Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This paper critically reviews published tools and indicators currently used to measure maternity care performance within Europe, focusing particularly on whether and how current approaches enable systematic appraisal of processes of minimal (or non-) intervention in support of physiological or "normal birth". The work formed part of COST Actions IS0907: "Childbirth Cultures, Concerns, and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for optimal maternity care" (2011-2014) and IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health - an interdisciplinary whole system approach to understanding and contextualising physiological labour and birth (BIRTH) (2014-). The Actions included the sharing of country experiences with the aim of promoting salutogenic approaches to maternity care.METHODS: A structured literature search was conducted of material published between 2005 and 2013, incorporating research databases, published documents in english in peer-reviewed international journals and indicator databases which measured aspects of health care at a national and pan-national level. Given its emergence from two COST Actions the work, inevitably, focused on Europe, but findings may be relevant to other countries and regions.RESULTS: A total of 388 indicators were identified, as well as seven tools specifically designed for capturing aspects of maternity care. Intrapartum care was the most frequently measured feature, through the application of process and outcome indicators. Postnatal and neonatal care of mother and baby were the least appraised areas. An over-riding focus on the quantification of technical intervention and adverse or undesirable outcomes was identified. Vaginal birth (no instruments) was occasionally cited as an indicator; besides this measurement few of the 388 indicators were found to be assessing non-intervention or "good" or positive outcomes more generally.CONCLUSIONS: The tools and indicators identified largely enable measurement of technical interventions and undesirable health (or pathological medical) outcomes. A physiological birth generally necessitates few, or no, interventions, yet most of the indicators presently applied fail to capture (a) this phenomenon, and (b) the relationship between different forms and processes of care, mode of birth and good or positive outcomes. A need was identified for indicators which capture non-intervention, reflecting the reality that most births are low-risk, requiring few, if any, technical medical procedures.
Original languageEnglish
JournalBMC Health Service Research
Volume15
Issue number491
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Nov 2015

