Authors' reply re: Intrapartum‐related perinatal deaths in births planned in midwifery‐led settings in Great Britain: findings and recommendations from the ESMiE confidential enquiry

Rowe, Rachel; Draper, Elizabeth S; Kenyon, Sara; Bevan, Charlotte L.; Dickens, Joanne; Forrester, Mandy; Scanlan, Rachel; Tuffnell, Derek; Kurinczuk, Jennifer J

doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16761

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Problems with intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) during labour have repeatedly been identified as a major area of preventable harm. [1][2][3] However, it has been remarkably difficult to secure improvement. 3 4 One explanation for the limited progress lies in the possibility that improvement efforts may have been misdirected, typically focused primarily on individual behaviours in relation to cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation 5 rather than the wider range of influences on risks, including systems, processes, decisions and actions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lamé,

Liberati,

Canham

et al. 2023

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProblems 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.MethodsHuman 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.ResultsCTG 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.ConclusionsCTG 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.

show abstract