Search

Background The Medical Certificate of Stillbirth (MCS) records data about a baby's death after 24 weeks of gestation but before birth. Major errors that could alter interpretation of the MCS were widespread in two UK-based regional studies. Methods A multicentre evaluation was conducted, examining MCS issued 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 in 76 UK obstetric units. A systematic case-note review of stillbirths was conducted by Obstetric and Gynaecology trainees, generating individual 'ideal MCSs' and comparing these to the actual MCS issued. Anonymized central data analysis described rates and types of error, agreement and factors associated with major errors. Results There were 1120 MCSs suitable for assessment, with 126 additional submitted data sets unsuitable for accuracy analysis (total 1246 cases). Gestational age demonstrated 'substantial' agreement [K = 0.73 (95% CI 0.70–0.76)]. Primary cause of death (COD) showed 'fair' agreement [K = 0.26 (95% CI 0.24–0.29)]. Major errors [696/1120; 62.1% (95% CI 59.3–64.9%)] included certificates issued for fetal demise at <24 weeks' gestation [23/696; 3.3% (95% CI 2.2–4.9%)] or neonatal death [2/696; 0.3% (95% CI 0.1–1.1%)] or incorrect primary COD [667/696; 95.8% (95% CI 94.1–97.1%)]. Of 540/1246 [43.3% (95% CI 40.6–46.1%)] 'unexplained' stillbirths, only 119/540 [22.0% (95% CI 18.8–25.7%)] remained unexplained; the majority were redesignated as either fetal growth restriction [FGR: 195/540; 36.1% (95% CI 32.2–40.3%)] or placental insufficiency [184/540; 34.1% (95% CI 30.2–38.2)]. Overall, FGR [306/1246; 24.6% (95% CI 22.3–27.0%)] was the leading primary COD after review, yet only 53/306 [17.3% (95% CI 13.5–22.1%)] FGR cases were originally attributed correctly. Conclusion This study demonstrates widespread major errors in MCS completion across the UK. MCS should only be completed following structured case-note review, with particular attention on the fetal growth trajectory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe our experience in several settings, following a suggestion in 1983 to add questions on the smoking status of the deceased on the UK death certificate as an effective way to monitor the evolution of the smoking epidemic. In South Africa in 1997 and in Tianjin Municipality, China, in 2010, questions about the smoking habits of the deceased were inserted on the official death certificates. In both places a system now exists to routinely collect information on smoking status in relation to causes of death. Results from two million South African and 300 000 Chinese deceased individuals have been reported, and the sample size in both places continues to grow. An unsuccessful attempt was made in 2008 to insert smoking questions on the Australian death notification forms but comments and concerns from the registrars of births, marriages and deaths have international applicability. In both China and South Africa, inserting questions on smoking on the death notification forms was not a trivial task-in each it required, as a minimum, significant commitment from several government agencies. Benefits, however, include a better local understanding of the smoking epidemic and allowing for planning and monitoring of tobacco control programmes. Documenting the varied experiences of collecting information on smoking on death notification forms is useful to those wishing to introduce such questions in their own settings. This is pertinent especially at a time when vital registration systems are being improved, with an aim to monitoring sustainable development goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]