Shared principles, local practice: an international survey of child death review systems.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Merve Tosyali, Jeanine Young, Joanna Jane Garstang
{"title":"Shared principles, local practice: an international survey of child death review systems.","authors":"Merve Tosyali, Jeanine Young, Joanna Jane Garstang","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2026-005019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Child death review (CDR) is the multiprofessional review of child deaths aiming to identify causes, risk factors and learning, with the aim of improving services and preventing future deaths.The objective of this study was to determine the range of current CDR practice internationally.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study used a descriptive comparative survey design to determine similarities and differences between CDR practices in different countries. A secure online questionnaire was developed by the CDR working group of the International Society for the Study and Prevention of Perinatal and Infant Death and distributed via international professional networks.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Professionals working in CDR in any country globally, contacted via email.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>27 professionals from 19 different countries participated in the study. To ensure data consistency, duplicate responses from the same region within countries were combined. A total of 20 responses from regions within 13 different countries were included.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Key measures included legal status of CDR systems, family involvement in CDR, legal protection for professionals, multidisciplinary team structure and CDR inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CDR was identified in 13 countries; 5 describing national CDR programmes and 8 with regional programmes. The aim of all CDR programmes was to prevent future deaths. Laws mandating CDR existed in 15 regions or countries; areas without legislative support reported challenges in conducting CDR. Parental involvement in CDR varied considerably between regions: six required parental consent for reviews, while nine did not inform parents about reviews. In 10 regions, all child deaths regardless of cause were included in CDR, while other programmes reviewed only selected deaths. In seven regions, professionals were provided with legal protection from malpractice claims to enable participation in the CDR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Common principles underpin effective CDR, providing a foundation for locally adapted approaches to improve systems and prevent future deaths.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13561003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2026-005019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Child death review (CDR) is the multiprofessional review of child deaths aiming to identify causes, risk factors and learning, with the aim of improving services and preventing future deaths.The objective of this study was to determine the range of current CDR practice internationally.

Design: This study used a descriptive comparative survey design to determine similarities and differences between CDR practices in different countries. A secure online questionnaire was developed by the CDR working group of the International Society for the Study and Prevention of Perinatal and Infant Death and distributed via international professional networks.

Setting: Professionals working in CDR in any country globally, contacted via email.

Participants: 27 professionals from 19 different countries participated in the study. To ensure data consistency, duplicate responses from the same region within countries were combined. A total of 20 responses from regions within 13 different countries were included.

Outcomes: Key measures included legal status of CDR systems, family involvement in CDR, legal protection for professionals, multidisciplinary team structure and CDR inclusion criteria.

Results: CDR was identified in 13 countries; 5 describing national CDR programmes and 8 with regional programmes. The aim of all CDR programmes was to prevent future deaths. Laws mandating CDR existed in 15 regions or countries; areas without legislative support reported challenges in conducting CDR. Parental involvement in CDR varied considerably between regions: six required parental consent for reviews, while nine did not inform parents about reviews. In 10 regions, all child deaths regardless of cause were included in CDR, while other programmes reviewed only selected deaths. In seven regions, professionals were provided with legal protection from malpractice claims to enable participation in the CDR.

Conclusions: Common principles underpin effective CDR, providing a foundation for locally adapted approaches to improve systems and prevent future deaths.

共同原则,地方实践:儿童死亡审查制度的国际调查。
目的:儿童死亡审查(CDR)是对儿童死亡的多专业审查,旨在确定原因、风险因素和学习情况,目的是改善服务和预防未来的死亡。本研究的目的是确定当前国际上CDR实践的范围。设计:本研究采用描述性比较调查设计来确定不同国家CDR实践的异同。国际围产期和婴儿死亡研究和预防学会的CDR工作组制定了一份安全的在线调查问卷,并通过国际专业网络分发。设置:全球任何国家从事CDR工作的专业人员,通过电子邮件联系。参与者:来自19个不同国家的27名专业人士参与了这项研究。为确保数据的一致性,对各国内部同一区域的重复答复进行了合并。共有来自13个不同国家的20份答复。结果:关键措施包括CDR制度的法律地位、家庭参与CDR、专业人员的法律保护、多学科团队结构和CDR纳入标准。结果:在13个国家发现了CDR;5份描述国家CDR规划,8份描述区域规划。所有CDR规划的目标都是预防未来的死亡。15个地区或国家存在强制性CDR法律;没有立法支持的地区报告了开展CDR的挑战。家长对CDR的参与在不同地区差异很大:6个地区要求家长同意审查,而9个地区没有通知家长审查。在10个区域,所有儿童死亡,不论原因,都列入了儿童死亡报告,而其他规划只审查了选定的死亡。在7个地区,专业人员获得法律保障,可免于医疗事故申索,使他们能够参与CDR。结论:共同原则是有效CDR的基础,为改进系统和预防未来死亡的因地制宜的方法提供了基础。
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
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书