4.6 Article

Monitoring quality of obstetric care from hospital discharge databases: A Delphi survey to propose a new set of indicators based on maternal health outcomes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211955

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Directorate [1358]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Most indicators proposed for assessing quality of care in obstetrics are process indicators and do not directly measure health effects, and cannot always be identified from routinely available databases. Our objective was to propose a set of indicators to assess the quality of hospital obstetric care from maternal morbidity outcomes identifiable in permanent hospital discharge databases. Methods Various maternal morbidity outcomes potentially reflecting quality of obstetric care were first selected from a systematic literature review. Then a three-round Delphi consensus survey was conducted online from 11/2016 through 02/2017 among a French panel of 37 expert obstetricians, anesthetists-critical-care specialists, midwives, quality-of-care researchers, and user representatives. For a given maternal outcome, several definitions could be proposed and the indicator (i.e. corresponding rate) could be applied to all women or restricted to specific subgroup(s). Results Of the 49 experts invited to participate, 37 agreed. The response rate was 92% in the second round and 97% in the third. Finally, a set of 13 indicators was selected to assess the quality of hospital obstetric care: rates of uterine rupture, postpartum hemorrhage, transfusion incident, severe perineal lacerations, episiotomy, cesarean, cesarean under general anesthesia, post-cesarean site infection, anesthesia-related complications, postpartum pulmonary embolism, maternal readmission and maternal mortality. Six were considered in specific subgroups, with, for example, the postpartum hemorrhage rate assessed among all women and also among women at low risk of PPH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据