Skip to main content
AkademIndex

Products

For developers

AkademBasesoonOpen API for the ecosystem
Latin
English
Article

What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan

Alberta BacciWHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, ItalyStelian HodorogeaState Medical and Pharmaceutical University "N. Testemitanu", Chisinau, MoldovaHenrik KhachatryanWHO Country Office in Armenia, Yerevan, ArmeniaShohida BabojonovaRepublican Perinatal Center, Tashkent, UzbekistanSigne IrsaPauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, LatviaMaira JansoneRiga Stradins University, Riga, LatviaDondiuc IurieGeorge MatarazdeUNFPA Country Office, Tbilisi, GeorgiaGunta LazdāneDivision of Noncommunicable Diseases and Promoting Health through the Life-course, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, DenmarkMarzia LazzeriniWHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy
BMJ Openjournal2018en
ABI

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The maternal near-miss case review (NMCR) cycle is a type of clinical audit aiming at improving quality of maternal healthcare by discussing near-miss cases. In several countries this approach has been introduced and supported by WHO and partners since 2004, but information on the quality of its implementation is missing. This study aimed at evaluating the quality of the NMCR implementation in selected countries within WHO European Region. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: Twenty-three maternity units in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova and Uzbekistan. ASSESSMENT TOOLS: A predefined checklist including 50 items, according to WHO methodology. Quality in the NMCR implementation was defined by summary scores ranging from 0 (totally inappropriate) to 3 (appropriate). RESULTS: Quality of the NMCR implementation was heterogeneous among different countries, and within the same country. Overall, the first part of the audit cycle (from case identification to case analysis) was fairly well performed (mean score 2.00, 95% CI 1.94 to 2.06), with the exception of the 'inclusion of users' views' (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22), while the second part (developing recommendations, implementing them and ensuring quality) was poorly performed (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22). Each country had at least one champion facility, where quality of the NMCR cycle was acceptable. Quality of the implementation was not associated with its duration. Gaps in implementation were of technical, organisational and attitudinal nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring quality in the NMCR may be difficult but achievable. The high heterogeneity in results within the same country suggests that quality of the NMCR implementation depends, to a large extent, from hospital factors, including staff's commitment, managerial support and local coordination. Efforts should be put in preventing and mitigating common barriers that hamper successful NMCR implementation.

Topics

Identifiers

Citations and references

Cited by 029 references
Metrics — AkademScholar · Coming soon