Obstetrical safety indicators for preventing hospital harms: a scoping review protocol

Introduction

An aim of healthcare delivery is to avoid preventable harm to patients. However, human limitations and the complex nature of health care systems are contributing factors that make errors an expected phenomenon (1). A systematic review by Nabhan and colleagues found that the most frequently used definition of preventable harms is “presence of an identifiable, modifiable cause of harm” (2). Preventable harms that occur during hospital stays are also known as hospital harms, patient safety incidents, hospital adverse events or hospital errors. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) defines hospital harms as the “rate of acute care hospitalizations with at least one occurrence of unintended harm during a hospital stay that could have been potentially prevented by implementing known evidence-informed practices” (3).

In 2000, the Institute of Medicine in the United States published a ground-breaking report To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System (4) which raised awareness around errors in healthcare processes and their negative impact on patient morbidity and mortality. In 2004, the results of the Canadian Adverse Events Study showed that according to the sample of 3745 non-psychiatric, non-obstetric adult patient charts reviewed, the rate of preventable adverse events was 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], weighted, 2.0 – 3.6) and the mortality rate from preventable adverse events was 0.66% (95% CI, weighted, 0.37%–0.95%) (5). Since then, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) reported that patient harm is Canada’s third highest cause of death. Preventable harms occur in one out of every 18 hospital visits and resulting treatments costs CAD$2.75 billion annually (6). Regarding the field of obstetrics, the most recently published hospital harm results from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI), (7) during the fiscal year 2017 – 2018, reported 5566 incidences of obstetric trauma caused by health care or medication-associated conditions and 4242 incidences caused by procedure-associated conditions. They also reported that during the same period, 670 incidences of obstetric hemorrhage were caused by health care or medication associated conditions and 960 incidences were caused by procedure associated-conditions. In addition, 855 birth trauma incidences were caused by health care or medication-associated conditions and 1417 incidences were caused by procedure-associated conditions.

Certain harms require exploration of each patient case to assess whether the harm is potentially preventable, and others are more obviously preventable, such as fatal medication doses (8) or wrong-site surgeries. The Hospital Harm Framework classifies harms into 4 categories: health care/medication-associated conditions; health care associated infections; patient accidents; and procedure-associated conditions (9).

Several studies have shown strategies that have successfully reduced preventable patient harm. Existing research has shown that making patient safety central to the delivery of care can lead to system-level improvements. In the United States, Pettker and colleagues implemented a comprehensive obstetric patient safety program which led to reductions in adverse outcomes and litigation cases, and improvements in staff perceptions of safety and improvements in the safety climate, (10–12). Also in the United States, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative [CMQCC] California has identified a correlation between the work of perinatal quality collaboratives (PQCs) and a 50% reduction in maternal mortality rates in the state of California (13).

Audit and feedback interventions may help to prevent patient harm. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Framework for Safe, Reliable and Effective Care identifies processes of improvement and measurement as a part of the health care learning system (14). In the UK, an ethnographic study of a maternity unit with an excellent record for patient safety found that staff partly attributed its success to a maternity dashboard which facilitated audit and feedback (15). The Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN Ontario) developed a dashboard of six key clinical performance indicators to measure data relating to the quality of maternal and newborn patient care in Ontario, Canada (16–18). In a pilot study, a quality improvement project focusing on one of the indicators identified by BORN, led to a welcome and significant reduction in the rate of elective repeat caesarean sections (ECRS) in low risk women at less than 39 weeks’ gestation (19). In an interrupted time series study that evaluated post-implementation effectiveness of the maternal newborn dashboard, the researchers found that it led to improvements in four of the six key indicators (20). A systematic review by Ivers and colleagues (21) found that audit and feedback can lead to small improvements in the practice of care delivery by health care professionals. In a rapid review, Anthony and colleagues found that audit and feedback in combination with other obstetrical safety initiatives may reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality (22).