Bibliographical note

Reference text: References
1. Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring Vol. 1.
The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Michigan:
Health Administration Press; 1980.
2. Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:523–30.
3. Pencheon D. The good indicators guide: understanding how to use and
choose indicators. London: Association of Public Health Observatories &
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement; 2008.
4. Smith V. Salutogenically focused outcomes in systematic reviews of
intrapartum interventions: A systematic review of systematic reviews.
Midwifery. 2013;30(4):e151–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.11.002.
5. Memorandum of Understanding. In: COST Action 907. Childbirth Cultures,
Concerns, and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for
optimal maternity care. 2012. http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/isch/IS0907.
Accessed 20 September 2015
6. Murphy PA, Fullerton JT. Measuring outcomes of maternity care:
development of an instrument to assess optimality. J Midwifery Womens
Health. 2001;46(5):274–84.
7. Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M, OBoyle C. Evaluating Maternity Care: A core
set of outcome measures. Birth. 2007;34(2):164–72.
8. EURO-PERISTAT Project with SCPE and EUROCAT. European Perinatal Health
Report. Brussels: The Health and care of pregnant women and babies in
Europe in 2010; 2013.
9. Zeitlin J, Wildman K, Breart G, Alexander S, Barros H, Blondel B, et al.
Selecting an indicator set for monitoring and evaluating perinatal health in
Europe: criteria, methods and results from the PERISTAT project. Eur J
Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;111:S5–S14.
10. Lack N, Zeitlin J, Krebs L, Künzel W, Alexander S. Methodological difficulties
in the comparison of indicators of perinatal health across Europe. Eur
J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;111:S33–44.
11. Sheridan M, Sandall J. Measuring the best outcome for the least
intervention: Can the Optimality Index-US be applied in the United
Kingdom? Midwifery. 2010;26(6):e9–e15.
12. Smith V, Daly D, Lundgren I, Benstoem C, Devane D. Salutogenically
focused outcomes in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions: A
systematic review of systematic reviews. Midwifery. 2014;30(4):e151–6.
13. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, Campbell J, Channon AA,
Cheung NF, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new
evidenceinformed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet.
2014;384:1129–45.
14. Flowers J, Hall P, Pencheon D. Public health indicators. Public Health.
2005;119(4):239–45.
15. Kelley E, Hurst J. Health Care Quality Indicators Project. Conceptual
Framework Paper. OECD Health Working Paper No. 23. Paris: Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2006.
16. Donabedian A. An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2003.
17. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of
healthcare. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001;13(6):475–80.
18. Ronsmans C. How can we measure progress towards improved maternal
health? In: De Brouwere V, Van Lerberghe W, editors. Safe motherhood
strategies: a review of the evidence. Antwerp: ITG Press; 2001.
19. Sibanda T, Fox R, Draycott TJ, Mahmood T, Richmond D, Simms R.
Intrapartum quality care indicators: a systemic approach for achieving
consensus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166:23–9.
20. Mullen PM. Using performance indicators to improve performance. Health
Serv Manage Res. 2004;17:217–28.
21. Gibberd R, Hancock S, Howley P, Richards K. Using indicators to quantify the
potential to improve the quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care.
2004;16:i37–43.
22. Critical Appraisal Skills programme. [http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-toolschecklists/
c18f8]
23. Euro-Peristat project with SCPE and Eurocat. European Perinatal health
report. The health of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. 2013.
http://www.europeristat.com
24. Aniuliene R, Blaževičiene A, Riklikiene O. Quality of obstetric services:
perspectives of patients, obstetricians, and midwives. Medicina (Kaunas,
Lithuania). 2010;47:120–4.
25. Boulkedid R, Sibony O, Goffinet F, Fauconnier A, Branger B, Alberti C.
Quality Indicators for Continuous Monitoring to Improve Maternal and
Infant Health in Maternity Departments: A Modified Delphi Survey of an
International Multidisciplinary Panel. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4), e60663.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060663.
26. de Bruin-Kooistra M, Amelink-Verburg MP, Buitendijk SE, Westert GP. Finding
the right indicators for assessing quality midwifery care. Int J Qual Health
Care. 2012;24:301–10.
27. Chappell LC, Calderwood C, Kenyon S, Draper ES, Knight M. Understanding
patterns in maternity care in the NHS and getting it right. BMJ.
2013;346:f2812.
28. Eurostat Statistics explained. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/
index.php/Health. Accessed 10 Sept 2013
29. Faisel H, Pittrof R, El-Hosini M, Habib M, Azzam E. Using standard primipara
method to compare the quality of maternity care in Cairo and London.
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;29:284–7.
30. Hollins Martin C, Fleming V. The birth satisfaction scale. Int J Health Care
Qual Assur. 2011;24:124–35.
31. Knight HE, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, Richmond D, van
der Meulen JH, et al. Evaluating maternity care using national administrative
health datasets: How are statistics affected by the quality of data on
method of delivery? BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:200.
32. Murray SF, Buller AM, Bewley S, Sandall J. Metrics for monitoring local
inequalities in access to maternity care: developing a basket of markers
from routinely available data. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19, e39.
33. Nuti S, Bonini A, Murante AM, Vainieri M. Performance assessment in the
