Barriers and enablers to routine register data collection for newborns and mothers: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers need regular high-quality coverage data on care around the time of birth to accelerate progress for ending preventable maternal and newborn deaths and stillbirths. With increasing facility births, routine Health Management Information System (HMIS) data have potential to track coverage. Identifying barriers and enablers faced by frontline health workers recording HMIS source data in registers is important to improve data for use. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study was a mixed-methods observational study in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania to assess measurement validity for selected Every Newborn coverage indicators. We described data elements required in labour ward registers to track these indicators. To evaluate barriers and enablers for correct recording of data in registers, we designed three interview tools: a) semi-structured in-depth interview (IDI) guide b) semi-structured focus group discussion (FGD) guide, and c) checklist assessing care-to-documentation. We interviewed two groups of respondents (January 2018-March 2019): hospital nurse-midwives and doctors who fill ward registers after birth (n = 40 IDI and n = 5 FGD); and data collectors (n = 65). Qualitative data were analysed thematically by categorising pre-identified codes. Common emerging themes of barriers or enablers across all five hospitals were identified relating to three conceptual framework categories. RESULTS: Similar themes emerged as both barriers and enablers. First, register design was recognised as crucial, yet perceived as complex, and not always standardised for necessary data elements. Second, register filling was performed by over-stretched nurse-midwives with variable training, limited supervision, and availability of logistical resources. Documentation complexity across parallel documents was time-consuming and delayed because of low staff numbers. Complete data were valued more than correct data. Third, use of register data included clinical handover and monthly reporting, but little feedback was given from data users. CONCLUSION: Health workers invest major time recording register data for maternal and newborn core health indicators. Improving data quality requires standardised register designs streamlined to capture only necessary data elements. Consistent implementation processes are also needed. Two-way feedback between HMIS levels is critical to improve performance and accurately track progress towards agreed health goals.

Uterotonics for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of preventable maternal mortality worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends uterotonic administration for every woman after birth to prevent PPH. There are no standardised data collected in large-scale measurement platforms. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) is an observational study to assess the validity of measurement of maternal and newborn indicators, and this paper reports findings regarding measurement of coverage and quality for uterotonics. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study took place in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania, from July 2017 to July 2018. Clinical observers collected tablet-based, time-stamped data. We compared observation data for uterotonics to routine hospital register-records and women's report at exit-interview survey. We analysed the coverage and quality gap for timing and dose of administration. The register design was evaluated against gap analyses and qualitative interview data assessing the barriers and enablers to data recording and use. RESULTS: Observed uterotonic coverage was high in all five hospitals (> 99%, 95% CI 98.7-99.8%). Survey-report underestimated coverage (79.5 to 91.7%). "Don't know" replies varied (2.1 to 14.4%) and were higher after caesarean (3.7 to 59.3%). Overall, there was low accuracy in survey data for details of uterotonic administration (type and timing). Register-recorded coverage varied in four hospitals capturing uterotonics in a specific column (21.6, 64.5, 97.6, 99.4%). The average coverage measurement gap was 18.1% for register-recorded and 6.0% for survey-reported coverage. Uterotonics were given to 15.9% of women within the "right time" (1 min) and 69.8% within 3 min. Women's report of knowing the purpose of uterotonics after birth ranged from 0.4 to 64.9% between hospitals. Enabling register design and adequate staffing were reported to improve routine recording. CONCLUSIONS: Routine registers have potential to track uterotonic coverage - register data were highly accurate in two EN-BIRTH hospitals, compared to consistently underestimated coverage by survey-report. Although uterotonic coverage was high, there were gaps in observed quality for timing and dose. Standardisation of register design and implementation could improve data quality and data flow from registers into health management information reporting systems, and requires further assessment.