Use of WHO standards to improve quality of maternal and newborn hospital care: a study collecting both mothers' and staff perspective in a tertiary care hospital in Italy

Marzia Lazzerini, Emanuelle Pessa Valente, Benedetta Covi, Chiara Semenzato, Margherita Ciuch, Marzia Lazzerini, Emanuelle Pessa Valente, Benedetta Covi, Chiara Semenzato, Margherita Ciuch

Abstract

Background: WHO developed a list of standards for improving maternal and newborn hospital care. However, there is little experience on their use, and no precise guidance on their implementation. This study aimed at documenting the use of the WHO standards for improving the quality of maternal and neonatal care (QMNC) in a tertiary hospital, Northeast Italy.

Methods: The study was conducted between May 2016 and May 2018, in three phases: phase I-sensitisation and training of health professionals; phase II-data collection on the WHO standards through a survey among service users and providers; phase III-based on the findings of phase II, development of recommendations for improving the QMNC.

Results: Overall, 101 health professionals were successfully trained. 1050 mothers and 105 hospital staff participated in the survey. Key indicators of QMNC (and related prevalence) from the mothers survey included: caesarean section (23.1%); episiotomy (18.3%); restrictions to free movements during labour (46.5%), lithotomy position for staff choice (69.3%); skin to skin (80.8%); early breast feeding (67.2%); information on newborn danger signs (47.2%); high satisfaction with QMNC (68.8%). Only 1.2% and 0.7% of women respectively reported discrimination or abuse. Key indicators (and prevalence) reported from staff included: availability of clinical protocols (37%); regular training (14%); health information system used for quality improvement (16.3%); training on effective communication (9.7%) and on emotional support (19.6%); protocols to prevent mistreatment and abuse (6.9%). On several indicators, the opinions of mothers on QMNC was better than those of staff. Overall, 55 quality improvement recommendations were agreed.

Conclusions: Information on the WHO standards can be collected from both services users and providers and can be proactively used for planning improvements on QMNC.

Keywords: healthcare quality improvement; patient-centred care; quality improvement; standards of care; women’s health.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of service users and service providers.

References

    1. Word Health Organization. Health 2020. A European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. 2013. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. World Health Organization. Quality of care: a process for making strategic choices in health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006.
    1. United Nations. Sustainable Development knowledge Platform. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. World Health Organization. Promoting health through the life-course. Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health 2016-2030. 2015. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. Spotlight on Sustainable Development. Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). The “Health SDG”: Some progress, but critical concerns remain. 2016. (Accessed 15 Jun 2018).
    1. White Ribbon Alliance. 2018. (Accessed 15 Jun 2018).
    1. Shaw D, Guise JM, Shah N, et al. . Drivers of maternity care in high-income countries: can health systems support woman-centred care? Lancet 2016;388:2282–95. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31527-6
    1. Shakibazadeh E, Namadian M, Bohren MA, et al. . Respectful care during childbirth in health facilities globally: a qualitative evidence synthesis. BJOG 2018;125 10.1111/1471-0528.15015
    1. Flenady V, Wojcieszek AM, Middleton P, et al. . Stillbirths: recall to action in high-income countries. Lancet 2016;387:691–702. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01020-X
    1. Fitzsimons B, Cornwell J. What can we learn from patients' perspectives on the quality and safety of hospital care? BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27:671–2. 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008106
    1. Tunçalp Ӧ, Were WM, MacLennan C, et al. . Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns-the WHO vision. BJOG 2015;122:1045–9. 10.1111/1471-0528.13451
    1. World Health Organization. Sexual and reproductive health. Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities. 2016. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. . SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:986–92. 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
    1. Goodman D, Ogrinc G, Davies L, et al. . Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:e7 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480
    1. SQUIRE. Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence SQUIRE 2.0. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. Ministero della Salute. Certificato di assistenza al parto (CeDAP). Analisi dell’evento nascita - Anno 2014. 2017. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. White Ribbon Alliance. Respectful Maternity Care. Respectful Maternity Care Charter. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. World Health Organization. Sexual and reproductive health. The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth. 2014. (Accessed 15 Jun 2018).
    1. Bohren MA, Vogel JP, Hunter EC, et al. . The Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth in Health Facilities Globally: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001847 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001847
    1. Mannava P, Durrant K, Fisher J, et al. . Attitudes and behaviours of maternal health care providers in interactions with clients: a systematic review. Global Health 2015;11:36 10.1186/s12992-015-0117-9
    1. Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, et al. . Listening to Mothers III: report of the third national U.S. survey of women’s childbearing experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection, 2013.
    1. The National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. National Maternity Survey 2014 : Redshaw M, Henderson J, Safely delivered a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2014: University of Oxford, 2018.
    1. Torres JA, Leal MC, Garna SGN, et al. . Nascer no Brasil. Sumário executivo da pesquisa-Birth in Brazil. 2014. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. Sanità ISdi. Donati S, Andreozzi S, Grandolfo ME. Evaluation of the support and information activities offered to pregnant women: a national survey (in Italian). Rapporti ISTISAN 01/ 2001.
    1. Grandolfo ME, Donati S, Giusti A. Survey on the birth assistance, 2002. Methodological aspects and national results (in Italian). (Accessed 15 Jun 2018).
    1. Lauria L, Lamberti A, Buoncristiano M, et al. . Pre- and post-natal assistance: promotion and assessment of operational models quality. The 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 surveys (in Italian). 2012. Rapporti ISTISAN 12/39.
    1. Osservatorio sulla Violenza Ostetrica Italia (OVOItalia). First Data on Obstetric Violence in Italy. (Accessed 8 Jun 2018).
    1. Doran GT. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to write management’s goals and objectives:management review. 1981;70:35–6.
    1. Graham WJ, Varghese B. Quality, quality, quality: gaps in the continuum of care. Lancet 2012;379:e5–e6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62267-2
    1. Ceschia A, Horton R. Maternal health: time for a radical reappraisal. Lancet 2016;388:2064–6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31534-3
    1. Secanell M, Groene O, Arah OA, et al. . Deepening our understanding of quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE): overview of a study of hospital quality management in seven countries. Int J Qual Health Care 2014;26(S1):5–15. 10.1093/intqhc/mzu025
    1. Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, et al. . Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2015;4:97 10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0
    1. Nilvér H, Begley C, Berg M. Measuring women’s childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:203 10.1186/s12884-017-1356-y
    1. Maimburg RD, Væth M, Dahlen H. Women’s experience of childbirth - a five year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial "Ready for Child Trial". Women Birth 2016;29:450–4. 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.02.003
    1. Carquillat P, Boulvain M, Guittier MJ. How does delivery method influence factors that contribute to women’s childbirth experiences? Midwifery 2016;43:21–8. 10.1016/j.midw.2016.10.002
    1. Care Quality Commission, The independent regulator of health and social care in England. Maternity services survey. 2017. (Accessed 08 Jun 2018).
    1. Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, et al. . Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet 2016;388:10056–2192. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31472-6
    1. Tocchioni V, Seghieri C, De Santis G, et al. . Socio-demographic determinants of women’s satisfaction with prenatal and delivery care services in Italy. Int J Qual Health Care 2018;30:594–601. 10.1093/intqhc/mzy078

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever