リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「Applicability of care quality indicators for women with low-risk pregnancies planning hospital birth: a retrospective study of medical records」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。
リケラボ

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

Applicability of care quality indicators for women with low-risk pregnancies planning hospital birth: a retrospective study of medical records

Ueda, Kayo 京都大学 DOI:10.14989/doctor.k23384

2021.05.24

概要

Practices for planned birth among women with low-risk pregnancies vary by birth setting, medical professional, and organizational system. Appropriate monitoring is essential for quality improvement. Although sets of quality indicators have been developed, their applicability has not been tested. To improve the quality of childbirth care for low-risk mothers and infants in Japanese hospitals, we developed 35 quality indicators using existing clinical guidelines and quality indicators. We retrospectively analysed data for 347 women in Japan diagnosed with low-risk pregnancy in the second trimester, admitted between April 2015 and March 2016. We obtained scores for 35 quality indicators and evaluated their applicability, i.e., feasibility, improvement potential, and reliability (intra- and inter-rater reliability: kappa score, positive and negative agreement). The range of adherence to each indicator was 0–95.7%. We identifed feasibility concerns for six indicators with over 25% missing data. Two indicators with over 90% adherence showed limited potential for improvement. Three indicators had poor kappa scores for intra-rater reliability, with positive/negative agreement scores 0.94/0.33, 0.33/0.95, and 0.00/0.97, respectively. Two indicators had poor kappa scores for inter-rater reliability, with positive/negative agreement scores 0.25/0.92 and 0.68/0.61, respectively. The fndings indicated that these 35 care quality indicators for low-risk pregnant women may be applicable to real-world practice, with some caveats.

論文の公開元へ

関連論文

関連論文をもっと見る

参考文献

1. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group, Brocklehurst, P. et al. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 343, d7400. https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7400 (2011).

2. de Jonge, A. et al. Perinatal mortality and morbidity up to 28 days afer birth among 743 070 low-risk planned home and hospital births: a cohort study based on three merged national perinatal databases. BJOG 122, 720–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471- 0528.13084 (2015).

3. Hiraizumi, Y. & Suzuki, S. Perinatal outcomes of low-risk planned home and hospital births under midwife-led care in Japan. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 39, 1500–1504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12094 (2013).

4. Homer, C. S. et al. Birthplace in New South Wales, Australia: an analysis of perinatal outcomes using routinely collected data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 14, 206. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-206 (2014).

5. van der Kooy, J. et al. Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies. Obstet. Gynecol. 118, 1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182319737 (2011).

6. Sandall, J., McCandlish, R. & Bick, D. Place of birth. Midwifery 28, 547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.08.003 (2012).

7. Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A. & Devane, D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4, Cd004667. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 (2016).

8. Chaillet, N. et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1710–1721. https ://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1407120 (2015).

9. Dunn, S. et al. Te use of a quality indicator to reduce elective repeat Caesarean section for low-risk women before 39 weeks’ gestation: the Eastern Ontario experience. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 35, 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30957-9 (2013).

10. Friedman, A. M., Ananth, C. V., Prendergast, E., D’Alton, M. E. & Wright, J. D. Evaluation of third-degree and fourth-degree laceration rates as quality indicators. Obstet. Gynecol. 125, 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000000720 (2015).

11. Campbell, S. M., Braspenning, J., Hutchinson, A. & Marshall, M. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual. Saf. Health Care 11, 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.4.358 (2002).

12. Martin Lawrence, F. O. Indicators of quality in health care. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. https://doi.org/10.3109/13814789709160336 (1997).

13. Boulkedid, R., Alberti, C. & Sibony, O. Quality indicator development and implementation in maternity units. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 27, 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.04.001 (2013).

14. Bunch, K. J., Allin, B., Jolly, M., Hardie, T. & Knight, M. Developing a set of consensus indicators to support maternity service quality improvement: using Core Outcome Set methodology including a Delphi process. BJOG 125, 1612–1618. https://doi. org/10.1111/1471-0528.15282 (2018).

