ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2025
Maternity Healthcare Worker Perspectives of Severe Acute Maternal Morbidity Recording, Reporting and Case Review in Queensland, Australia.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic, multi-disciplinary review of Severe Acute Maternal Morbidity (SAMM) can improve maternal outcomes. Routinely collected data, collated into the Queensland SAMM Dashboard, may facilitate local case review. We wanted to understand how SAMMs are reviewed locally and how centrally collated data supports review processes.
aimsThe purpose of this survey was to assess local SAMM recording and review practices in Queensland. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional online survey, using multiple choice and free-text response formats, sampled multi-disciplinary health care workers (HCW) involved in SAMM review in Queensland public maternity units. Responses were analysed for content, with thematic analysis performed on free-text comments.
resultsTwenty HCW responded from a mix of tertiary, regional and rural maternity facilities. HCW responses identified a lack of clarity around the terms 'maternal morbidity', 'SAMM' and 'Near-Miss'. HCW reported various approaches for recording and reviewing SAMM. The commonest structures were Root Cause Analysis and Human Error and Patient Safety incident analysis. Reviews commonly involved: patient safety teams (50%); staff involved in the case (45%); independent/external reviewers (40%) and hospital management (40%). Few responses (10%) indicated consumers were involved. 30%-80% reviewed the ACSQHC defined SAMM, 70% Near-Miss cases and up to 70% reviewed other severe maternal morbidity indicators. 20% of HCW stated lessons learned during reviews were shared with other hospitals.
conclusionsIn Queensland, we have found variability in: HCW understanding of SAMM definitions, how cases are recorded, reviewed and improvements facilitated. A standardised approach to SAMM review and collaboration to share lessons learned may benefit maternity care.
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.