusion of users’ views’ (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22), while the second part (developing recommendations, implementing them and ensuring quality) was poorly performed (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22). Each country had at least one champion facility, where quality of the NMCR cycle was acceptable. Quality of the implementation was not associated with its duration. Gaps in implementation were of technical, organisational and attitudinal nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring quality in the NMCR may be difficult but achievable. The high heterogeneity in results within the same country suggests that quality of the NMCR implementation depends, to a large extent, from hospital factors, including staff’s commitment, managerial support and local coordination. Efforts should be put in preventing and mitigating common barriers that hamper successful NMCR implementation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5898291 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58982912018-04-16 What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan Bacci, Alberta Hodorogea, Stelian Khachatryan, Henrik Babojonova, Shohida Irsa, Signe Jansone, Maira Dondiuc, Iurie Matarazde, George Lazdane, Gunta Lazzerini, Marzia BMJ Open Global Health OBJECTIVES: The maternal near-miss case review (NMCR) cycle is a type of clinical audit aiming at improving quality of maternal healthcare by discussing near-miss cases. In several countries this approach has been introduced and supported by WHO and partners since 2004, but information on the quality of its implementation is missing. This study aimed at evaluating the quality of the NMCR implementation in selected countries within WHO European Region. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: Twenty-three maternity units in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova and Uzbekistan. ASSESSMENT TOOLS: A predefined checklist including 50 items, according to WHO methodology. Quality in the NMCR implementation was defined by summary scores ranging from 0 (totally inappropriate) to 3 (appropriate). RESULTS: Quality of the NMCR implementation was heterogeneous among different countries, and within the same country. Overall, the first part of the audit cycle (from case identification to case analysis) was fairly well performed (mean score 2.00, 95% CI 1.94 to 2.06), with the exception of the ‘inclusion of users’ views’ (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22), while the second part (developing recommendations, implementing them and ensuring quality) was poorly performed (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22). Each country had at least one champion facility, where quality of the NMCR cycle was acceptable. Quality of the implementation was not associated with its duration. Gaps in implementation were of technical, organisational and attitudinal nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring quality in the NMCR may be difficult but achievable. The high heterogeneity in results within the same country suggests that quality of the NMCR implementation depends, to a large extent, from hospital factors, including staff’s commitment, managerial support and local coordination. Efforts should be put in preventing and mitigating common barriers that hamper successful NMCR implementation. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5898291/ /pubmed/29654004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017696 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Global Health Bacci, Alberta Hodorogea, Stelian Khachatryan, Henrik Babojonova, Shohida Irsa, Signe Jansone, Maira Dondiuc, Iurie Matarazde, George Lazdane, Gunta Lazzerini, Marzia What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan |
title | What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan |
title_full | What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan |
title_fullStr | What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan |
title_full_unstemmed | What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan |
title_short | What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan |
title_sort | what is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in who european region? cross-sectional study in armenia, georgia, latvia, republic of moldova and uzbekistan |
topic | Global Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898291/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29654004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017696 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baccialberta whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT hodorogeastelian whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT khachatryanhenrik whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT babojonovashohida whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT irsasigne whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT jansonemaira whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT dondiuciurie whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT matarazdegeorge whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT lazdanegunta whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan AT lazzerinimarzia whatisthequalityofthematernalnearmisscasereviewsinwhoeuropeanregioncrosssectionalstudyinarmeniageorgialatviarepublicofmoldovaanduzbekistan |