An evaluation by the Norwegian Health Care Supervision Authorities of events involving death or injuries in maternity care

The association between midwifery staffing and reported harmful incidents: a cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected data

BACKGROUND

Independent inquiries have identified that appropriate staffing in maternity units is key to enabling quality care and minimising harm, but optimal staffing levels can be difficult to achieve when there is a shortage of midwives. The services provided and how they are staffed (total staffing, skill-mix and deployment) have been changing, and the effects of workforce changes on care quality and outcomes have not been assessed. This study aims to explore the association between daily midwifery staffing levels and the rate of reported harmful incidents affecting mothers and babies.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of daily reports of clinical incidents in maternity inpatient areas matched with inpatient staffing levels for three maternity services in England, using data from April 2015 to February 2020. Incidents resulting in harm to mothers or babies was the primary outcome measure. Staffing levels were calculated from daily staffing rosters, quantified in Hours Per Patient Day (HPPD) for midwives and maternity assistants. Understaffing was defined as staffing below the mean for the service. A negative binomial hierarchical model was used to assess the relationship between exposure to low staffing and reported incidents involving harm.

RESULTS

The sample covered 106,904 maternal admissions over 46 months. The rate of harmful incidents in each of the three services ranged from 2.1 to 3.0 per 100 admissions across the study period. Understaffing by registered midwives was associated with an 11% increase in harmful incidents (adjusted IRR 1.110, 95% CI 1.002,1.229). Understaffing by maternity assistants was not associated with an increase in harmful incidents (adjusted IRR 0.919, 95% 0.813,1.039). Analysis of specific types of incidents showed no statistically significant associations, but most of the point estimates were in the direction of increased incidents when services were understaffed.

CONCLUSION

When there is understaffing by registered midwives, more harmful incidents are reported but understaffing by maternity assistants is not associated with higher risk of harms. Adequate registered midwife staffing levels are crucial for maintaining safety. Changes in the profile of maternity service workforces need to be carefully scrutinised to prevent mothers and babies being put at risk of avoidable harm.

Causes for Medical Errors in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Background: Quality strategies, interventions, and frameworks have been developed to facilitate a better understanding of healthcare systems. Reporting adverse events is one of these strategies. Gynaecology and obstetrics are one of the specialties with many adverse events. To understand the main causes of medical errors in gynaecology and obstetrics and how they could be prevented, we conducted this systematic review. Methods: This systematic review was performed in compliance with the Prisma 2020 guidelines. We searched several databases for relevant studies (Jan 2010-May 2023). Studies were included if they indicated the presence of any potential risk factor at the hospital level for medical errors or adverse events in gynaecology or obstetrics. Results: We included 26 articles in the quantitative analysis of this review. Most of these (n = 12) are cross-sectional studies; eight are case-control studies, and six are cohort studies. One of the most frequently reported contributing factors is delay in healthcare. In addition, the availability of products and trained staff, team training, and communication are often reported to contribute to near-misses/maternal deaths. Conclusions: All risk factors that were found in our review imply several categories of contributing factors regarding: (1) delay of care, (2) coordination and management of care, and (3) scarcity of supply, personnel, and knowledge.

Improving the Quality of Maternity Care: Learning From Malpractice

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to depict the characteristics, injury outcomes, and payment of obstetric malpractice lawsuits to better understand the medicolegal burden in obstetrics and categorize the causes of obstetric malpractice lawsuits using The National Health Service Litigation Authority coding taxonomy for further quality improvement in maternity care.

METHODS

We reviewed and retrieved key information on court records of legal trials from China Judgment Online between 2013 and 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 3441 obstetric malpractice lawsuits successfully claimed were reviewed in this study, with a total indemnity payment of $139,875,375. After peaking in 2017, the number of obstetric malpractice claims begins to decline. Of the 2424 hospitals that were sued, 8.3% (201/2424) were referred to as "repeat defendant" because they were involved in multiple lawsuits. Death and injury were the outcomes in 53.4% and 46.6% of the cases, respectively. The most common outcome type was neonatal death, which made up 29.8% of all cases. The median indemnity payment for death was higher compared with injury (P < 0.05). In terms of detailed injury outcomes, the major neonatal injury had higher median indemnity payments than neonatal death and fetal death (P < 0.05). The median indemnity payment of the major maternal injury was higher than that of maternal death (P < 0.05). The leading causes of obstetric malpractice were the management of birth complications and adverse events (23.3%), management of labor (14.4%), career decision making (13.7%), fetal surveillance (11.0%), and cesarean section management (9.5%). The cause for 8.7% of cases was high payment (≥$100, 000). As indicated by the results of the multivariate analysis, the hospitals in the midland of China (odds ratio [OR], 0.476; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.348-0.651), the hospitals in the west of China (OR, 0.523; 95% CI, 0.357-0.767), and the secondary hospitals (OR, 0.587; 95% CI, 0.356-0.967) had lower risks of high payment. Hospitals with ultimate liability (OR, 9.695; 95% CI, 4.072-23.803), full liability (OR, 16.442; 95% CI, 6.231-43.391), major neonatal injury (OR, 12.326; 95% CI, 5.836-26.033), major maternal injury (OR, 20.885; 95% CI, 7.929-55.011), maternal death (OR, 18.783; 95% CI, 8.887-39.697), maternal death with child injury (OR, 54.682; 95% CI, 10.900-274.319), maternal injury with child death (OR, 6.935; 95% CI, 2.773-17.344), and deaths of both mother and child (OR, 12.770; 95% CI, 5.136-31.754) had higher risks of high payment. In the causative domain, only anesthetics had a higher risk of high payment (OR, 5.605; 95% CI, 1.347-23.320), but anesthetic-related lawsuits made up just 1.4% of all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The healthcare systems had to pay a significant amount as a result of obstetric malpractice lawsuits. Greater efforts are required to minimize serious injury outcomes and improve obstetric quality in the risky domains.

