Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41112501›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2025

The Safe Assessment Form to Evaluate Risks ('SAFER') chart - a clinical practice evaluation study following introduction of electronic risk identification in pregnancies in Scotland.

Alex Viner, Oscar Deeks, Pamela Nayyar, Jennifer Allison, Sarah Murray, Katherine Ainslie, Neil Cockburn, Richard Lilford, Brian Magowan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Alex VinerQueen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Oscar DeeksSchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK.
Pamela NayyarSchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3572-7886
Jennifer AllisonVictoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, Scotland, UK.
Sarah MurrayCentre for Reproductive Health, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Katherine AinslieNHS Borders, Melrose, Scotland, UK.
Neil CockburnSchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK.
Richard LilfordSchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0634-984X
Brian MagowanNHS Borders, Melrose, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: It is easy to overlook risk factors that require specific healthcare actions. This is particularly true in maternity care, which deals with a natural process where risk might be distinguished from normality at many points in the care pathway. In this paper, we describe the effects of clinical decision support, first in the form of paper checklists and then in the form of an electronic checklist to screen for risks of (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), (3) high body mass index (BMI), and (4) gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Here, we report a retrospective observational study on the effects of screening algorithms introduced first on paper and then on the computer. Methods: We screened sequential maternity records at three time points: baseline, following the introduction of a paper checklist, and following the introduction of the electronic system. First, we examined (at each time-point) the proportion of pregnancies appropriately screened at each time point. Second, we examined the proportion of correct actions taken following a positive screening result. The study was conducted at a District General Hospital in Scotland between 2011 and 2015, which covered the introduction of the above system to screen patients and suggest appropriate management for positive cases. Results: We found that the introduction of a paper checklist was associated with an increased proportion of pregnancies appropriately screened and correct actions taken contingent on positive screening. These trends continued after the introduction of the electronic system. For example, when investigating those at risk of venous thrombosis and embolism (VTE), 0/200 risk assessments were made correctly in 2011 with no formal prompts. This increased to 69/200 (0.345) in 2014 when using paper checklists, and this trend continued in 2015 when we found 192/200 (0.965) risk assessments were made correctly for antenatal and intrapartum VTE using the electronic checklists. In 2011, we observed that the number of actions contingent on positive screening for VTE completed correctly was 0/1. Increasing to 17/24 (0.708) in 2014 when using paper checklists but plateauing in 2015 when 20/33 (0.667) contingent actions were completed correctly using electronic system prompts. Conclusions: Compliance with maternity guideline recommendations for VTE, high BMI, high risk of fetal growth restriction, and GDM improved over time with the introduction of paper and electronic prompts. Tweetable abstract: Introduction of electronic maternity screening was associated with improved adherence to established guidelines compared to no screening or paper-based screening for VTE, BMI and GDM. Data Sharing Statement: Nil additional unpublished data from the study are available.

Indexed as

electronic health recordsElectronic screeningmaternity guideline implementationpaper screening

Identifiers

PMID41112501
PMCPMC12531618

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.