Design and evaluation of a regional perinatal audit
Objective: To describe the experiences of a regional audit of perinatal deaths, including the experiences of the audit members, to discuss similarities and differences with other, existing perinatal audits and to summarize the implications for future implementation. Study design: Perinatal audit with blinded regional auditors. Consecutive cases of perinatal death were analysed for the presence of substandard care. A random selection of cases was reviewed by an external audit panel. The prevalence of substandard care in the Amsterdam audit was compared with other, existing audits. A survey among audit members was executed. Results: Care providers from all Amsterdam hospitals, as well as general practitioners and independent midwives cooperated. One hundred thirty-seven perinatal deaths were reviewed. In 25% of all perinatal death cases, substandard care factors were present. After 23 completed weeks substandard care factors were present in 35% of cases, and in 52% of intrapartum deaths. These figures are comparable with other, non-regional oriented audits. The review of the external panel was also comparable to the review of the regional audit committee. All audit members felt secure to discuss freely the presence of substandard care. Conclusion: First systematic experiences with a regional perinatal audit are described. We conclude that a regional perinatal audit is executable. Cooperation of regional care providers is good. Review of substandard care factors is comparable to other, non-regional oriented perinatal audits.
|Keywords||Design, Evaluation, Perinatal audit, Perinatal mortality|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.06.002, hdl.handle.net/1765/29693|
|Journal||European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology|
Alderliesten, M.E, Stronks, K, Bonsel, G.J, Smit, B, van Campen, M.M.J, van Lith, J.M.M, & Bleker, O.P. (2008). Design and evaluation of a regional perinatal audit. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 137(2), 141–145. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.06.002