Reassuringly expensive - A commentary on obstetric emergency training in high-resource settings

The pathophysiologic origins of obstetrical emergencies are complicated and may well be influenced by events prior to conception. Such problems are not likely to be resolved soon, and in the meantime, high-resource countries simply cannot afford to divert more and more money to litigation and the costs of preventable morbidities for either mother or child. It is long past time we tackled these acute care problems where most first occur-the Maternity unit. It is reasonable to ask whether hospitals (and society at large) are getting what they believe they are buying. Training to satisfy a regulation without improving patient outcomes functionally erects one more barrier to the pursuit of optimal patient outcomes. Why then continue squandering limited resources and precious lives if current hospital training is not improving outcomes? In this monograph, I focus on training programs for the management of obstetrical emergencies.

Adverse events reporting by obstetric units in Norway as part of their quality assurance and patient safety work: an analysis of practice

BACKGROUND

The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision aims to contribute to the improvement of quality and patient safety in the healthcare services. Planned audits were performed to investigate how 12 selected Norwegian obstetric units reported and analyzed adverse events as the part of their quality assurance and patient safety work.

METHODS

Serious adverse events coded as birth asphyxia, shoulder dystocia and severe postpartum hemorrhage that occurred during 2014 (the most recent year for which the quality assured data were available) were obtained from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. The obstetric units were asked to submit medical records, internal adverse events reports, and their internal guidelines outlining which events should be reported to the quality assurance system. We identified the adverse events at each obstetric unit that were reported internally and/or to the central authorities. Two obstetricians carried out an evaluation of each event reported.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-three serious adverse events were registered among 17,323 births that took place at the selected units. Twenty-one events were excluded because of incorrect coding or missing information. Eight events were registered in more than one category, and these were distributed to the category directly related to injury or adverse outcome. Nine of twelve (75 %) obstetric units had written guidelines describing which events should be reported. The obstetric units reported 49 of 524 (9.3 %) serious adverse events in their internal quality assurance system and 39 (7.4 %) to central authorities. Of the very serious adverse events, 29 of 149 (19.4 %) were reported. Twenty-three of 49 (47 %) reports did not contain relevant assessments or proposals for improving quality and patient safety.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that adverse event reporting and analyses by Norwegian obstetric units, as a part of quality assurance and patient safety work, are suboptimal. The reporting culture and compliance with guidelines need to be improved substantially for better safety in patient care, risk mitigation and clinical quality assurance.

How common is substandard obstetric care in adverse events of birth asphyxia, shoulder dystocia and postpartum hemorrhage? Findings from an external inspection of Norwegian maternity units

INTRODUCTION

The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision inspects healthcare institutions to ensure safety and quality of health and welfare services. A planned inspection of 12 maternity units aimed to investigate the practice of obstetric care in the case of birth asphyxia, shoulder dystocia and severe postpartum hemorrhage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The inspection was carried out at two large, four medium and six small maternity units in Norway in 2016 to investigate adverse events that occurred between 1 January and 31 December 2014. Six of them were selected as control units. The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision searched the Medical Birth Registry of Norway to identify adverse events in each of the categories and then requested access to the medical records for all patients identified. Information about guidelines, formal teaching and simulation training at each unit was obtained by sending a questionnaire to the obstetrician in charge of each maternity unit.

RESULTS

The obstetric units inspected had 553 serious adverse events of birth asphyxia, shoulder dystocia or severe postpartum hemorrhage among 17 323 deliveries. Twenty-nine events were excluded from further analysis due to erroneous coding or missing data in the patients' medical records. We included 524 cases (3.0% of all deliveries) of adverse events in the final analysis. Medical errors caused by substandard care were present in 295 (56.2%) cases. There was no difference in the prevalence of substandard care among the maternity units according to their size. Surprisingly, we found significantly fewer cases with substandard care in the units which the supervisory authorities considered particularly risky before the inspection, compared with the control units. Seven of the 12 units had regular formal teaching and training arrangements for obstetric healthcare personnel as outlined in the national guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of adverse events was 3% and similar in all maternity units irrespective of their size. A breach in the standard of care was observed in 56.2% of cases and almost half of the maternity units did not follow national recommendations regarding teaching and practical training of obstetric personnel, suggesting that they should focus on implementing guidelines and training their staff.

An evaluation by the Norwegian Health Care Supervision Authorities of events involving death or injuries in maternity care

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to determine how serious adverse events in obstetrics were assessed by supervision authorities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We selected cases investigated by supervision authorities during 2009-2013. We analyzed information about who reported the event, the outcomes of the mother and infant, and whether events resulted from errors at the individual or system level. We also assessed whether the injuries could have been avoided.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 303 034 births in Norway, and supervision authorities investigated 338 adverse events in obstetric care. Of these, we studied 207 cases that involved a serious outcome for mother or infant. Five mothers (2.4%) and 88 infants (42.5%) died. Of the 207 events reported to the supervision authorities, patients or relatives reported 65.2%, hospitals reported 39.1%, and others reported 4.3%. In 8.7% of cases, events were reported by more than 1 source. The supervision authority assessments showed that 48.3% of the reported cases involved serious errors in the provision of health care, and a system error was the most common cause. We found that supervision authorities investigated significantly more events in small and medium-sized maternity units than in large units. Eighteen health personnel received reactions; 15 were given a warning, and 3 had their authority limited. We determined that 45.9% of the events were avoidable.

CONCLUSIONS

The supervision authorities investigated 1 in 1000 births, mainly in response to complaints issued from patients or relatives. System errors were the most common cause of deficiencies in maternity care.