Severe maternal morbidity and mortality have been rising in the United States. To begin a national effort to reduce morbidity, a specific call to identify all pregnant and postpartum women experiencing admission to an intensive care unit or receipt of 4 or more units of blood for routine review has been made. While advocating for review of these cases, no specific guidance for the review process was provided. Therefore, the aim of this expert opinion is to present guidelines for a standardized severe maternal morbidity interdisciplinary review process to identify systems, professional, and facility factors that can be ameliorated, with the overall goal of improving institutional obstetric safety and reducing severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant and recently pregnant women. This opinion was developed by a multidisciplinary working group that included general obstetrician–gynecologists, maternal–fetal medicine subspecialists, certified nurse–midwives, and registered nurses all with experience in maternal mortality reviews. A process for standardized review of severe maternal morbidity addressing committee organization, review process, medical record abstraction and assessment, review culture, data management, review timing, and review confidentiality is presented. Reference is made to a sample severe maternal morbidity abstraction and assessment form.
Introduction: Technology decision support with tailored patient education has the potential to improve maternal and child health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to develop StartSmart, a mobile health (mHealth) intervention to support evidence-based prenatal screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for risk and protective factors in pregnancy. Methods:StartSmart was developed using Davis' Technology Acceptance Model with end users engaged in the technology development from initial concept to clinical testing. The prototype was developed based upon the current guidelines, focus group findings, and consultation with patient and provider experts. The prototype was then alpha tested by clinicians and patients. Clinicians were asked to give feedback on the screening questions, treatment, brief motivational interviewing, referral algorithms, and the individualized education materials. Clinicians were asked about the feasibility of using the materials to provide brief intervention or referral to treatment. Patients were interviewed using the think aloud technique, a cognitive engineering method used to inform the design of mHealth interventions. Interview questions were guided by the Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment theory and attention to usefulness and usability.Results: Expert clinicians provided guidance on the screening instruments, resources, and practice guidelines. Clinicians suggested identifying specific prenatal visits for the screening (first prenatal visit, 28-week visit, and 36-week visit). Patients reported that the tablet-based screening was useful to promote adherence to guidelines and provided suggestions for improvement including more information on the diabetic diet and more resources for diabetes. During alpha testing, participants commented on navigability and usability. Patients reported favorable responses about question wording and ease of use.Discussion: Clinicians reported the use of mHealth to screen and counsel pregnant patients on risk and protective factors facilitated their ability to provide comprehensive care.
Introduction The Covid-19 pandemic and statewide stay-at-home orders abruptly impacted clinic operations necessitating the incorporation of telehealth. Uptake of telehealth is multifaceted. Clinician acceptance is critical for success. The aim of this study is to understand maternity care providers’ acceptance of and barriers to providing virtual maternity care. Methods Providers completed a baseline and 3-month follow up survey incorporating the validated implementation outcome measures, feasibility of intervention measure (FIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM), and acceptability of intervention measure (AIM).Statistical analyses evaluated differences between groups in this small convenience sample to understand trends in perceptions and barriers to telehealth. While not intended to be a qualitative study, a code tree was used to evaluate open-ended responses. Results Baseline response rate 50.4% (n = 56). Follow-up retention/response-rate 68% (n = 38). Most reported no prior telehealth experience. 94% agreed with the FIM, decreasing to 92% at follow-up. 80% (prenatal) and 84% (postpartum) agreed with the IAM. Agreement with the AIM increased to 83%.Differences in the FIM and AIM found by division (p < 0.01) and years in practice (p < 0.01). Identified barriers included patient lack of essential tools, inadequate clinic support, and patients prefer in person visits. Themes that emerged included barriers, needs, and areas of success. Discussion Telehealth was found to be feasible, appropriate, and acceptable across provider types and divisions. Improving patient/provider access to quality equipment is imperative. Future research must address how and when to incorporate telehealth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.