4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of maternal death reviews at a rural hospital in Zambia: a mixed methods study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Maternal mortality in sub-Saharan Africa remains high despite programmatic efforts to improve maternal health. In 2007, the Zambian Ministry of Health mandated facility-based maternal death review (MDR) programs in line with World Health Organization recommendations. We assessed the impact of an [MDR program] at a district-level hospital in rural Zambia.

          Methods

          We conducted a mixed methods convergent study using hospital data on maternal mortality and audit reports of 106 maternal deaths from 2007 to 2011. To evaluate the overall impact of MDR on maternal mortality, we compared baseline (2007) to late (2010–11) post-intervention inpatient maternal mortality indicators. MDR committee reports were coded and dominant themes were extracted in a qualitative analysis. We assessed potential risk factors for maternal mortality in a before-and-after design comparing the periods 2008–09 and 2010–11.

          Results

          In-hospital maternal mortality declined from 23 per thousand live births in 2007 to 8 per thousand in 2010–11 ( P < 0.01). Maternal case fatality for puerperal sepsis and uterine rupture decreased significantly from 63 and 32% in 2007 to 10 and 9% in 2010–11 (P < 0.01). No significant reduction was seen in case fatality due to postpartum hemorrhage. Qualitative analysis of risk factors for maternal mortality revealed four core themes: standards of practice, health systems, accessibility, and patient factors. Specific risk factors included delayed referral, missed diagnoses, intra-hospital delays in care, low medication inventory, and medical error. We found no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of risk factors between the before-and-after periods.

          Conclusions

          Implementation of MDR was accompanied by a significant decrease in maternal mortality with reductions in maternal death from puerperal sepsis and uterine rupture, but not postpartum hemorrhage. Qualitative analysis of audit reports identified several modifiable risk factors within four core areas. Comparisons of potential explanatory factors did not show any differences over time. These results imply that MDR offers a means for hospitals to curtail maternal deaths, except deaths due to postpartum hemorrhage, suggesting additional interventions are needed. Documentation of MDR meetings provides an instrument to guide further quality improvements.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context.

          The Prevention of Maternal Mortality Program is a collaborative effort of Columbia University's Center for Population and Family Health and multidisciplinary teams of researchers from Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Program goals include dissemination of information to those concerned with preventing maternal deaths. This review, which presents findings from a broad body of research, is part of that activity. While there are numerous factors that contribute to maternal mortality, we focus on those that affect the interval between the onset of obstetric complication and its outcome. If prompt, adequate treatment is provided, the outcome will usually be satisfactory; therefore, the outcome is most adversely affected by delayed treatment. We examine research on the factors that: (1) delay the decision to seek care; (2) delay arrival at a health facility; and (3) delay the provision of adequate care. The literature clearly indicates that while distance and cost are major obstacles in the decision to seek care, the relationships are not simple. There is evidence that people often consider the quality of care more important than cost. These three factors--distance, cost and quality--alone do not give a full understanding of decision-making process. Their salience as obstacles is ultimately defined by illness-related factors, such as severity. Differential use of health services is also shaped by such variables as gender and socioeconomic status. Patients who make a timely decision to seek care can still experience delay, because the accessibility of health services is an acute problem in the developing world. In rural areas, a woman with an obstetric emergency may find the closest facility equipped only for basic treatments and education, and she may have no way to reach a regional center where resources exist. Finally, arriving at the facility may not lead to the immediate commencement of treatment. Shortages of qualified staff, essential drugs and supplies, coupled with administrative delays and clinical mismanagement, become documentable contributors to maternal deaths. Findings from the literature review are discussed in light of their implications for programs. Options for health programs are offered and examples of efforts to reduce maternal deaths are presented, with an emphasis on strategies to mobilize and adapt existing resources.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

            Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact. To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011). Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included. All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors. We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention. Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Malaria in pregnancy: pathogenesis and immunity.

              Understanding of the biological basis for susceptibility to malaria in pregnancy was recently advanced by the discovery that erythrocytes infected with Plasmodium falciparum accumulate in the placenta through adhesion to molecules such as chondroitin sulphate A. Antibody recognition of placental infected erythrocytes is dependent on sex and gravidity, and could protect from malaria complications. Moreover, a conserved parasite gene-var2csa-has been associated with placental malaria, suggesting that its product might be an appropriate vaccine candidate. By contrast, our understanding of placental immunopathology and how this contributes to anaemia and low birthweight remains restricted, although inflammatory cytokines produced by T cells, macrophages, and other cells are clearly important. Studies that unravel the role of host response to malaria in pathology and protection in the placenta, and that dissect the relation between timing of infection and outcome, could allow improved targeting of preventive treatments and development of a vaccine for use in pregnant women.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jeanbertinkabuya@gmail.com
                Journal
                Int J Equity Health
                Int J Equity Health
                International Journal for Equity in Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-9276
                9 July 2020
                9 July 2020
                2020
                : 19
                : 119
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.420155.7, Department of Clinical Sciences, , Tropical Diseases Research Centre, ; Ndola, Zambia
                [2 ]Saint Paul’s General Hospital, Nchelenge, Zambia
                [3 ]Nchelenge District Health Office, Nchelenge, Zambia
                [4 ]GRID grid.420155.7, Department of Public Health, , Tropical Diseases Research Centre, ; Ndola, Zambia
                [5 ]GRID grid.11505.30, ISNI 0000 0001 2153 5088, Unit of Health Services Organization, Department of Public Health, , Institute of Tropical Medicine, ; Antwerp, Belgium
                [6 ]GRID grid.21107.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, ; Baltimore, MD USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.21107.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, ; Baltimore, MD USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5615-6440
                Article
                1185
                10.1186/s12939-020-01185-5
                7350714
                32646431
                36735062-38a2-4613-a763-c8cb90c51940
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 21 February 2020
                : 4 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (NL)
                Award ID: 0000000000
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (US)
                Award ID: KL2TR003099
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                maternal health,hospital epidemiology,quality improvement,rural health,zambia
                Health & Social care
                maternal health, hospital epidemiology, quality improvement, rural health, zambia

                Comments

                Comment on this article