Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence.

BACKGROUND: Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts. METHODS: Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified. RESULTS: After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.

Background: There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved. Objectives: To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement. Design: A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases. Setting: National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2). Participants: We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families. Results: The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced. Limitations: Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups. Conclusions: We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study describes the experiences of families and healthcare professionals involved in incidents in NHS maternity care. The incidents caused harm-like injury or death to the baby or woman. We wanted to know whether services involved families in investigations and reviews and how this was done, what worked well, what did not work well and why. To do this, we first looked at what had already been written about 'open disclosure' or OD. Open disclosure is when the NHS admits to families that the care they provided has directly caused harm. After open disclosure occurs, families should be involved in making sure that the NHS learns so it can deliver better care for families in the future. In our reading, we found that families want a meaningful apology, to be involved in reviews or investigations, to know what happened to their loved one, to be cared for by knowledgeable doctors and midwives who are supported in providing open disclosure and to know things have changed because of what happened. Recommendations for involving families in open disclosure have improved, but there is still work to be done to make sure families are involved. Next, we talked to over 100 healthcare professionals involved in government policy for open disclosure in maternity services and 27 families who experienced harm. We spent 9 months observing the work of clinicians at three maternity services to watch open disclosure. We shared early findings with families, doctors, midwives and managers, and included their views. We found that services need to provide dedicated time, education and emotional support for staff who provide open disclosure. Services need to ensure that families have ongoing support and better communication about incidents. Finally, families must be involved in the review process if they want to be with their experiences reflected in reports and kept informed of ongoing improvements.

Mothers working to prevent early stillbirth study (MiNESS 20-28): a case-control study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In the UK, 1600 babies die every year before, during or immediately after birth at 20-28 weeks' gestation. This bereavement has a similar impact on parental physical and psychological well-being to late stillbirth (>28 weeks' gestation). Improved understanding of potentially modifiable risk factors for late stillbirth (including supine going-to-sleep position) has influenced international clinical practice. Information is now urgently required to similarly inform clinical practice and aid decision-making by expectant mothers/parents, addressing inequalities in pregnancy loss between 20 and 28 weeks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study focuses on what portion of risk of pregnancy loss 20-28 weeks' gestation is associated with exposures amenable to public health campaigns/antenatal care adaptation. A case-control study of non-anomalous singleton baby loss (via miscarriage, stillbirth or early neonatal death) 20+0 to 27+6 (n=316) and randomly selected control pregnancies (2:1 ratio; n=632) at group-matched gestations will be conducted. Data is collected via participant recall (researcher-administered questionnaire) and extraction from contemporaneous medical records. Unadjusted/confounder-adjusted ORs will be calculated. Exposures associated with early stillbirth at OR≥1.5 will be detectable (p<0.05, ß>0.80) assuming exposure prevalence of 30%-60%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS research ethical approval has been obtained from the London-Seasonal research ethics committee (23/LO/0622). The results will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed open-access journals. Information from this study will enable development of antenatal care and education for healthcare professionals and pregnant people to reduce risk of early stillbirth. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06005272.

Investigation of the critical factors required to improve the disclosure and discussion of harm with affected women and families: a study protocol for a qualitative, realist study in NHS maternity services (the DISCERN study).

Patients and families are entitled to an open disclosure and discussion of healthcare incidents affecting them. This reduces distress and contributes to learning for safety improvement. Complex barriers prevent effective disclosure and continue in the English NHS, despite a legal duty of candour. NHS maternity services are the focus of significant efforts to improve this. There is limited understanding of how, and to what effect, they are achieving this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 27-month, three-phased realist evaluation identifying the critical factors contributing to improvements in the disclosure and discussion of incidents with affected families. The evaluation asks 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in why respects and why?'.Phase 1: establish working hypotheses of key factors and outcomes of interventions improving disclosure and discussion, by realist literature review and in-depth realist interviews with key stakeholders (n=approximately 20]Phase 2: refine or overturn hypotheses, by ethnographic case-study analysis using triangulated qualitative methods (non-participant observation, interviews (n=12) and documentary analysis) in up to 4 purposively sampled NHS trusts.Phase 3: consider hypotheses and design outputs during seven interpretive forums. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Phase 1 study approval by King's College London's Ethics Panel (BDMRESC 22033) and National Research Ethical Approval for Phases 2-3 (IRASID:262197) (CAG:20/CAG/0121) (REC:20/LO/1152). Study sponsorship by King's College London (HS&DR 17/99/85).Findings to be disseminated through tailored management briefings; clinician and family guidance (written and video); lay summaries, academic papers, and report with outputs tailored to maximise academic and societal impact. Views of women/family groups are represented throughout.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study).

INTRODUCTION: Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087748.

Parents' Active Role and ENgagement in The review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death 2 (PARENTS 2) study: a mixed-methods study of implementation.

