Why is safety in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring so hard? A qualitative study combining human factors/ergonomics and social science analysis.

Healthcare quality improvement Human factors Obstetrics and gynecology Qualitative research Social sciences

Journal

BMJ quality & safety
ISSN: 2044-5423
Titre abrégé: BMJ Qual Saf
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101546984

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 21 03 2023
accepted: 16 09 2023
medline: 10 11 2023
pubmed: 10 11 2023
entrez: 9 11 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Problems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk. Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method. CTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely. CTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Problems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk.
METHODS METHODS
Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method.
RESULTS RESULTS
CTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
CTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37945341
pii: bmjqs-2023-016144
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016144
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: TD: research and innovation lead for PROMPT Maternity Foundation.

Auteurs

Guillaume Lamé (G)

Laboratoire Génie Industriel, CentraleSupélec, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, THIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Elisa Giulia Liberati (EG)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, THIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Aneurin Canham (A)

Emergo by UL, Southampton, UK.

Jenni Burt (J)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, THIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Lisa Hinton (L)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Tim Draycott (T)

North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

Cathy Winter (C)

North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

Francesca Helen Dakin (FH)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Natalie Richards (N)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, THIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Lucy Miller (L)

University Division of Anaesthesia, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Janet Willars (J)

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Mary Dixon-Woods (M)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, THIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK director@thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk.

Classifications MeSH