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.

产妇保健工作者的观点严重急性产妇发病率记录,报告和病例回顾在昆士兰,澳大利亚。
背景:对严重急性产妇发病率(SAMM)进行系统的、多学科的审查可以改善产妇结局。定期收集的数据,整理到昆士兰州SAMM仪表板,可以促进当地病例审查。我们希望了解如何在本地审查samm,以及集中整理的数据如何支持审查过程。目的:本调查的目的是评估昆士兰州当地的SAMM记录和审查做法。材料和方法:一项横断面在线调查,使用多项选择和自由文本回答格式,抽样了昆士兰州公共妇产单位参与SAMM审查的多学科卫生保健工作者(HCW)。对回应的内容进行分析,对自由文本评论进行专题分析。结果:来自三级、区域和农村妇产机构的20家妇幼保健中心作出了回应。妇幼保健中心的答复指出,“产妇发病率”、“产妇死亡率”和“未遂”等术语缺乏明确性。HCW报告了记录和审查SAMM的各种方法。最常见的结构是根本原因分析、人为错误和患者安全事件分析。通常涉及的审查:患者安全小组(50%);参与案件的工作人员(45%);独立/外部审稿人(40%)和医院管理(40%)。很少有回应(10%)表示消费者参与其中。30%-80%的人审查了ACSQHC定义的SAMM, 70%的人审查了未遂病例,高达70%的人审查了其他严重孕产妇发病率指标。20%的HCW表示与其他医院分享了审查期间的经验教训。结论:在昆士兰州,我们发现HCW对SAMM定义的理解存在差异,如何记录、审查病例并促进改进。采用标准化的SAMM审查方法和合作分享经验教训可能有利于孕产妇保健。
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
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