L Aibar1, M J Rabanaque, J Mozas, A Puertas, J M Aranaz, C Aibar. 1. Department of Microbiology, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Zaragoza, Domingo Miral St., 50009, Zaragoza, Spain, lauraibar@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determining the magnitude and importance of patient safety-related incidents and the effectiveness of measures to improve patient safety (PS) are high-priority goals in efforts to improve the quality of obstetric care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the MRF1-OBST screening guide in detecting adverse events in women who received obstetric care. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 244 women who were hospitalized for delivery. All medical records were reviewed with the MRF1-OBST screening guide to identify adverse events and incidents. This tool is a modified form of the MRF1 screening guide regularly used in epidemiological studies of PS, to which we added items developed specifically for obstetric care. We calculated the positive predictive value and compared the ability of the MRF1 and MRF1-OBST guides to detect incidents related to PS in Obstetrics. RESULTS: The MRF1-OBST guide did not identify any additional complications during hospitalization or incidents related to PS that were not also identified by the MRF1 guide. CONCLUSIONS: The MRF1-OBST guide did not improve the detection of obstetric AE. The modified version of the guide required more work to use as a screening aid than the original MRF1 instrument. Efforts to improve the detection of incidents related to PS in obstetrics require complementary tools to be developed for information analysis.
PURPOSE: Determining the magnitude and importance of patient safety-related incidents and the effectiveness of measures to improve patient safety (PS) are high-priority goals in efforts to improve the quality of obstetric care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the MRF1-OBST screening guide in detecting adverse events in women who received obstetric care. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 244 women who were hospitalized for delivery. All medical records were reviewed with the MRF1-OBST screening guide to identify adverse events and incidents. This tool is a modified form of the MRF1 screening guide regularly used in epidemiological studies of PS, to which we added items developed specifically for obstetric care. We calculated the positive predictive value and compared the ability of the MRF1 and MRF1-OBST guides to detect incidents related to PS in Obstetrics. RESULTS: The MRF1-OBST guide did not identify any additional complications during hospitalization or incidents related to PS that were not also identified by the MRF1 guide. CONCLUSIONS: The MRF1-OBST guide did not improve the detection of obstetric AE. The modified version of the guide required more work to use as a screening aid than the original MRF1 instrument. Efforts to improve the detection of incidents related to PS in obstetrics require complementary tools to be developed for information analysis.