Audit of medical response to antenatal booking history

Data re-entry overload: time for a paradigm shift in maternity IT?

This paper provides an overview of maternity information technology (IT) in Britain, questioning the usability, effectiveness and cost efficiency of the current models of implementation of electronic maternity records. UK experience of hand-held paper obstetric notes and computerized records reveals fundamental problems in the relationship between the two complementary methods of recording maternity data. The assumption that paper records would inevitably be replaced by electronic substitutes has proven false; the rigidity of analysable electronic records has led to immense incompatibility problems. The flexibility of paper records has distinct advantages that have so far not been sufficiently acknowledged. It is suggested that continuing work is needed to encourage the standardization of electronic maternity records, via a new co-creative, co-development approach and continuing international electronic community debate.

Antenatal screening by history taking-a missed opportunity

In order to determine how effectively obstetricians and midwives identify and manage women at increased risk of fetal abnormality a case note review was undertaken. Two district general hospitals in each of two health regions and their tertiary referral centres making seven hospitals in all were studied. Women booked for antenatal care over a one-year period were included (19 895) which was estimated to be 75% of the total. Significant numbers of women at high risk because of age, past obstetric, medical or family history were not offered appropriate tests such as detailed scanning, carrier status testing, amniocentesis or chorion villus sampling. Asian women were less likely to be offered screening compared with Caucasians. Women at low risk were subjected to inappropriate tests such as amniocentesis. Ultrasound departments were rarely informed that a woman had had a previous baby with a structural abnormality. In conclusion the quality of booking histories was poor allowing important information about past medical, family or obstetric history to be overlooked. Maternity units should use carefully structured forms taking when booking histories and all staff must have regular training on risk factors.

How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidence

This is an overview of evidence of the effectiveness of antenatal care in relation to maternal mortality and serious morbidity, focused in particular on developing countries. It concentrates on the major causes of maternal mortality, and traces their antecedent morbidities and risk factors in pregnancy. It also includes interventions aimed at preventing, detecting or treating any stage along this pathway during pregnancy. This is an updated and expanded version of a review first published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1992. The scientific evidence from randomised controlled trials and other types of intervention or observational study on the effectiveness of these interventions is reviewed critically. The sources and quality of available data, and possible biases in their collection or interpretation are considered. As in other areas of maternal health, good-quality evidence is scarce and, just as in many aspects of health care generally, there are interventions in current practice that have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. A table of antenatal interventions of proven effectiveness in conditions that can lead to maternal mortality or serious morbidity is presented. Interventions for which there is some promising evidence, short of proof, of effectiveness are explored, and the outstanding questions formulated. These are presented in a series of tables with suggestions about the types of study needed to answer them.

Effect of using protocols on medical care: randomised trial of three methods of taking an antenatal history

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of three methods of taking an antenatal history on the quality of obstetric care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Antenatal clinic of St James's University Hospital, Leeds.

SUBJECTS

2424 women attending the hospital for the first (booking) visit.

INTERVENTIONS

Histories were taken by midwives using an unstructured paper questionnaire, a structured paper questionnaire (incorporating a checklist), or an interactive computerised questionnaire (incorporating 101 clinical reminders).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number of clinical responses to factors arising from the antenatal booking history according to method of taking the history. Actions were categorised as medical and surgical, obstetric, personal, current symptoms and treatment, related to maternal age, and related to two common actions (cervical smear testing and dental hygiene) and were weighted for clinical importance by 10 obstetricians.

RESULTS

Overall the unstructured questionnaire generated 1063 actions, the structured questionnaire 1146, and the computerised questionnaire 1122. The clinical importance of these actions was lowest for the unstructured questionnaire (overall total value score 1987 v 2182 and 2110 for the structured and computerised questionnaires respectively). The structured questionnaire was better than the computerised questionnaire in the medical and surgical (total value score 191 v 184), obstetric (275 v 241), and personal (430 v 360) categories but inferior in the current symptoms category (179 v 191).

CONCLUSION

Structured questionnaires (computerised or paper) provide more and better information, and their use improves clinical response to risk factors. Computerised systems offer no further advantage in antenatal clinics.

Audit of compliance with antenatal protocols

OBJECTIVE

To assess the implementation of action protocols dictated by antenatal risk factors noted at the initial (booking) antenatal visit.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of 2000 women delivered between 1 March 1990 and 29 March 1991.

SETTING

Maternity department of a district general hospital supporting a multiethnic population in inner London.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of clinical actions performed against those dictated by the department's protocols. Analysis according to clinical importance, gestation at booking, maternal age, parity, birth order, ethnic origin, and certainty of gestational age.

RESULTS

Interobserver agreement between the two auditors was good (kappa statistic for risk factors detected, 0.78; for actions generated, 0.80). Of the 15,658 actions dictated by department protocols, 3673 (23.5%) were actually performed by the clinicians. The 63 combinations of risk factors and actions believed by consultants to be of particular clinical importance had an action rate of 28.3% compared with 18.6% for those considered less important (p < 0.001). Mothers who first visited the hospital antenatal clinic at or before 24 weeks' gestation had 25.2% of relevant protocols fulfilled (p < 0.001). Compliance was significantly improved in women aged 36 or over (32.4%), black women (24.9%), and cases of uncertain gestation (24.5%). Parity and birth order were not associated with an altered action rate. Ethnic origin deemed as "other" (than white, black, Asian, or oriental) or "unknown" was associated with poor compliance (19.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance to a set of agreed protocols was poor even though a computer system was available and a protocol manual had been distributed. Protocols were more likely to be implemented in women who booked early and in some groups of women deemed at high risk including older mothers, black women, and those denoted as having uncertain gestational age.

Staff competence and program compliance: Scotland

In Britain, antenatal care is performed by specialist obstetricians, general practitioners (GPs), and midwives, often in combination. Because most women are delivered in specialist hospitals, obstetricians are involved in booking for place of delivery, and usually in delivery of specialized investigations such as ultrasonic scanning. General practitioners may independently book women for confinement under their care in Cottage Hospitals or (rarely) at home, and may provide all the medical care for those women, in addition to sharing in the antenatal care of women to be delivered at specialist units, and in fact doing most of the care for these women, unless they are very high risk or complicated.