Dataset Information

Identifying problems with data collection at a local level: survey of NHS maternity units in England.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To document the extent to which maternity data are collected and how they are recorded, and to identify problems that may affect their availability throughout the NHS. METHODS:Postal survey in September 1997 with structured questionnaires. SETTING:207 NHS trusts with maternity units in England. PARTICIPANTS:Heads of midwifery in maternity units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Extent to which maternity data were routinely recorded, how they were recorded and evaluated, and to whom they were made available. RESULTS:167 (81%) of questionnaires were returned, representing 166 trusts. Of these trusts, 165 collected >/=17 of the 19 data items in HES maternity tail, and 158 collected >/=40 of the 45 items selected from Körner dataset. Only 18 collected all five items selected from the "indicators of success," and 17 did not collect any. In 58 of trusts data were primarily recorded on paper. A computerised maternity information system was used by 106 (63%) of trusts, but many recorded data on paper first. Thirty four did not audit data for accuracy. Most trusts analysed data not routinely collected at national level, but 18 did not analyse HES maternity tail and 17 did not analyse Körner data. CONCLUSIONS:Improvement is needed in quality, completeness, and availability of maternity data at a national level, particularly if the NHS information strategy is to be successfully implemented. Although most of the data items in national datasets are recorded locally, variations in the way data are defined, recorded, and analysed and lack of linkage between computer systems restrict their access, availability, and use at local, district, and national levels.

SUBMITTER: Kenney N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC28215 | biostudies-literature | 1999 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying problems with data collection at a local level: survey of NHS maternity units in England.

Kenney N N Macfarlane A A

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 19990901 7210

<h4>Objectives</h4>To document the extent to which maternity data are collected and how they are recorded, and to identify problems that may affect their availability throughout the NHS.<h4>Methods</h4>Postal survey in September 1997 with structured questionnaires.<h4>Setting</h4>207 NHS trusts with maternity units in England.<h4>Participants</h4>Heads of midwifery in maternity units.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Extent to which maternity data were routinely recorded, how they were recorded and ...[more]

PMID: 10473480

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess implementation of the Saving Babies Lives (SBL) Care Bundle, a collection of practice recommendations in four key areas, to reduce stillbirth in England.DesignA retrospective cohort study of 463,630 births in 19 NHS Trusts in England using routinely collected electronic data supplemented with case note audit (n = 1,658), and surveys of service users (n = 2,085) and health care professionals (n = 1,064). The primary outcome was stillbirth rate. Outcome rates two years before and after the nominal SBL implementation date were derived as a measure of change over the implementation period. Data were collected on secondary outcomes and process outcomes which reflected implementation of the SBL care bundle.ResultsThe total stillbirth rate, declined from 4.2 to 3.4 per 1,000 births between the two time points (adjusted Relative Risk (aRR) 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.70 to 0.91, P<0.001). There was a contemporaneous increase in induction of labour (aRR 1.20 (95%CI 1.18-1.21), p<0.001) and emergency Caesarean section (aRR 1.10 (95%CI 1.07-1.12), p<0.001). The number of ultrasound scans performed (aRR 1.25 (95%CI 1.21-1.28), p<0.001) and the proportion of small for gestational age infants detected (aRR 1.59 (95%CI 1.32-1.92), p<0.001) also increased. Organisations reporting higher levels of implementation had improvements in process measures in all elements of the care bundle. An economic analysis estimated the cost of implementing the care bundle at ~£140 per birth. However, neither the costs nor changes in outcomes could be definitively attributed to implementation of the SBL care bundle.ConclusionsImplementation of the SBL care bundle increased over time in the majority of sites. Implementation was associated with improvements in process outcomes. The reduction in stillbirth rates in participating sites exceeded that reported nationally in the same timeframe. The intervention should be refined to identify women who are most likely to benefit and minimise unwarranted intervention.Trial registrationThe study was registered on (NCT03231007); www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:Objective To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway.Design Prospective cohort study.Setting Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015.Participants All pregnant women with a current Down's syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000.Main outcome measures Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down's syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets.Results NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down's syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down's syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down's syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval -34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£-46 000, £-1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down's syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages.Conclusions Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down's syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down's syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting.

Project description:BackgroundLocum working in healthcare organisations has benefits for individual doctors and organisations but there are concerns about the impact of locum working on continuity of care, patient safety, team function and cost. We conducted a national survey of NHS Trusts in England to explore locum work, and better understand why and where locum doctors were needed; how locum doctors were engaged, supported, perceived and managed; and any changes being made in the way locums are used.MethodsAn online survey was sent to 191 NHS Trusts and 98 were returned (51%) including 66 (67%) acute hospitals, 26 (27%) mental health and six (6%) community health providers. Data was analysed using frequency tables, t-tests and correlations. Free-text responses were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsMost NHS Trusts use locums frequently and for varying lengths of time. Trusts prefer to use locums from internal locum banks but frequently rely on locum agencies. The benefits of using locums included maintaining workforce capacity and flexibility. Importantly, care provided by locums was generally viewed as the same or somewhat worse when compared to care provided by permanent doctors. The main disadvantages of using locum agencies included cost, lack of familiarity and impact on organisational development. Some respondents felt that locums could be unreliable and less likely to be invested in quality improvement. NHS Trusts were broadly unfamiliar with the national guidance from NHS England for supporting locums and there was a focus on processes like compliance checks and induction, with less focus on providing feedback and support for appraisal.ConclusionsLocum doctors provide a necessary service within NHS Trusts to maintain workforce capacity and provide patient care. There are potential issues related to the way that locums are perceived, utilised, and supported which might impact the quality of the care that they provide. Future research should consider the arrangements for locum working and the performance of locums and permanent doctors, investigating the organisation of locums in order to achieve safe and high-quality care for patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in a freestanding primary level midwife-led maternity unit (PMU) or tertiary level obstetric-led maternity hospital (TMH) in Canterbury, Aotearoa/New Zealand.DesignProspective cohort study.Participants407 women who intended to give birth in a PMU and 285 women who intended to give birth at the TMH in 2010-2011. All of the women planning a TMH birth were 'low risk', and 29 of the PMU cohort had identified risk factors.Primary outcomesMode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and neonatal unit admission.Secondary outcomeslabour onset, analgesia, blood loss, third stage of labour management, perineal trauma, non-pharmacological pain relief, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality.ResultsWomen who planned a PMU birth were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.9%vs62.3%, adjusted OR (AOR) 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.39), and significantly less likely to have an instrumental assisted vaginal birth (10.3%vs20.4%, AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93). The emergency and elective caesarean section rates were not significantly different (emergency: PMU 11.6% vs TMH 17.5%, AOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; elective: PMU 0.7% vs TMH 2.1%, AOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.41). There were no significant differences between the cohorts in rates of 5 min Apgar score of <7 (2.0%vs2.1%, AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.52) and neonatal unit admission (5.9%vs4.9%, AOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.96). Planning to give birth in a primary unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar odds of all measured neonatal well-being indicators.ConclusionsThe results of this study support freestanding midwife-led primary-level maternity units as physically safe places for well women to plan to give birth, with these women having higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births and lower rates of interventions and their associated morbidities than those who planned a tertiary hospital birth, with no differences in neonatal outcomes.

Dataset Information

Identifying problems with data collection at a local level: survey of NHS maternity units in England.

Publications

Identifying problems with data collection at a local level: survey of NHS maternity units in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets