Reporting and conducting patient journey mapping research in healthcare: A scoping review.

AIM: To identify how patient journey mapping is being undertaken and reported. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature was undertaken using JBI guidance. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched in July 2021 (16th-21st), including Ovid's Medline, Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection, the Directory of Open Access Journals; Informit and; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible articles included peer-reviewed literature documenting journey mapping methodologies and studies conducted in healthcare services. Reviewers used Covidence to screen titles and abstracts of located sources, and to screen full-text articles. A table was used to extract data and synthesize results. RESULTS: Eighty-one articles were included. An acceleration of patient journey mapping research was observed, with 76.5% (n = 62) of articles published since 2015. Diverse mapping approaches were identified. Reporting of studies was inconsistent and largely non-adherent with relevant, established reporting guidelines. CONCLUSION: Patient journey mapping is a relatively novel approach for understanding patient experiences and is increasingly being adopted. There is variation in process details reported. Considerations for improving reporting standards are provided. IMPACT: Patient journey mapping is a rapidly growing approach for better understanding how people enter, experience and exit health services. This type of methodology has significant potential to inform new, patient centred models of care and facilitate clinicians, patients and health professionals to better understand gaps and strategies in health services. The synthesised results of this review alert researchers to options available for journey mapping research and provide preliminary guidance for elevating reporting quality.

Effectiveness of neonatal "near miss" audits in reducing perinatal morbidity and mortality: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will assess the effectiveness of neonatal near-miss audits in reducing perinatal mortality and morbidity, as implemented in health care facilities. INTRODUCTION: Every year, 2.5 million newborns die and 2.6 million more are stillborn worldwide. While many perinatal deaths are preventable, their reduction has been markedly slower than the decline of maternal or child mortality rates. It is hypothesized that neonatal near miss is part of the spectrum of stillbirth-neonatal death and that auditing these cases might reduce perinatal mortality and morbidity. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider neonatal near-miss audits implemented in health care facilities worldwide. Randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series, case-control, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series will be included. Conference abstracts, letters, studies duplicating validation data from previous studies, gray literature, and unpublished studies will be excluded. METHODS: Using the JBI guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of effectiveness, the review will search the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, and SciELO. No publication date or language limits will be imposed. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, assessing methodological quality with the JBI critical appraisal tools. GRADE will be used to assess the confidence in the findings. Covidence will be used for data extraction and management. A meta-analysis will be performed if the selected studies are sufficiently homogeneous. If not, the results will be discussed as a narrative synthesis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42021224090).

Pregnancy after loss during the COVID19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Rapid changes to how maternity health care is delivered has occurred in many countries across the globe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maternity care provisions have been challenged attempting to balance the needs and safety of pregnant women and their care providers. Women experiencing a pregnancy after loss (PAL) during these times face particularly difficult circumstances. AIM: In this paper we highlight the situation in three high income countries (Australia, Ireland and USA) and point to the need to remember the unique and challenging circumstances of these PAL families. We suggest new practices may be deviating from established evidence-based guidelines and outline the potential ramifications of these changes. FINDINGS: Recommendations for health care providers are suggested to bridge the gap between the necessary safety requirements due to the pandemic, the role of the health care provider, and the needs of families experiencing a pregnancy after loss. DISCUSSION: Changes to practices i.e. limiting the number of antenatal appointments and access to a support person may have detrimental effects on both mother, baby, and their family. However, new guidelines in maternity care practices developed to account for the pandemic have not necessarily considered women experiencing pregnancy after loss. CONCLUSION: Bereaved mothers and their families experiencing a pregnancy after loss should continue to be supported during the COVID-19 pandemic to limit unintended consequences.