Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30710763›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2019

How to be a very safe maternity unit: An ethnographic study.

Elisa G Liberati, Carolyn Tarrant, Janet Willars, Tim Draycott, Cathy Winter, Sarah Chew, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Teamwork and relational infrastructure: a qualitative study of modern UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  6. Connecting data science and translational simulation.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 'They Take the Mum Off You When You Come In': An Ethnographic Study of Parent Experiences of Medicines Safety Systems in English Hospitals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Elisa G LiberatiTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, UK.
Carolyn TarrantDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Janet WillarsDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Tim DraycottWomen and Children's Health, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Cathy WinterWomen and Children's Health, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Sarah ChewDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Mary Dixon-WoodsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: mary.Director@thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT097899MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maternity care continues to be associated with avoidable harm that can result in serious disability and profound anguish for women, their children, and their families, and in high costs for healthcare systems. As in other areas of healthcare, improvement efforts have typically focused either on implementing and evaluating specific interventions, or on identifying the contextual features that may be generative of safety (e.g. structures, processes, behaviour, practices, and values), but the dialogue between these two approaches has remained limited. In this article, we report a positive deviance case study of a high-performing UK maternity unit to examine how it achieved and sustained excellent safety outcomes. Based on 143 h of ethnographic observations in the maternity unit, 12 semi-structured interviews, and two focus groups with staff, we identified six mechanisms that appeared to be important for safety: collective competence; insistence on technical proficiency; monitoring, coordination, and distributed cognition; clearly articulated and constantly reinforced standards of practice, behaviour, and ethics; monitoring multiple sources of intelligence about the unit's state of safety; and a highly intentional approach to safety and improvement. These mechanisms were nurtured and sustained through both a specific intervention (known as the PROMPT programme) and, importantly, the unit's contextual features: intervention and context shaped each other in both direct and indirect ways. The mechanisms were also influenced by the unit's structural conditions, such as staffing levels and physical environment. This study enhances understanding of what makes a maternity unit safe, paving the way for better design of improvement approaches. It also advances the debate on quality and safety improvement by offering a theoretically and empirically grounded analysis of the interplay between interventions and context of implementation.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyAnthropology, CulturalFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHumansMaternal Health ServicesObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalPregnancyQualitative ResearchSafety ManagementUnited KingdomEthnographyEvaluationMaternity carePatient safetyQualitativeUK

Identifiers

PMID30710763
PMCPMC6391593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.