maternity pathway in Tuscany region. Health Serv Manage Res.
2009;22:115–21.
34. OECD iLibrary. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/
data/oecd-health-statistics_health-data-en. Accessed 10 Sept 2013
35. Overgaard C, Fenger-Grøn M, Sandall J. The impact of birthplace on
women’s birth experiences and perceptions of care. Soc Sci Med.
2012;74:973–81.
36. Parkhurst JO, Danischevski K, Balabanova D. International maternal health
indicators and middle-income countries: Russia. BMJ. 2005;331:510–3.
37. van Roosmalen J, Zwart J. Severe acute maternal morbidity in high-income
countries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23:297–304.
38. Rudman A, Bassam E, Waldenström U. Women's satisfaction with
intrapartum care - a pattern approach. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59:474–87.
39. Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, Gyte G, Rabe H, Duley L. Measures of
satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC
Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:108. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-
2393/13/108.
40. Tucker J, Mc Vicar A, Pitchforth E, Farmer J, Bryers H. Maternity care models
in a remote and rural network: assessing clinical appropriateness and
outcome indicators. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:83–9.
41. Turner M. The use of quality control performance charts to analyze
cesarean delivery rates nationally. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113:175–7.
42. Voerman GE, Calsbeek H, Maassen I, Wiegers T, Braspenning J. A systematic
approach towards the development of a set of quality indicators for public
reporting in community-based maternity care. Midwifery. 2013;29:316–24.
43. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Making Pregnancy Safer. Assessment tool
for the quality of hospital care for mothers and newborn babies.
Copenhagen: WHO; 2009.
44. Wiegers TA. The quality of maternity care services as experienced by
women in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9:18.
45. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:
The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(6), e1000097.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
46. van Teijlingen ER, Pitchforth E, Bishop C, Russell EM. Delphi method and
nominal group techniques in family planning and reproductive health
research. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006;32(4):249–52.
47. Jairath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology (Part one): A useful
administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm. 1994;7:29–42
Van Teijlingen ER, Hundley V, Rennie AM, Graham W, Fitzmaurice A.
Maternity satisfaction studies and their limitations: “What is, must still be
best”. Birth. 2003;30(2):75–82.
49. MacArthur C. What does postnatal care do for women’s health? Lancet.
1999;353:343–4.
50. Boulkedid R, Sibony O, Goffinet F, Fauconnier A, Branger B, Alberti C.
Quality Indicators for Continuous Monitoring to Improve Maternal and
Infant Health in Maternity Departments: A Modified Delphi Survey of an
International Multidisciplinary Panel. PLoS One. 2013;6.
51. Mc Lachlan HL, Forster DA, Rayner J, Lumley J. Is the organisation and
structure of hospital postnatal care a barrier to quality care? Findings from
a state-wide review in Victoria, Australia. Midwifery. 2008;24(3):358–70.
52. Singh R, Trivedi N. Is the caesarean section rate a performance indicators of
an obstetric unit? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(2):204–7.
53. Turner M. The use of quality control performance charts to analyze
caesarean delivery rates nationally. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;113(3):175–7.
54. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM and for the WHO Working
Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates.
BJOG. 2015; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13526
55. Bonfill X, Roqué M, Aller MB, Osoria D, Foradada C, Vives A, et al.
Development of quality indicators from systematic reviews: the case of
hospital delivery. Implement Sci. 2013;8:42.
56. Enkin M. Beyond the evidence: The complexity of Maternity care. Birth.
2006;33:4.
57. Luyben JG. Mothering the mother. A study of effective content of care
during pregnancy from women’s points of view in three European
countries, Doctoral thesis. Glasgow: Caledonian University; 2008.
58. Bryce J, Arnold F, Blanc A, Hancioglu A, Newby H, Requejo J, et al.
Measuring coverage in MNCH: New findings, new strategies, and
recommendations for action. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5), e1001423.
59. Chappell LC, Calderwood C, Kenyon S, Draper ES, Knight M. Understanding
patterns in maternity care in the NHS and getting it right. BMJ.
2013;346:2812.
60. Santos JV, Correia C, Cabral F, Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Freitas A. Should
European perinatal indicators be revised? Eur J Obstet Gynecol.
2013;170(1):85–9.
61. Kathleen NL, Institute of Medicine: Medicare: A Strategy for Quality
Assurance. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1990.
62. Symon A, Mackay A, Ruta D. Postnatal quality of life: a pilot study using the
Mother-generated Index. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(1):21–9.
63. Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, Berghs GA, van der Zee J. An approach to measuring
quality of midwifery care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:319–25.
64. Escuriet R, Pueyo M, Biescas H, Colls C, Espiga I, White J, et al. Obstetric
interventions in two groups of hospitals in Catalonia: a cross-sectional
study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:143. http://www.biomed
central.com/1471-2393/14/143.

Keywords

  • Delivery
  • Obstetric
  • Europe
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Labor
  • Maternal Health Services/standards*
  • Parturition
  • Pregnancy
  • Quality Indicators
  • Health Care*
  • Quality of Health Care/standards*

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this