35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Death audits and reviews for reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include reducing the global maternal mortality rate to less than 70 per 100,000 live births and ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under five years of age, in every country, by 2030. Maternal and perinatal death audit and review is widely recommended as an intervention to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality, and to improve quality of care, and could be key to attaining the SDGs. However, there is uncertainty over the most cost‐effective way of auditing and reviewing deaths: community‐based audit (verbal and social autopsy), facility‐based audits (significant event analysis (SEA)) or a combination of both (confidential enquiry).

          Objectives

          To assess the impact and cost‐effectiveness of different types of death audits and reviews in reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality.

          Search methods

          We searched the following from inception to 16 January 2019: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OvidSP, and five other databases. We identified ongoing studies using ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and searched reference lists of included articles.

          Selection criteria

          Cluster‐randomised trials, cluster non‐randomised trials, controlled before‐and‐after studies and interrupted time series studies of any form of death audit or review that involved reviewing individual cases of maternal, perinatal or child deaths, identifying avoidable factors, and making recommendations. To be included in the review, a study needed to report at least one of the following outcomes: perinatal mortality rate; stillbirth rate; neonatal mortality rate; mortality rate in children under five years of age or maternal mortality rate.

          Data collection and analysis

          We used standard Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We planned to perform a meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model but included studies were not homogeneous enough to make pooling their results meaningful.

          Main results

          We included two cluster‐randomised trials. Both introduced death review and audit as part of a multicomponent intervention, and compared this to current care. The QUARITE study (QUAlity of care, RIsk management, and TEchnology) concerned maternal death reviews in hospitals in West Africa, which had very high maternal and perinatal mortality rates. In contrast, the OPERA trial studied perinatal morbidity/mortality conferences (MMCs) in maternity units in France, which already had very low perinatal mortality rates at baseline.

          The OPERA intervention in France started with an outreach visit to brief obstetricians, midwives and anaesthetists on the national guidelines on morbidity/mortality case management, and was followed by a series of perinatal MMCs. Half of the intervention units were randomised to receive additional support from a clinical psychologist during these meetings. The OPERA intervention may make little or no difference to overall perinatal mortality (low certainty evidence), however we are uncertain about the effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality related to suboptimal care (very low certainty evidence).The intervention probably reduces perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.95; 165,353 births; moderate‐certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on stillbirth rate, neonatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, maternal mortality or adverse effects was not reported.

          The QUARITE intervention in West Africa focused on training leaders of hospital obstetric teams using the ALARM (Advances in Labour And Risk Management) course, which included one day of training about conducting maternal death reviews. The leaders returned to their hospitals, established a multidisciplinary committee and started auditing maternal deaths, with the support of external facilitators. The intervention probably reduces inpatient maternal deaths (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 191,167 deliveries; moderate certainty evidence) and probably also reduces inpatient neonatal mortality within 24 hours following birth (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90; moderate certainty evidence). However, QUARITE probably makes little or no difference to the inpatient stillbirth rate (moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the inpatient neonatal mortality rate after 24 hours, although the 95% confidence interval includes both benefit and harm (low certainty evidence). The QUARITE intervention probably increases the percent of women receiving high quality of care (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35 ‐ 2.57, moderate‐certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, or adverse effects was not reported.

          We did not find any studies that evaluated child death audit and review or community‐based death reviews or costs.

          Authors' conclusions

          A complex intervention including maternal death audit and review, as well as development of local leadership and training, probably reduces inpatient maternal mortality in low‐income country district hospitals, and probably slightly improves quality of care. Perinatal death audit and review, as part of a complex intervention with training, probably improves quality of care, as measured by perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care, in a high‐income setting where mortality was already very low.

          The WHO recommends that maternal and perinatal death reviews should be conducted in all hospitals globally. However, conducting death reviews in isolation may not be sufficient to achieve the reductions in mortality observed in the QUARITE trial. This review suggests that maternal death audit and review may need to be implemented as part of an intervention package which also includes elements such as training of a leading doctor and midwife in each hospital, annual recertification, and quarterly outreach visits by external facilitators to provide supervision and mentorship. The same may also apply to perinatal and child death reviews. More operational research is needed on the most cost‐effective ways of implementing maternal, perinatal and paediatric death reviews in low‐ and middle‐income countries.

          Plain language summary

          Reviewing deaths to prevent mothers and children from dying in the future

          What was the aim of this review?

          This Cochrane Review aimed to assess if 'death audits and reviews' (exploring why people have died and what could have been done to prevent these deaths) can prevent mothers and children from dying. The review authors collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found two studies.

          Key messages

          In a study from West African hospitals, where death rates among women and babies were high, reviewing deaths probably led to fewer deaths among pregnant women, new mothers and newborn babies. In French hospitals, where death rates among babies were low, it may have made little or no difference to death rates among newborn babies .

          What did the review study?

          Every year, millions of babies and children die. Many women also die while they are pregnant or giving birth, or shortly afterwards. More than half of these deaths happen in sub‐Saharan Africa.

          In many settings, health facilities or communities carry out 'death audits and reviews'. Here, people explore why a person died, what could have been done to avoid this death and what could be done better in the future.

          Death audits and reviews could potentially help improve the quality of care and prevent new deaths among mothers and children. But they could also cost money, be based on wrong information and take health workers away from other important tasks. If they are done badly, they could also make health workers feel blamed and humiliated, which could lead to poorer care. We need to find out if audits and reviews work and which approach works best.

          The review authors searched for studies where people from health facilities or the community carried out audits or reviews of deaths of pregnant women, women who had recently given birth, newborn babies or children under five years of age. The studies had to compare places or times where death audits and reviews were used to places or times where they were not.

          What were the main results of the review?

          The review authors found two relevant studies. Both studies assessed death audits at health facilities.

          The first study took place in West African hospitals with high death rates among women and babies. In this study, doctors and midwives were given extra training in pregnancy and childbirth care. This included one day of training in how to carry out death audits of women who had died during pregnancy or childbirth. They then returned to their hospitals and held audits at monthly meetings, with support from an expert from a different hospital. These hospitals were compared to hospitals without the training and audit meetings. For mothers and babies who were in hospital, this approach:

          ‐ probably led to fewer pregnant women and new mothers dying, and probably led to slightly better care for mothers;

          ‐ probably led to fewer babies dying during the first 24 hours. However, it may have made no difference to the number of babies who died after their first 24 hours, although the range where the actual effect may be (the "margin of error") includes both an increase and a decrease in the number of babies who died.

          ‐ probably made no difference to the number of stillbirths.

          The second study took place in French hospitals that already had very few deaths among newborns. In this study, doctors and midwives were given information about pregnancy and childbirth guidelines. They then held audit meetings in their hospitals where they discussed stillbirths and newborn babies who had become sick or died. These hospitals were compared to hospitals without the information and the meetings. This approach:

          ‐ may have made little or no difference to the number of babies who died during their first week

          ‐ probably reduced the number of babies who were sick because they received poor quality care.

          We don't know what the effect was on stillbirths or on the number of mothers or older babies and children who died because the study did not measure this.

          How up‐to‐date was this review?

          The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 16 January 2019.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

            In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain. To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes. For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change. Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints. We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions. Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quality of care, risk management, and technology in obstetrics to reduce hospital-based maternal mortality in Senegal and Mali (QUARITE): a cluster-randomised trial.

              Maternal mortality is higher in west Africa than in most industrialised countries, so the development and validation of effective interventions is essential. We did a trial to assess the effect of a multifaceted intervention to promote maternity death reviews and onsite training in emergency obstetric care in referral hospitals with high maternal mortality rates in Senegal and Mali. We did a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial, with hospitals as the units of randomisation and patients as the unit of analysis. 46 public first-level and second-level referral hospitals with more than 800 deliveries a year were enrolled, stratified by country and hospital type, and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=23) or the control group with no external intervention (n=23). All women who delivered in each of the participating facilities during the baseline and post-intervention periods were included. The intervention, implemented over a period of 2 years at the hospital level, consisted of an initial interactive workshop and quarterly educational clinically-oriented and evidence-based outreach visits focused on maternal death reviews and best practices implementation. The primary outcome was reduction of risk of hospital-based mortality. Analysis was by intention-to-treat and relied on the generalised estimating equations extension of the logistic regression model to account for clustering of women within hospitals. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number ISRCTN46950658. 191,167 patients who delivered in the participating hospitals were analysed (95,931 in the intervention groups and 95,236 in the control groups). Overall, mortality reduction in intervention hospitals was significantly higher than in control hospitals (odds ratio [OR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·98, p=0·0299), but this effect was limited to capital and district hospitals, which mainly acted as first-level referral hospitals in this trial. There was no effect in second-level referral (regional) hospitals outside the capitals (OR 1·02, 95% CI 0·79-1·31, p=0·89). No hospitals were lost to follow-up. Concrete actions were implemented comprehensively to improve quality of care in intervention hospitals. Regular visits by a trained external facilitator and onsite training can provide health-care professionals with the knowledge and confidence to make quality improvement suggestions during audit sessions. Maternal death reviews, combined with best practices implementation, are effective in reducing hospital-based mortality in first-level referral hospitals. Further studies are needed to determine whether the benefits of the intervention are generalisable to second-level referral hospitals. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.l.willcox@soton.ac.uk , merlinwillcox@doctors.org.uk
                Journal
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                14651858
                10.1002/14651858
                The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                1469-493X
                25 March 2020
                March 2020
                30 March 2020
                25 March 2020
                : 2020
                : 3
                : CD012982
                Affiliations
                University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre deptDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences Aldermoor CloseSouthamptonHampshireUKSO16 5ST
                University of Oxford deptNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences OxfordUK
                University of Southampton deptPrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine SouthamptonUKSO16 5ST
                University of Oxford deptBodleian Health Care Libraries Knowledge Centre, ORC Research Building, Old Road CampusOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7DQ
                Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine deptCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health Pembroke PlLiverpoolUKL3 5QA
                Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) deptFamily medicine and community practice MUST, PLOT 10‐18, KABALE ROADMbararaUganda1410, Mbarara
                Institut de recherche pour le développement, Paris Descartes University deptUMR 196 CEPED Faculté de Pharmacie, 4 avenue de l?ObservatoireParisFrance75006
                Article
                CD012982.pub2 CD012982
                10.1002/14651858.CD012982.pub2
                7093891
                32212268
                c91dea4d-42d3-48d3-80ab-de028db25647
                Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐Non‐Commercial Licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                Categories
                Implementation strategies
                Child health
                Effective practice & health systems
                Neonatal care
                Pregnancy & childbirth

                Comments

                Comment on this article