Literature DB >> 26456014

Validating the WHO Maternal Near Miss Tool in a high-income country.

Tom Witteveen1, Ilona de Koning1, Hans Bezstarosti1, Thomas van den Akker1, Jos van Roosmalen1,2, Kitty W Bloemenkamp1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to assess the applicability of the WHO Maternal Near Miss Tool (MNM Tool) and the organ dysfunction criteria in a high-income country.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The MNM tool was applied to 2552 women who died of pregnancy-related causes or sustained severe acute maternal morbidity between August 2004 and August 2006 in one of the 98 hospitals with a maternity unit in the Netherlands. Fourteen (0.6%) cases had insufficient data for application. Each case was assessed according to the three main "MNM categories" specified in the MNM tool and their subcategory criteria: five disease-, four intervention- and seven organ dysfunction-based criteria. Potentially life-threatening conditions (disease-based inclusions) and life-threatening cases (organ dysfunction-based inclusions) were differentiated according to WHO methodology. Outcomes were incidence of all (sub)categories and case-fatality rates.
RESULTS: Of the 2538 cases, 2308 (90.9%) women fulfilled disease-based, 2116 (83.4%) intervention-based and 1024 (40.3%) organ dysfunction-based criteria. Maternal death occurred in 48 women, of whom 23 (47.9%) fulfilled disease-based, 33 (68.8%) intervention-based and 31 (64.6%) organ dysfunction-based criteria. Case-fatality rates were 23/2308 (1.0%) for cases fulfilling the disease-based criteria, 33/2116 (1.6%) for intervention-based criteria and 31/1024 (3.0%) for women fulfilling the organ dysfunction-based criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, where advanced laboratory and clinical monitoring are available, organ dysfunction-based criteria of the MNM tool failed to identify nearly two-thirds of sustained severe acute maternal morbidity cases and more than one-third of maternal deaths. Disease-based criteria remain important, and using only organ dysfunction-based criteria would lead to underestimating severe acute maternal morbidity.
© 2015 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Maternal Near Miss Tool; Severe acute maternal morbidity; World Health Organization; high income country; maternal health; organ dysfunction

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26456014     DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12793

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  18 in total

1.  Indicators for maternal near miss: an observational study, India.

Authors:  Divya Mecheril Balachandran; Dhamotharan Karuppusamy; Dilip Kumar Maurya; Sitanshu Sekhar Kar; Anish Keepanasseril
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 13.831

Review 2.  Neonatal near miss: a systematic review.

Authors:  Juliana P Santos; Cynthia Pileggi-Castro; Jose S Camelo; Antonio A Silva; Pablo Duran; Suzanne J Serruya; Jose G Cecatti
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Social determinants and maternal exposure to intimate partner violence of obstetric patients with severe maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla; Angela Taft; Susan McDonald; Wendy Pollock; Joel Christian Roque Henriquez
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Evaluating the effect of the Helping Mothers Survive Bleeding after Birth (HMS BAB) training in Tanzania and Uganda: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Claudia Hanson; Andrea B Pembe; Fadhlun Alwy; Susan Atuhairwe; Sebalda Leshabari; Jessica Morris; Frank Kaharuza; Gaetano Marrone
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Validating the WHO maternal near miss tool: comparing high- and low-resource settings.

Authors:  Tom Witteveen; Hans Bezstarosti; Ilona de Koning; Ellen Nelissen; Kitty W Bloemenkamp; Jos van Roosmalen; Thomas van den Akker
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Afghan migrants face more suboptimal care than natives: a maternal near-miss audit study at university hospitals in Tehran, Iran.

Authors:  Soheila Mohammadi; Soraya Saleh Gargari; Masoumeh Fallahian; Carina Källestål; Shirin Ziaei; Birgitta Essén
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Severe maternal morbidity surveillance: Monitoring pregnant women at high risk for prolonged hospitalisation and death.

Authors:  Susie Dzakpasu; Paromita Deb-Rinker; Laura Arbour; Elizabeth K Darling; Michael S Kramer; Shiliang Liu; Wei Luo; Phil A Murphy; Chantal Nelson; Joel G Ray; Heather Scott; Michiel VandenHof; K S Joseph
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 3.980

8.  Exploring Epidemiological Aspects, Distribution of WHO Maternal Near Miss Criteria, and Organ Dysfunction Defined by SOFA in Cases of Severe Maternal Outcome Admitted to Obstetric ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Antonio Francisco Oliveira Neto; Mary Angela Parpinelli; Maria Laura Costa; Renato Teixeira Souza; Carolina Ribeiro do Valle; José Guilherme Cecatti
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 9.  A global view of severe maternal morbidity: moving beyond maternal mortality.

Authors:  Stacie E Geller; Abigail R Koch; Caitlin E Garland; E Jane MacDonald; Francesca Storey; Beverley Lawton
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.223

10.  Incidence of maternal near-miss in Kenya in 2018: findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional study in 54 referral hospitals.

Authors:  Onikepe Owolabi; Taylor Riley; Kenneth Juma; Michael Mutua; Zoe H Pleasure; Joshua Amo-Adjei; Martin Bangha
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.