ABSTRACT
Recent reviews into maternity safety in the United Kingdom (UK) have led to a paradigm shift in culture and policy around caesarean section (CS) rate monitoring. CS rates in the UK have risen considerably over the last few decades and, in this time, there has been national effort at the level of government to kerb such rises due to concerns about the associated morbidity, and the medicalisation of birth. However, recent findings from two landmark reviews raise concerns that the pursuit of low CS rates may have caused harm to patients in some instances, and this has led the UK government to recommend cessation of the use of total CS rates as performance metric for maternity services. Instead, it is proposed that such data be collected with use of the Robson classification. Ongoing appraisal of maternity safety will be required to evaluate the effect of these changes in future.
Subject(s)
Cesarean Section , Pregnancy , Humans , Female , United KingdomABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts. METHODS: Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified. RESULTS: After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.
Subject(s)
Disclosure , Maternal Health Services , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , State Medicine , Delivery of Health Care , CommunicationABSTRACT
RESUMEN Introducción: A nivel internacional existe un interés por disminuir el uso excesivo de tecnologías durante el parto, inclinándose hacia el desarrollo de modelos de atención personalizados y respetuosos. Chile concentra una de las tasas de cesáreas más altas en la región, muchas de ellas sin justificación clínica. En este contexto, un proyecto FONDEF desarrolló y probó un modelo de asistencia integral del parto (MASIP), considerando la participación activa de la mujer y familia y menos intervenciones innecesarias. Objetivo: evaluar la efectividad de MASIP en comparación con el cuidado estándar del parto. Metodología: A través de un diseño experimental aleatorizado y controlado, se compararon los resultados de calidad y seguridad de MASIP con la modalidad habitual de asistencia del sistema público en Santiago de Chile, para la población de embarazadas de bajo riesgo. Resultados: MASIP resultó ser más efectiva que la asistencia tradicional en términos de calidad con los indicadores de bienestar materno, disminución de medidas de conducción y de atención de parto innecesarias. La frecuencia de cesárea disminuyó durante el período del estudio en ambos grupos, en comparación con un registro histórico de la misma población. En términos de seguridad, los indicadores mantuvieron el estándar alcanzado en las últimas décadas en ambas modalidades, pese a que el modelo integral se caracteriza por tener menos intervención. Conclusión: MASIP es un modelo seguro y de mejor calidad para mujeres de bajo riesgo del sistema público de Chile que el cuidado estándar. Intervenciones futuras para mejorar la experiencia de las mujeres y familias, deben incluir en su diseño los componentes de MASIP.
ABSTRACT Introduction: Worldwide there is a need to reduce the use of excessive technology during childbirth. Consequently, there is an interest to develop respectful and personalized models of care. Chile has one of the highest C-section rates in the region, many of which are not needed. A FONDEF project developed and tested a comprehensive health care model in childbirth (MASIP), considering active participation of women and families and less unneeded clinical interventions. Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of MASIP in comparison with standard care. Methods: a randomized controlled experiment was conducted in one public hospital in Santiago Chile. Two arms were compared: MASIP vs. standard care. Low obstetric risk women were included. Variables of interest included quality and safety measures. Results: MASIP had better quality results, such as maternal wellbeing and less clinical interventions. During the study c-section was lower in both arms in comparison to a historical record of the same population. Safety outcomes were similar in both arms. Conclusion: MASIP is as safe as the standard care but it has better quality of care. Interventions to improve users' satisfaction and experience should consider the components of MASIP.
