Search

Objective: intrapartum referrals are high-risk situations. To ensure patient safety, care professionals need to have a shared understanding of a labouring woman's situation. We aimed to gain insight into similarities and differences between midwives and obstetricians in the assessment of a prolonged first stage of labour and the decision to refer a woman to a clinical setting in the Netherlands. Design: factorial survey. Setting: in the Netherlands, the main caregivers for women with low risks of pathology are primary-care midwives working in the locality. Approximately half of all women start labour under supervision of primary-care midwives. Roughly 40% of these women are referred to a hospital during labour, where obstetricians take over responsibility. In 2013, the reason for referral for 5161 women (14.1% of all referrals during labour) was a prolonged first stage of labour. Participants: respondents consisted of primary-care midwives (N=69), obstetricians (N=47) and hospital based midwives, known as clinical midwives (N=31). Measurements: each respondent assessed seven hypothetical vignettes. The assessment of a prolonged first stage of labour and the decision to refer a woman to a clinical setting based on this indication were used as outcome measures, rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=very unlikely to 7=very likely). Data were analysed using a linear multilevel model with a two-level hierarchy. Findings: compared to primary-care midwives, obstetricians were more likely to define a prolonged first stage of labour when progress in cervical dilation was slow (b: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.57). The attributes parity, progress, intensity of uterine contractions and the woman's state of mind, were used by all three groups in the decision to refer a woman to clinical setting based on a prolonged first stage of labour. Key conclusion and implications for practice: we found relevant interprofessional differences and similarities in the assessment of a prolonged first stage of labour and consequent referral. Further interprofessional alignment of clinical assessments, for instance through interprofessional discussions and a review of professional guidelines, might help to improve collaborative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reusing routinely recorded data from electronic hospital records (EHR) may offer a less-time consuming, and more real time alternative for monitoring compliance by nurses with a protocol for the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication. However, at present it is unknown if the data necessary to calculate the quality indicators (QIs) are recorded in EHRs, or if these data are suitable for automated QI calculation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of monitoring compliance by nurses with a protocol for the safe injectable medication preparation and administration by reusing routinely recorded EHR data for the automated calculation of QIs.Methods: A cross-sectional study in 12 Dutch hospitals (October 2015-May 2016). The checks included in the currently prevailing national protocol for the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication were translated into 16 data elements required to calculate the QIs. At each hospital, one interview was conducted using a structured questionnaire to decide whether the data elements were available in EHRs. To present these results, descriptive statistics were used.Results: In total, 20 health-care professionals were interviewed and four different EHR systems were evaluated. The availability of data elements was comparable between the four evaluated EHR systems. Nine of the 16 required data elements were recorded in EHRs, eight in a structured format. The seven missing data elements were mainly related to checks such as 'gather all materials needed' or 'conduct hand hygiene'. Furthermore, changes were identified in the process for the preparation and administration of injectable medication. These changes are mostly related to the increased use of electronic medication administration registration and barcode medication administration systems.Conclusions: Reusing EHR data to monitor compliance by nurses with the currently prevailing protocol for the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication is not entirely feasible. A decision should be made on which checks should be recorded in the EHRs and which checks should be audited in order to minimize the registration burden for nurses. Moreover, the currently prevailing protocol should be revised to bring it in line with work-as-done. Our results can be used as guidance for such a revision and also for designing new QIs that can be calculated by reusing routinely recorded EHR data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]