Performance Characteristics of Sepsis Screening Tools During Antepartum and Postpartum Admissions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance characteristics of existing screening tools for the prediction of sepsis during antepartum and postpartum readmissions. METHODS: This was a case-control study using electronic health record data obtained between 2016 and 2021 from 67 hospitals for antepartum sepsis admissions and 71 hospitals for postpartum readmissions up to 42 days. Patients in the sepsis case group were matched in a 1:4 ratio to a comparison cohort of patients without sepsis admitted antepartum or postpartum. The following screening criteria were evaluated: the CMQCC (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative) initial sepsis screen, the non-pregnancy-adjusted SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome), the MEWC (Maternal Early Warning Criteria), UKOSS (United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System) obstetric SIRS, and the MEWT (Maternal Early Warning Trigger Tool). Time periods were divided into early pregnancy (less than 20 weeks of gestation), more than 20 weeks of gestation, early postpartum (less than 3 days postpartum), and late postpartum through 42 days. False-positive screening rates, C-statistics, sensitivity, and specificity were reported for each overall screening tool and each individual criterion. RESULTS: We identified 525 patients with sepsis during an antepartum hospitalization and 728 patients with sepsis during a postpartum readmission. For early pregnancy and more than 3 days postpartum, non-pregnancy-adjusted SIRS had the highest C-statistics (0.78 and 0.83, respectively). For more than 20 weeks of gestation and less than 3 days postpartum, the pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools (CMQCC and UKOSS) had the highest C-statistics (0.87-0.94). The MEWC maintained the highest sensitivity rates during all time periods (81.9-94.4%) but also had the highest false-positive rates (30.4-63.9%). The pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools (CMQCC, UKOSS) had the lowest false-positive rates in all time periods (3.9-10.1%). All tools had the lowest C-statistics in the periods of less than 20 weeks of gestation and more than 3 days postpartum. CONCLUSION: For admissions early in pregnancy and more than 3 days postpartum, non-pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools performed better than pregnancy-adjusted tools. From 20 weeks of gestation through up to 3 days postpartum, using a pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tool increased sensitivity and minimized false-positive rates. The overall false-positive rate remained high.

Performance Characteristics of Sepsis Screening Tools During Delivery Admissions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the screening performance characteristics of existing tools for the diagnosis of sepsis during delivery admissions. METHODS: This was a case-control study using electronic health record data, including vital signs and laboratory results, for all delivery admissions of patients with sepsis from 59 nationally distributed hospitals. Patients with sepsis were matched by gestational age at delivery in a 1:4 ratio with patients without sepsis to create a comparison group. Patients with chorioamnionitis and sepsis were compared with a complete cohort of patients with chorioamnionitis without sepsis. Multiple screening criteria for sepsis were evaluated: the CMQCC (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative), SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome), the MEWC (the Maternal Early Warning Criteria), UKOSS (United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System), and the MEWT (Maternal Early Warning Trigger Tool). Sensitivity, false-positive rates, and C-statistics were reported for each screening tool. Analyses were stratified into cohort 1, which excluded patients with chorioamnionitis-endometritis, and cohort 2, which included those patients. RESULTS: Delivery admissions at 59 hospitals were extracted for patients with sepsis. Cohort 1 comprised 647 patients with sepsis, including 228 with end-organ injury, matched with a control group of 2,588 patients without sepsis. Cohort 2 comprised 14,591 patients with chorioamnionitis-endometritis, of whom 1,049 had sepsis and 238 had end-organ injury. In cohort 1, the CMQCC and the UKOSS pregnancy-adjusted criteria had the lowest false-positive rates (6.9% and 9.6%, respectively) and the highest C-statistics (0.92 and 0.91, respectively). Although other screening criteria, such as SIRS and the MEWC, had similar sensitivities, it was at the cost of much higher false-positive rates (21.3% and 38.3%, respectively). In cohort 2, including all patients with chorioamnionitis-endometritis, the highest C-statistics were again for the CMQCC (0.67) and UKOSS (0.64). All screening tools had high false-positive rates, but the false-positive rates for the CMQCC and UKOSS were substantially lower than those for SIRS and the MEWC. CONCLUSION: During delivery admissions, the CMQCC and UKOSS pregnancy-adjusted screening criteria have the lowest false-positive results while maintaining greater than 90% sensitivity rates. Performance of all screening tools was degraded in the setting of chorioamnionitis-endometritis.