15. Escuriet, R. et al. Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators. BMC Health Serv. Res. 15, 491. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1151-2 (2015).

16. Pazandeh, F., Huss, R., Hirst, J., House, A. & Baghban, A. A. An evaluation of the quality of care for women with low risk pregnanacy: the use of evidence-based practice during labour and childbirth in four public hospitals in Tehran. Midwifery 31, 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.07.003 (2015).

17. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Vital statistics of Japan 2017. accessed 15 July 2020. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/touke i/list/81-1.html (2017).

18. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Summary of Examples of Health Administration Reports (medical professionals at work) in 2019. accessed 15 July 2020. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/eisei/18/ (2019).

19. Ueda, K., Ohtera, S., Kaso, M. & Nakayama, T. Development of quality indicators for low-risk labor care provided by midwives using a RAND-modifed Delphi method. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17, 315. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1468-4 (2017).

20. Ueda, K., Kaso, M., Ohtera, S. & Nakayama, T. Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modifed Delphi method. BMJ Open 9, e023595. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023595 (2019).

21. Campbell, S. M., Braspenning, J., Hutchinson, A. & Marshall, M. N. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. BMJ 326, 816–819. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7393.816 (2003).

22. Grol, R., Baker, R. & Moss, F. Quality Improvement Research: Understanding the Science of Change in Health Care 6–28 (BMJ Publish Group, London, 2004).

23. National Quality Forum. Measure Evaluation Criteria and Guidance for Evaluating Measures for Endorsement. accessed 15 July 2020. https://www.qualityforum.org/Measuring_Performance/Submitting_Standards/Measure_Evaluation_Criteria.aspx (2016).

24. Schouten, J. A. et al. Quality of antibiotic use for lower respiratory tract infections at hospitals: (how) can we measure it?. Clin Infect Dis. 41, 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1086/431983 (2005).

25. Hommel, I., van Gurp, P. J., Tack, C. J., Wollersheim, H. & Hulscher, M. E. Perioperative diabetes care: development and validation of quality indicators throughout the entire hospital care pathway. BMJ Qual. Saf. 25, 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs -2015-004112 (2016).

26. de Vet, H. C. W., Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Hoekstra, O. S. & Knol, D. L. Clinicians are right not to like Cohen’s κ. BMJ 346, f2125. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f212589 (2013).

27. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. Te measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977).

28. Harris, P. A. et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workfow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 42, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 (2009).

29. Brown, L. D. et al. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat. Sci. 16, 101–133 (2001).

30. Boesveld, I. C. et al. An approach to assessing the quality of birth centres results of the Dutch birth centre study. Midwifery 66, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.07.008 (2018).

31. Reszel, J. et al. Use of a maternal newborn audit and feedback system in Ontario: a collective case study. BMJ Qual. Saf. 28, 635–644. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008354 (2019).

32. Sprague, A. E. et al. Measuring quality in maternal-newborn care: developing a clinical dashboard. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 35, 29–38 (2013).

33. Campbell, S. M. et al. Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes. Qual. Saf. Health Care 11, 125–130 (2002).

34. van den Bosch, C. M. et al. Applicability of generic quality indicators for appropriate antibiotic use in daily hospital practice: a cross-sectional point-prevalence multicenter study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 22, 8881–8889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2016.07.011 (2016).

35. Fleischmann, R., Decker, A. M., Kraf, A., Mai, K. & Schmidt, S. Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 17, 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0429-y (2017).

36. Wollersheim, H. et al. Clinical indicators: development and applications. Neth. J. Med. 65, 15–22 (2007).

37. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R. & Cairney, J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Teir Development and Use 5th edn, 172–178 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016).

38. Proft, J. et al. Improving benchmarking by using an explicit framework for the development of composite indicators: an example using pediatric quality of care. Implement. Sci. 5, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-13 (2010).

39. Marshall, M. N. et al. Can health care quality indicators be transferred between countries?. Qual. Saf. Health Care 12, 8–12 (2003).

参考文献をもっと見る

全国の大学の
卒論・修論・学位論文
を
一発検索！

この論文の関連論文を見る