Implementation of an Interprofessional Team Review of Adverse Events in Obstetrics Using a Standardized Computer Tool: A Mixed Methods Study

Murray‐Davis, Beth; McDonald, Helen; Cross-Sudworth, Fiona; Dore, Sharon; Marrin, Michael; DeSantis, J. Angelo; Sabatino, Lisa; DeFrance, Bryon; Leyland, Nicholas; Gardosi, Jason; Hutton, Eileen K.; McDonald, Sarah D.

doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2015.12.011

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This sustained focus on self-reported data is not surprising given that such data is relatively inexpensive and inclusive (usually providing feedback from all participants of an interprofessional activity). It was encouraging, however, to see that interprofessional studies are increasingly combining survey and interview data to provide breadth as well as depth of empirical insights (e.g., Murray-Davis et al, 2016). Nevertheless, such work is limited in providing individuals' impressions about their involvement in IPE/IPP activities that do not necessarily relate to actual collaborative actions/interactions that have occurred.…”

Section: Now…mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: An update

Reeves

2016

Journal of Interprofessional Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Now…mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: An update

Reeves

2016

Journal of Interprofessional Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The updated search in December 2019 produced no new studies. 29 full-text papers were assessed against the inclusion criteria: 15 were included (17,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43) and 14 excluded (20,(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56). A further six potentially relevant papers were identified from the reference lists of the included studies (12,(57)(58)(59)(60)(61), four of which were included (12,57,58,61), resulting in 19 included studies in total (12, 17, 30-37, 39-43, 57, 58, 61, 62) (Figure 1).…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health workers’ views on audit in maternal and newborn healthcare in LMICs: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Rousseva

Kammath

Tancred

et al. 2020

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify and summarise health workers' views on the use of audit as a method to improve the quality of maternal and newborn healthcare in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods:We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. PubMed, CINAHL, and Global Health databases were searched using keywords, synonyms and MeSH headings for 'audit', 'views' and 'health workers' to find papers that used qualitative methods to explore health workers' views on audit in LMICs. Titles and abstracts were then screened for inclusion. The remaining full-text papers were then screened. The final included papers were quality assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for qualitative research. Data on audit type and health workers' perceptions were extracted and analysed using thematic synthesis.Results: 19 papers were included in the review, most from sub-Saharan Africa. Health workers generally held favourable views of audit and expressed dedication to the process. Similarly, they described positive experiences conducting audit. The main barriers to implementing audit were the presence of a blame culture, inadequate training and the lack of time and resources to conduct audit. Health workers' motivation and dedication to the audit process helped to overcome such barriers. Conclusions: Health workers are dedicated to the process of audit, but must be supported with training, leadership and adequate resources to use it. Decision-makers and technical partners supporting audit should focus on improving audit training and finding ways to conduct audit without requiring too much staff time.

show abstract

Perinatal mortality audits and reporting of perinatal deaths: systematic review of outcomes and barriers

Gutman

Harty

O’Donoghue

et al. 2022

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Perinatal deaths are a devastating experience for all families and healthcare professionals involved. Audit of perinatal mortality (PNM) is essential to better understand the factors associated with perinatal death, to identify key deficiencies in healthcare provision and should be utilised to improve the quality of perinatal care. However, barriers exist to successful audit implementation and few countries have implemented national perinatal audit programs. Content We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and EBSCO host, including Medline, Academic Search Complete and CINAHL Plus databases for articles that were published from 1st January 2000. Articles evaluating perinatal mortality audits or audit implementation, identifying risk or care factors of perinatal mortality through audits, in middle and/or high-income countries were considered for inclusion in this review. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. Incomplete datasets, nonstandard audit methods and classifications, and inadequate staff training were highlighted as barriers to PNM reporting and audit implementation. Failure in timely detection and management of antenatal maternal and fetal conditions and late presentation or failure to escalate care were the most common substandard care factors identified through audit. Overall, recommendations for perinatal audit focused on standardised audit tools and training of staff. Overall, the implementation of audit recommendations remains unclear. Summary This review highlights barriers to audit practices and emphasises the need for adequately trained staff to participate in regular audit that is standardised and thorough. To achieve the goal of reducing PNM, it is crucial that the audit cycle is completed with continuous re-evaluation of recommended changes.

show abstract

Implementation of an Interprofessional Team Review of Adverse Events in Obstetrics Using a Standardized Computer Tool: A Mixed Methods Study

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: An update

Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: An update

Health workers’ views on audit in maternal and newborn healthcare in LMICs: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Perinatal mortality audits and reporting of perinatal deaths: systematic review of outcomes and barriers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About