Use of Postpartum Hemorrhage Checklist during Vaginal Deliveries: A Quality Improvement Study.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1055/a-2282-8923
Katharine E Bruce, Shivani Desai, Kelly Reilly, Arianna Keil, Michelle Swanson, Benjamin Cobb, Katelin Zahn, Christine McKenzie, Elizabeth Coviello, Divya Mallampati, Kristin P Tully, Lavinia Kolarczyk, Shannon Maaske, Johanna Quist-Nelson
{"title":"Use of Postpartum Hemorrhage Checklist during Vaginal Deliveries: A Quality Improvement Study.","authors":"Katharine E Bruce, Shivani Desai, Kelly Reilly, Arianna Keil, Michelle Swanson, Benjamin Cobb, Katelin Zahn, Christine McKenzie, Elizabeth Coviello, Divya Mallampati, Kristin P Tully, Lavinia Kolarczyk, Shannon Maaske, Johanna Quist-Nelson","doi":"10.1055/a-2282-8923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) protocols improve patient safety and reduce utilization of blood products; however, few data exist on sustainability of PPH checklist use, how use affects care delivery, and variation of use among patient subgroups. This study aimed to (1) examine compliance with PPH checklist use during vaginal deliveries, (2) evaluate whether checklist use varied by patient and/or care team characteristics, and (3) evaluate whether checklist use was associated with increased use of recommended medications/interventions.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This was a quality improvement study performed from April 2021 through June 2023. A multidisciplinary team developed a revised PPH checklist and used quality improvement methodology to increase checklist use following vaginal birth. Data were collected from medical records and clinician survey. Control charts were generated to track checklist use and evaluate special cause variation. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to evaluate variation in medications/interventions and across subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> During the study period, there were 342 cases of PPH at the time of vaginal birth. The checklist was used in 67% of PPH cases during the 20-month period after implementation in a setting where no checklist was previously being used. We found no statistically significant differences in checklist use by patient or health care team characteristics. Use of tranexamic acid, carboprost, and misoprostol were significantly associated with checklist use.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> This study demonstrated successful implementation of a checklist protocol where no checklist was previously being used, with sustained use in an average of 67% of PPH cases over 20 months. Checklist use was consistent across subgroups and was associated with higher use of interventions shown to lower blood loss.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· Our study showed sustainability of PPH checklist use over a 20-month period.. · PPH checklist use was associated with increased use of interventions known to reduce blood loss.. · Checklist was used consistently across patient subgroups; may help address inequities in obstetric outcomes..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":"1973-1979"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2282-8923","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:  Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) protocols improve patient safety and reduce utilization of blood products; however, few data exist on sustainability of PPH checklist use, how use affects care delivery, and variation of use among patient subgroups. This study aimed to (1) examine compliance with PPH checklist use during vaginal deliveries, (2) evaluate whether checklist use varied by patient and/or care team characteristics, and (3) evaluate whether checklist use was associated with increased use of recommended medications/interventions.

Study design:  This was a quality improvement study performed from April 2021 through June 2023. A multidisciplinary team developed a revised PPH checklist and used quality improvement methodology to increase checklist use following vaginal birth. Data were collected from medical records and clinician survey. Control charts were generated to track checklist use and evaluate special cause variation. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to evaluate variation in medications/interventions and across subgroups.

Results:  During the study period, there were 342 cases of PPH at the time of vaginal birth. The checklist was used in 67% of PPH cases during the 20-month period after implementation in a setting where no checklist was previously being used. We found no statistically significant differences in checklist use by patient or health care team characteristics. Use of tranexamic acid, carboprost, and misoprostol were significantly associated with checklist use.

Conclusion:  This study demonstrated successful implementation of a checklist protocol where no checklist was previously being used, with sustained use in an average of 67% of PPH cases over 20 months. Checklist use was consistent across subgroups and was associated with higher use of interventions shown to lower blood loss.

Key points: · Our study showed sustainability of PPH checklist use over a 20-month period.. · PPH checklist use was associated with increased use of interventions known to reduce blood loss.. · Checklist was used consistently across patient subgroups; may help address inequities in obstetric outcomes..

阴道分娩时产后出血核对表的使用:质量改进研究。
背景:产后出血(PPH)规程可提高患者安全并减少血液制品的使用;然而,关于PPH核对表使用的可持续性、使用如何影响护理服务以及不同患者亚群之间的使用差异的数据很少:1)检查阴道分娩时使用 PPH 核对表的依从性;2)评估核对表的使用是否因患者和/或护理团队的特征而异;3)评估核对表的使用是否与推荐药物/干预措施的使用增加有关:这是一项从 2021 年 4 月到 2023 年 6 月进行的质量改进研究。一个多学科团队制定了经修订的 PPH 核对表,并使用质量改进方法来提高阴道分娩后核对表的使用率。数据来自医疗记录和临床医生调查。生成对照表以跟踪核对表的使用情况并评估特殊原因造成的差异。采用卡方检验和逻辑回归来评估药物/干预措施的差异以及不同亚组之间的差异:研究期间,共有 342 例阴道分娩 PPH 病例。在实施核对表的 20 个月期间,67% 的 PPH 病例使用了核对表,而在此前没有使用核对表的环境中,也有 67% 的病例使用了核对表。我们发现,核对表的使用情况与患者或医疗团队的特征没有明显的统计学差异。氨甲环酸、卡前列素和米索前列醇的使用与核对表的使用显著相关:本研究表明,在以前未使用核对表的情况下,成功实施了核对表方案,20 个月内平均有 67% 的 PPH 病例持续使用了核对表。核对表的使用在不同亚组中是一致的,并且与更多使用可降低失血量的干预措施有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信