Every maternal near-miss counts: Need for a national audit in South Africa? A mixed-methods study

Author:

Heitkamp A,Suh J,Gebhardt S,Van Roosmalen J,Murray L R,De Vries J I,Van den Akker T,Theron G

Abstract

Background. To improve maternal health, studies of maternal morbidity are increasingly being used to evaluate the quality of maternity care, in addition to studies of mortality. While South Africa (SA) has a well-established confidential enquiry into maternal deaths, there is currently no structure in place to systematically collect and analyse maternal near-misses (MNMs) at national level.Objectives. To synthesise MNM indicators and causes in SA by performing a systematic literature search, and to investigate perceived needs for data collection related to MNMs and determine whether the MNM tool from the World Health Organization (WHO-MNM) would require adaptations in order to be implemented.Methods. The study used a mixed-methods approach. A systematic literature search was conducted to find all published data on MNM audits in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually with maternal health experts throughout the country who had been involved in studies of MNMs, and main themes arising in the interviews were synthesised. A method for MNM data collection for SA use was discussed with these experts.Results. The literature search yielded 797 articles, 15 of which met the WHO-MNM or Mantel et al. severe acute maternal morbidity criteria. The median (interquartile range) MNM incidence ratio in SA was 8.4/1 000 (5.6 - 8.7) live births, the median maternal mortality ratio was 130/100 000 (71.4 - 226) live births, and the median mortality index was 16.6% (11.7 - 18.8). The main causes of MNMs were hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and obstetric haemorrhage. Eight maternal health experts were interviewed from May 2020 to February 2021. All participants focused on the challenges of implementing a national MNM audit, yet noted the urgent need for one. Recognition of MNMs as an indicator of quality of maternity care was considered to lead to improved management earlier in the chain of events, thereby possibly preventing mortality. Obtaining qualitative information from women with MNMs was perceived as an important opportunity to improve the maternity care system. Participants suggested that the WHO-MNM tool would have to be adapted into a simplified tool with more clearly defined criteria and a number of specific diagnoses relevant to the SA setting. This ‘Maternal near-miss: Inclusion criteria and data collection form’ is provided as a supplementary file.Conclusion. Adding MNMs to the existing confidential maternal death enquiry could potentially contribute to a more robust audit with data that may inform health systems planning. This was perceived by SA experts to be valuable, but would require context-specific adaptations to the WHO-MNM tool. The available body of evidence is sufficient to justify moving to implementation.

Publisher

South African Medical Association NPC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference29 articles.

1. World Health Organization. Evaluating the quality of care for severe pregnancy complications: The WHO near-miss approach for maternal health. Geneva: WHO, 2011. https://apps.who.int/ iris/handle/10665/44692 (accessed December 2021).

2. Say L, Souza JP, Pattinson RC; WHO working group on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity classifications. Maternal near miss – towards a standard tool for monitoring quality of maternal health care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009;23(3):287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2009.01.007

3. National Department of Health, South Africa. Saving Mothers 2014 - 2016: Seventh triennial report on confidential inquiries into maternal death in South Africa. 2017. https://www. westerncape.gov.za/assets/departments/health/saving_mothers_2014-16_-_short_report.pdf (accessed December 2021).

4. Mantel GD, Buchmann E, Rees H, Pattinson RC. Severe acute maternal morbidity: A pilot study of a definition for a near-miss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(9):985-990. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10262.x

5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3