OBJECTIVE: When a formal review of care takes places after the death of a baby, parents are largely unaware it takes place and are often not meaningfully involved in the review process. Parent engagement in the process is likely to be essential for a successful review and to improve patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate an intervention process of parental engagement in perinatal mortality review (PNMR) and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study of parents' engagement in PNMR. SETTING: Single tertiary maternity unit in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Bereaved parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs). INTERVENTIONS: Parent engagement in the PNMR (intervention) was based on principles derived through national consensus and qualitative research with parents, HCPs and stakeholders in the UK. OUTCOMES: Recruitment rates, bereaved parents and HCPs' perceptions. RESULTS: Eighty-one per cent of bereaved parents approached (13/16) agreed to participate in the study. Two focus groups with bereaved parents (n=11) and HCP (n=7) were carried out postimplementation to investigate their perceptions of the process.Overarching findings were improved dialogue and continuity of care with parents, and improvements in the PNMR process and patient safety. Bereaved parents agreed that engagement in the PNMR process was invaluable and helped them in their grieving. HCP perceived that parent involvement improved the review process and lessons learnt from the deaths; information to understand the impact of aspects of care on the baby's death were often only found in the parents' recollections. CONCLUSIONS: Parental engagement in the PNMR process is achievable and useful for parents and HCP alike, and critically can improve patient safety and future care for mothers and babies. To learn and prevent perinatal deaths effectively, all hospitals should give parents the option to engage with the review of their baby's death.

Statistical risk prediction models for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in severe preeclampsia in a low-resource setting: proposal for a single-centre cross-sectional study at Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, especially in low-resource settings. Identifying mothers and babies at greatest risk of complications would enable intervention to be targeted to those most likely to benefit from them. However, current risk prediction models have a wide range of sensitivity (42-81%) and specificity (87-92%) indicating that improvements are needed. Furthermore, no predictive models have been developed or evaluated in Zimbabwe. This proposal describes a single centre retrospective cross-sectional study which will address the need to further develop and test statistical risk prediction models for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in low-resource settings; this will be the first such research to be carried out in Zimbabwe. Data will be collected on maternal demographics characteristics, outcome of prior pregnancies, past medical history, symptoms and signs on admission, results of biochemical and haematological investigations. Adverse outcome will be defined as a composite of maternal morbidity and mortality and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Association between variables and outcomes will be explored using multivariable logistic regression. Critically, new risk prediction models introduced for our clinical setting may reduce avoidable maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality at local, national, regional and international level.

Early onset severe preeclampsia and eclampsia in a low-resource setting, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

OBJECTIVES: Early-onset severe preeclampsia is associated with significant maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality especially in low-resource settings, where women have limited access to antenatal care. This dataset was generated from a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out at Mpilo Central Hospital, covering the period February 1, 2016 to July 30, 2018. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of early-onset severe preeclampsia and eclampsia, and associated risk factors in a low-resource setting. The reason for examining the incidence of preeclampsia specifically in a low-resource setting; was to document it as women in these settings appear to suffer from poor outcomes. DATA DESCRIPTION: The dataset contains data of 238 pregnant women who had a diagnosis of early onset severe preeclampsia/eclampsia. There were 243 babies from singleton and twin gestations. There were five sets of twins. There were 21,505 live births during the study period giving an incidence of 1.1%. The dataset contains data on maternal socio-demographic, signs and symptoms, therapeutic interventions and mode of delivery, adverse outcomes characteristics, and fetal characteristics. This large dataset can be used to calculate the incidence and risk factors for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes or develop predictive models in severe preeclampsia/eclampsia.

PARENTS 2 Study: a qualitative study of the views of healthcare professionals and stakeholders on parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review-from 'bottom of the pile' to joint learning.

OBJECTIVE: Engaging bereaved parents in the review process that examines their care before and after a perinatal death might help parents deal with their grief more effectively and drive improvements in patient safety. The objective of this study is to explore whether healthcare professionals would accept or support parent engagement in the perinatal mortality review process. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group interviews. Transcripts were analysed with an inductive thematic approach. SETTING: Two geographically distinct tertiary maternity hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Five focus groups were conducted with clinical staff including midwives, obstetricians, neonatologists, nursing staff and chaplaincy services. RESULTS: Twenty-seven healthcare professionals unanimously agreed that parents' involvement in the perinatal mortality review process is useful and necessary. Six key themes emerged including: parental engagement; need for formal follow-up; critical structure of perinatal mortality review meeting; coordination and streamlining of care; advocacy for parents including role of the bereavement care lead; and requirement for training and support for staff to enable parental engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals strongly advocated engaging bereaved parents in the perinatal mortality review: empowering parents to ask questions, providing feedback on care, helping generate lessons and providing them with the opportunity to discuss a summary of the review conclusions with their primary healthcare professional contact. The participants agreed it is time to move on from 'a group of doctors reviewing notes' to active learning and improvement together with parents, to enable better care and prevention of perinatal death.