Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34493278›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Adverse events reporting by obstetric units in Norway as part of their quality assurance and patient safety work: an analysis of practice.

Lars T Johansen, Geir Sverre Braut, Ganesh Acharya, Jan Fredrik Andresen, Pål Øian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Lars T JohansenDepartment for Specialized Health Services, Norwegian Board of Health Supervision, PO Box 231 Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway. ltj@helsetilsynet.no.
Geir Sverre BrautDepartment for Specialized Health Services, Norwegian Board of Health Supervision, PO Box 231 Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
Ganesh AcharyaWomen's Health and Perinatology Research Group, Department of Clinical Medicine, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Jan Fredrik AndresenDepartment for Specialized Health Services, Norwegian Board of Health Supervision, PO Box 231 Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
Pål ØianDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Norwegian Board of Health Supervision aims to contribute to the improvement of quality and patient safety in the healthcare services. Planned audits were performed to investigate how 12 selected Norwegian obstetric units reported and analyzed adverse events as the part of their quality assurance and patient safety work.

methodsSerious adverse events coded as birth asphyxia, shoulder dystocia and severe postpartum hemorrhage that occurred during 2014 (the most recent year for which the quality assured data were available) were obtained from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. The obstetric units were asked to submit medical records, internal adverse events reports, and their internal guidelines outlining which events should be reported to the quality assurance system. We identified the adverse events at each obstetric unit that were reported internally and/or to the central authorities. Two obstetricians carried out an evaluation of each event reported.

resultsFive hundred fifty-three serious adverse events were registered among 17,323 births that took place at the selected units. Twenty-one events were excluded because of incorrect coding or missing information. Eight events were registered in more than one category, and these were distributed to the category directly related to injury or adverse outcome. Nine of twelve (75 %) obstetric units had written guidelines describing which events should be reported. The obstetric units reported 49 of 524 (9.3 %) serious adverse events in their internal quality assurance system and 39 (7.4 %) to central authorities. Of the very serious adverse events, 29 of 149 (19.4 %) were reported. Twenty-three of 49 (47 %) reports did not contain relevant assessments or proposals for improving quality and patient safety.

conclusionsThis study showed that adverse event reporting and analyses by Norwegian obstetric units, as a part of quality assurance and patient safety work, are suboptimal. The reporting culture and compliance with guidelines need to be improved substantially for better safety in patient care, risk mitigation and clinical quality assurance.

Indexed as

Asphyxia NeonatorumPostpartum HemorrhageFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornNorwayPatient SafetyPregnancyRegistriesAdverse eventAsphyxiaFailure of treatment.Obstetric care unitPostpartum hemorrhageReporting cultureShoulder dystociaSupervision

Identifiers

PMID34493278
PMCPMC8424984

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.