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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bacci, Alberta, Hodorogea, Stelian, Khachatryan, Henrik, Babojonova, Shohida, Irsa, Signe, Jansone, Maira, Dondiuc, Iurie, Matarazde, George, Lazdane, Gunta, Lazzerini, Marzia
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