It is necessary to identify patient safety indicators to ensure the effectiveness of future audit and feedback strategies. Hearnshaw and colleagues have highlighted the need for useful audit review criteria that are developed or selected using systematic methods (23,24). However, in the field of obstetrics, it is currently unclear which indicators relate to, or have the potential to improve obstetric safety. In this scoping review, we want to contribute to the improvement of obstetric patient safety by identifying indicators as the starting point of an approach to harm reduction.

The term indicator is generally understood to mean a measure that provides information on health service delivery across organisations which enables tracking and comparison of performance over time. In a paper first published in 1966, Donebedian identified three types of measures of quality which can be used to evaluate the process of care at the patient-healthcare provider level; outcome measures; process measures and structure measures (25). A fourth type, balancing measures, relate to positive or negative phenomenon which happen as an unintended consequence of a change (14).

Many desirable criteria for measuring the quality of care delivered by a health system have been proposed in the literature. Kessner and colleagues (26) suggested using tracers which are a set of specific health conditions or activities. They identified the following criteria for tracers: having the potential to be positively impacted by health care activities, clearly definable and easily diagnosable, have a level of prevalence that leads to data collection adequate for statistical analysis, having a demonstrable potential to improve health conditions, relate to processes involving prevention, diagnosis, treatment or rehabilitation, and contextual influences should be understood. Janakariaman and Ecker listed their ideal criteria for measures as: easily definable and observable; important to patients and health care professionals; identifies areas where improvements are needed and uses accessible data (27).

A systematic review by Saturno-Hernández and colleagues found that despite the existence of a large number of indicators for monitoring obstetric care, they were lacking in scientific rigor and many are not suitable for implementation (28). They used the following desirable criteria for indicators: presenting a full description, clearly based on explicit evidence, reliable, and feasible (confirmed by pilot testing).

Although it is likely that indicators have the potential to improve patient safety there are no consistent standards for measuring obstetric patient safety. When deciding on indicators it is extremely important to understand what you want to measure and how it can be measured effectively. In order to use obstetric safety indicators as part of a harm reduction strategy they should resonate with health care professionals.

Quality and safety indicators are closely linked and sometimes used interchangeably. However, safety indicators are a sub-type of quality indicators. For this review, we will use the definition of patient safety indicators used by Kristensen and colleagues i.e. measures that directly or indirectly monitor preventable hospital harms (29). For these indicators it is important to map indicators to goals which are actionable. In the field of obstetric patient safety, there is a need to identify indicators which measure the aspects of care that relate to preventable harms caused by medical errors. This can be challenging because it is not always clear which indicators should be used and there are variations in practice and outcomes across hospitals, regions etc.

It is important to note that some safety indicators may be judged as avoidable depending on the patient case. Therefore, we will focus on obstetric safety indicators that relate to the prevention of harms that are at least partly potentially avoidable to patients.

The aim of our review will be to scope the body of relevant literature (30) to identify a comprehensive list of potential obstetric safety indicators which can help reduce preventable patient harms. The objectives of the scoping review are to search for and identify records discussing indicators that can optimize obstetrical safety, to summarize the data and to synthesize the results. This scoping review is being undertaken to inform which indicators will be included in a patient safety dashboard from BORN Ontario.

Methods and analysis

We will undertake a scoping review to systematically map the available literature on performance indicators relevant to the reduction of preventable harms within the purview of obstetric safety. We will use the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews PRISMA ScR Checklist (31) to guide the reporting of the scoping review. We will use the scoping study framework introduced by Arksey and O’ Malley (32) and the recommendations later developed by Levac (33) to guide our methods. We will follow all six suggested stages as described below.

Ethics and Dissemination

This scoping review will not require ethical approval because included sources are or can be made available to the public (42).

This research will be disseminated with the intention of reaching a wide audience through the use of multiple modes of delivery such as stakeholder engagement, publication(s) in a peer-reviewed journal and conference paper(s).

Authors’ contributions

In consultation with all authors, AC wrote the first draft which SID and JR reviewed. JMG and MCW reviewed a second draft. All authors contributed to the planning and writing of this protocol and approved submission of the final manuscript to the publishing journal.

Funding

AC is the recipient of a Health Systems Impact Fellowship co-funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Health Services and Policy Research (CIHR-IHSPR) and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests.