ArticleQuality & safety in health care2006
Do panels vary when assessing intrapartum adverse events? The reproducibility of assessments by hospital risk management groups.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA national audit project, Scotland-wide Learning from Intrapartum Critical Events (SLICE), included local assessment of quality of care in cases of perinatal death and neonatal encephalopathy due to intrapartum events. Concerns had been raised about interobserver variation in case assessment by different panels. We therefore studied the extent of agreement and disagreement between assessment panels, and examined the areas in which agreement and disagreement tended to occur.
methods8 cases were randomly selected from all 42 cases identified during a 6-month period (1 January-1 July 2005). Each case was independently reviewed by three panels: the local hospital clinical risk-management group and two specially convened external panels. Panels assessed quality of care in three areas: admission assessment, recognition of incident, and method and timing of delivery. Predefined standards of care were provided for these three areas. Panels were also asked to assess the overall quality of care.
resultsFor each area of care, agreement between the two external panels was lowest. The lowest levels of agreement between panels were seen in assessment of overall care (50% crude agreement between external panel 1 and the hospital (kappa = 0.24, AC(1) = 0.36); 29% crude agreement between external panels 1 and 2 (kappa = -0.11, AC(1) = 0.1); 47% crude agreement between external panel 2 and the hospital (kappa = 0.36, AC(1) = 0.46). The lowest level of agreement among all three panels was also in the assessment of overall care (crude agreement 48%; kappa = 0.16, AC(1) = 0.34).
conclusionModerate to substantial agreement among the three panels was achieved for the three areas in which explicit standards were provided. Therefore, a systematic approach to analysis of adverse events in perinatal care improves reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.