Maternity Healthcare Worker Perspectives of Severe Acute Maternal Morbidity Recording, Reporting and Case Review in Queensland, Australia.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Joanne Frost, Edward Weaver, Leonie Callaway
{"title":"Maternity Healthcare Worker Perspectives of Severe Acute Maternal Morbidity Recording, Reporting and Case Review in Queensland, Australia.","authors":"Joanne Frost, Edward Weaver, Leonie Callaway","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic, multi-disciplinary review of Severe Acute Maternal Morbidity (SAMM) can improve maternal outcomes. Routinely collected data, collated into the Queensland SAMM Dashboard, may facilitate local case review. We wanted to understand how SAMMs are reviewed locally and how centrally collated data supports review processes.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The purpose of this survey was to assess local SAMM recording and review practices in Queensland.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional online survey, using multiple choice and free-text response formats, sampled multi-disciplinary health care workers (HCW) involved in SAMM review in Queensland public maternity units. Responses were analysed for content, with thematic analysis performed on free-text comments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty HCW responded from a mix of tertiary, regional and rural maternity facilities. HCW responses identified a lack of clarity around the terms 'maternal morbidity', 'SAMM' and 'Near-Miss'. HCW reported various approaches for recording and reviewing SAMM. The commonest structures were Root Cause Analysis and Human Error and Patient Safety incident analysis. Reviews commonly involved: patient safety teams (50%); staff involved in the case (45%); independent/external reviewers (40%) and hospital management (40%). Few responses (10%) indicated consumers were involved. 30%-80% reviewed the ACSQHC defined SAMM, 70% Near-Miss cases and up to 70% reviewed other severe maternal morbidity indicators. 20% of HCW stated lessons learned during reviews were shared with other hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In Queensland, we have found variability in: HCW understanding of SAMM definitions, how cases are recorded, reviewed and improvements facilitated. A standardised approach to SAMM review and collaboration to share lessons learned may benefit maternity care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13945","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Systematic, multi-disciplinary review of Severe Acute Maternal Morbidity (SAMM) can improve maternal outcomes. Routinely collected data, collated into the Queensland SAMM Dashboard, may facilitate local case review. We wanted to understand how SAMMs are reviewed locally and how centrally collated data supports review processes.

Aims: The purpose of this survey was to assess local SAMM recording and review practices in Queensland.

Materials and methods: A cross-sectional online survey, using multiple choice and free-text response formats, sampled multi-disciplinary health care workers (HCW) involved in SAMM review in Queensland public maternity units. Responses were analysed for content, with thematic analysis performed on free-text comments.

Results: Twenty HCW responded from a mix of tertiary, regional and rural maternity facilities. HCW responses identified a lack of clarity around the terms 'maternal morbidity', 'SAMM' and 'Near-Miss'. HCW reported various approaches for recording and reviewing SAMM. The commonest structures were Root Cause Analysis and Human Error and Patient Safety incident analysis. Reviews commonly involved: patient safety teams (50%); staff involved in the case (45%); independent/external reviewers (40%) and hospital management (40%). Few responses (10%) indicated consumers were involved. 30%-80% reviewed the ACSQHC defined SAMM, 70% Near-Miss cases and up to 70% reviewed other severe maternal morbidity indicators. 20% of HCW stated lessons learned during reviews were shared with other hospitals.

Conclusions: In Queensland, we have found variability in: HCW understanding of SAMM definitions, how cases are recorded, reviewed and improvements facilitated. A standardised approach to SAMM review and collaboration to share lessons learned may benefit maternity care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.
×
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