Search

Objective: When a formal review of care takes places after the death of a baby, parents are largely unaware it takes place and are often not meaningfully involved in the review process. Parent engagement in the process is likely to be essential for a successful review and to improve patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate an intervention process of parental engagement in perinatal mortality review (PNMR) and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation., Design: Mixed-methods study of parents' engagement in PNMR., Setting: Single tertiary maternity unit in the UK., Participants: Bereaved parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs)., Interventions: Parent engagement in the PNMR (intervention) was based on principles derived through national consensus and qualitative research with parents, HCPs and stakeholders in the UK., Outcomes: Recruitment rates, bereaved parents and HCPs' perceptions., Results: Eighty-one per cent of bereaved parents approached (13/16) agreed to participate in the study. Two focus groups with bereaved parents (n=11) and HCP (n=7) were carried out postimplementation to investigate their perceptions of the process.Overarching findings were improved dialogue and continuity of care with parents, and improvements in the PNMR process and patient safety. Bereaved parents agreed that engagement in the PNMR process was invaluable and helped them in their grieving. HCP perceived that parent involvement improved the review process and lessons learnt from the deaths; information to understand the impact of aspects of care on the baby's death were often only found in the parents' recollections., Conclusions: Parental engagement in the PNMR process is achievable and useful for parents and HCP alike, and critically can improve patient safety and future care for mothers and babies. To learn and prevent perinatal deaths effectively, all hospitals should give parents the option to engage with the review of their baby's death., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors include the chair and members of the national Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) group., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Engaging bereaved parents in the review process that examines their care before and after a perinatal death might help parents deal with their grief more effectively and drive improvements in patient safety. The objective of this study is to explore whether healthcare professionals would accept or support parent engagement in the perinatal mortality review process., Design: Qualitative focus group interviews. Transcripts were analysed with an inductive thematic approach., Setting: Two geographically distinct tertiary maternity hospitals in the UK., Participants: Five focus groups were conducted with clinical staff including midwives, obstetricians, neonatologists, nursing staff and chaplaincy services., Results: Twenty-seven healthcare professionals unanimously agreed that parents' involvement in the perinatal mortality review process is useful and necessary. Six key themes emerged including: parental engagement; need for formal follow-up; critical structure of perinatal mortality review meeting; coordination and streamlining of care; advocacy for parents including role of the bereavement care lead; and requirement for training and support for staff to enable parental engagement., Conclusions: Healthcare professionals strongly advocated engaging bereaved parents in the perinatal mortality review: empowering parents to ask questions, providing feedback on care, helping generate lessons and providing them with the opportunity to discuss a summary of the review conclusions with their primary healthcare professional contact. The participants agreed it is time to move on from 'a group of doctors reviewing notes' to active learning and improvement together with parents, to enable better care and prevention of perinatal death., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The perinatal mortality review meeting that takes place within the hospital following a stillbirth or neonatal death enables clinicians to learn vital lessons to improve care for women and their families for the future. Recent evidence suggests that parents are unaware that a formal review following the death of their baby takes place. Many would welcome the opportunity to feedback into the meeting itself. Parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review meeting has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, drive improvements in patient safety and promote an open culture within healthcare. Yet evidence on the feasibility of involving bereaved parents in the review process is lacking. This paper describes the protocol for the Parents' Active Role and Engangement iN the review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death study (PARENTS 2) , whereby healthcare professionals' and stakeholders' perceptions of parental involvement will be investigated, and parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review will be piloted and evaluated at two hospitals., Methods and Analysis: We will investigate perceptions of parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process by conducting four focus groups. A three-round modified Delphi technique will be employed to gain a consensus on principles of parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process. We will use three sequential rounds, including a national consensus meeting workshop with experts in stillbirth, neonatal death and bereavement care, and a two-stage anonymous online questionnaire. We will pilot a new perinatal mortality review process with parental involvement over a 6-month study period. The impact of the new process will be evaluated by assessing parents' experiences of their care and parents' and staff perceptions of their involvement in the process by conducting further focus groups and using a Parent Generated Index questionnaire., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has ethical approval from the UK Health Research Authority. We will disseminate the findings through national and international conferences and international peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Following a perinatal death, a formal standardised multi-disciplinary review should take place, to learn from the death of a baby and facilitate improvements in future care. It has been recommended that bereaved parents should be offered the opportunity to give feedback on the care they have received and integrate this feedback into the perinatal mortality review process. However, the MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Confidential Enquiry (2015) found that only one in 20 cases parental concerns were included in the review. Although guidance suggests parental opinion should be sought, little evidence exists on how this may be incorporated into the perinatal mortality review process. The purpose of the PARENTS study was to investigate bereaved parents' views on involvement in the perinatal mortality review process., Methods: A semi-structured focus group of 11 bereaved parents was conducted in South West England. A purposive sampling technique was utilised to recruit a diverse sample of women and their partners who had experienced a perinatal death more than 6 months prior to the study. A six-stage thematic analysis was followed to explore parental perceptions and expectations of the perinatal mortality review process., Results: Four over-arching themes emerged from the analysis: transparency; flexibility combined with specificity; inclusivity; and a positive approach. It was evident that the majority of parents were supportive of their involvement in the perinatal mortality review process and they wanted to know the outcome of the meeting. It emerged that an individualised approach should be taken to allow flexibility on when and how they could contribute to the process. The emotional aspects of care should be considered as well as the clinical care. Parents identified that the whole care pathway should be examined during the review including antenatal, postnatal, and neonatal and community based care. They agreed that there should be an opportunity for parents to give feedback on both good and poor aspects of their care., Conclusion: Parents were unaware that a review of their baby's death took place in the hospital. Parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process would promote an open culture in the healthcare system and learning from adverse events including deaths. Further research should focus on designing and evaluating a perinatal mortality review process where parental feedback will be integral.

Accurate and consistent classification of causes and associated conditions for perinatal deaths is essential to inform strategies to reduce the five million which occur globally each year. With the majority of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), their needs must be prioritised. The aim of this paper is to review the classification of perinatal death, the contemporary classification systems including the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases - Perinatal Mortality (ICD-PM), and next steps. During the period from 2009 to 2014, a total of 81 new or modified classification systems were identified with the majority developed in high-income countries (HICs). Structure, definitions and rules and therefore data on causes vary widely and implementation is suboptimal. Whereas system testing is limited, none appears ideal. Several systems result in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths, prompting HICs to use more detailed systems that require data unavailable in low-income countries. Some systems appear to perform well across these different settings. ICD-PM addresses some shortcomings of ICD-10 for perinatal deaths, but important limitations remain, especially for stillbirths. A global approach to classification is needed and seems feasible. The new ICD-PM system is an important step forward and improvements will be enhanced by wide-scale use and evaluation. Implementation requires national-level support and dedicated resources. Future research should focus on implementation strategies and evaluation methods, defining placental pathologies, and ways to engage parents in the process., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Parent engagement in perinatal mortality review meetings following stillbirth may benefit parents and improve patient safety. We investigated perinatal mortality review meeting practices, including the extent of parent engagement, based on self‐reports from healthcare professionals from maternity care facilities in six high‐income countries. Design: Cross‐sectional online survey. Setting: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK and USA. Population: A total of 1104 healthcare professionals, comprising mainly obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives and nurses. Methods: Data were drawn from responses to a survey covering stillbirth‐related topics. Open‐ and closed‐items that focused on 'Data quality on causes of stillbirth' were analysed. Main outcome measures: Healthcare professionals' self‐reported practices around perinatal mortality review meetings following stillbirth. Results: Most clinicians (81.0%) were aware of regular audit meetings to review stillbirth at their maternity facility, although this was true for only 35.5% of US respondents. For the 854 respondents whose facility held regular meetings, less than a third (31.1%) reported some form of parent engagement, and this was usually in the form of one‐way post‐meeting feedback. Across all six countries, only 17.1% of respondents described an explicit approach where parents provided input, received feedback and were represented at meetings. Conclusions: We found no established practice of involving parents in the perinatal mortality review process in six high‐income countries. Parent engagement may hold the key to important lessons for stillbirth prevention and care. Further understanding of approaches, barriers and enablers is warranted. Parent engagement in mortality review after stillbirth is rare, based on data from six countries. We need to understand the barriers. Parent engagement in mortality review after stillbirth is rare, based on data from six countries. We need to understand the barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this issue of I BJOG i , Goldenberg and McClure underscore some of the problems with assigning causes of death to stillbirths and neonatal deaths in low-resource settings ( I BJOG i 2020;127:532-5). Classification or assigning causes of death is a key step towards prevention of stillbirth and neonatal death. Post-mortem examination and placental pathological evaluation are critical parts of an evaluation for perinatal death. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a study which found that women with prior stillbirth had increased numbers of antenatal visits, induced labour and caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies compared with those with prior livebirths. Topics discussed include option of caesarean delivery, viewing the fetus following pregnancy termination for a fetal anomaly; acknowledgement of paternal grief and anxiety; and surveillance of pregnancy outcomes that are restricted to viable fetuses.