Monitoring quality of obstetric care from hospital discharge databases: A Delphi survey to propose a new set of indicators based on maternal health outcomes.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
13
09
2018
accepted:
24
01
2019
entrez:
13
2
2019
pubmed:
13
2
2019
medline:
12
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most indicators proposed for assessing quality of care in obstetrics are process indicators and do not directly measure health effects, and cannot always be identified from routinely available databases. Our objective was to propose a set of indicators to assess the quality of hospital obstetric care from maternal morbidity outcomes identifiable in permanent hospital discharge databases. Various maternal morbidity outcomes potentially reflecting quality of obstetric care were first selected from a systematic literature review. Then a three-round Delphi consensus survey was conducted online from 11/2016 through 02/2017 among a French panel of 37 expert obstetricians, anesthetists-critical-care specialists, midwives, quality-of-care researchers, and user representatives. For a given maternal outcome, several definitions could be proposed and the indicator (i.e. corresponding rate) could be applied to all women or restricted to specific subgroup(s). Of the 49 experts invited to participate, 37 agreed. The response rate was 92% in the second round and 97% in the third. Finally, a set of 13 indicators was selected to assess the quality of hospital obstetric care: rates of uterine rupture, postpartum hemorrhage, transfusion incident, severe perineal lacerations, episiotomy, cesarean, cesarean under general anesthesia, post-cesarean site infection, anesthesia-related complications, postpartum pulmonary embolism, maternal readmission and maternal mortality. Six were considered in specific subgroups, with, for example, the postpartum hemorrhage rate assessed among all women and also among women at low risk of PPH. This Delphi process enabled us to define consensually a set of indicators to assess the quality of hospital obstetrics care from routine hospital data, based on maternal morbidity outcomes. Considering 6 of them in specific subgroups of women is especially interesting. These indicators, identifiable through codes used in international classifications, will be useful to monitor quality of care over time and across settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30753232
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211955
pii: PONE-D-18-26204
pmc: PMC6372226
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0211955Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jan;166(1):23-9
pubmed: 23069000
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Apr;90(4):295-304
pubmed: 21306336
BJOG. 2019 Feb;126(3):394-401
pubmed: 28755459
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;116(3):728-32
pubmed: 20733459
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;117(1):21-31
pubmed: 21173641
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2010 Sep;39(5):371-8
pubmed: 20598813
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Nov 28;111 Suppl 1:S53-65
pubmed: 14642320
Int J Qual Health Care. 2009 Jun;21(3):169-75
pubmed: 19359329
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Oct;94(10):1118-27
pubmed: 26222391
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jul;207(1):42.e1-17
pubmed: 22727347
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60663
pubmed: 23577143
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;64(9):1014-22
pubmed: 21330103
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017 Dec;45(12S):S8-S21
pubmed: 29113879
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;26(5):421-9
pubmed: 22882786
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;215(3):B8-B16
pubmed: 27418448
Anesth Analg. 2016 Sep;123(3):731-8
pubmed: 27387839
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;209(5):446.e1-446.e30
pubmed: 23891630
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012 Jun;162(2):160-4
pubmed: 22429477
BJOG. 2018 Nov;125(12):1612-1618
pubmed: 29770557
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006 Sep;32(9):497-505
pubmed: 17987873
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476
pubmed: 21694759