Optimizing systems to manage postpartum hemorrhage.

Systems to optimize the management of postpartum hemorrhage must ensure timely diagnosis, rapid hemodynamic and hemostatic resuscitation, and prompt interventions to control the source of bleeding. None of these objectives can be effectively completed by a single clinician, and the management of postpartum hemorrhage requires a carefully coordinated interprofessional team. This article reviews systems designed to standardize hemorrhage diagnosis and response.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Maternal Postpartum Depression Using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments Guideline: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Maternal depression is frequently reported in the postpartum period, with an estimated prevalence of approximately 15% during the first postpartum year. Despite the high prevalence of postpartum depression, there is no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) should be used to screen for this complex, multidimensional construct. Objective: To evaluate psychometric measurement properties of existing PROMs of maternal postpartum depression using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline and identify the best available patient-reported screening measure. Evidence Review: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched on July 1, 2019, for validated PROMs of postpartum depression, and an additional search including a hand search of references from eligible studies was conducted in June 2021. Included studies evaluated 1 or more psychometric measurement properties of the identified PROMs. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed to evaluate methods of each included study. Psychometric measurement properties of each PROM were rated according to COSMIN criteria. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the level of evidence supporting each rating, and a recommendation class (A, recommended for use; B, further research required; or C, not recommended) was given based on the overall quality of each included PROM. Findings: Among 10 264 postpartum recovery studies, 27 PROMs were identified. Ten PROMs (37.0%) met the inclusion criteria and were used in 43 studies (0.4%) involving 22 095 postpartum women. At least 1 psychometric measurement property was assessed for each of the 10 validated PROMs identified. Content validity was sufficient in all PROMs. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) demonstrated adequate content validity and a moderate level of evidence for sufficient internal consistency (with sufficient structural validity), resulting in a recommendation of class A. The other 9 PROMs evaluated received a recommendation of class B. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review suggest that the EPDS is the best available patient-reported screening measure of maternal postpartum depression. Future studies should focus on evaluating the cross-cultural validity, reliability, and measurement error of the EPDS to improve understanding of its psychometric properties and utility.

Evaluation of inpatient postpartum recovery using the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 patient-reported outcome measure: a single-center observational study.

BACKGROUND: Few adequately validated patient-reported outcome measures are available, which can assess recovery profiles following childbirth. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether quantitative recovery (using the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 patient-reported outcome measure) was superior following vaginal delivery compared with cesarean delivery and evaluate validity, reliability, and responsiveness of this patient-reported outcome measure in the obstetrical setting in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Women recruited into this single-center observational cohort study completed the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 and EuroQol 5-dimension 3L patient-reported outcome measures within 72 hours of childbirth. We assessed the validity with hypothesis testing and structural validity. In hypothesis testing, the primary outcome was Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores after vaginal vs cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were differences in Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores for vaginal delivery following induction of labor vs spontaneous labor and scheduled vs unplanned cesarean delivery, correlation with clinical parameters (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification grade, body mass index, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, antiemetic use, and neonatal intensive care unit admission), and qualitative ranking of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 items for each delivery mode. Structural validity was assessed by determining the correlation of the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores with the EuroQol 5-dimension 3L and global health visual analog scale scores. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha and inter-item correlation of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 items. Responsiveness was assessed by evaluating the change in Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores over the 72-hour postpartum period. RESULTS: Data from 215 women were analyzed. In hypothesis testing, the median (interquartile range) Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores were higher following vaginal delivery than cesarean delivery (86 [77-94] vs 77 [64-86], respectively; P<.001). Multivariate model demonstrated that Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores were significantly lower after cesarean delivery when adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiologists classification grade, age, body mass index, and ethnicity (R=-8.97; P<.001). Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores were similar between induction of labor and spontaneous labor, and scheduled cesarean delivery and unplanned cesarean delivery. Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 was correlated with length of hospital stay (R=-0.248; P<.001), estimated blood loss (R=-0.3429; P<.001), transfusion requirement (R=-0.140; P=.041), and antiemetic use (R=-0.280; P<.001). The highest ranked Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 items were ability to hold baby, feeling in control, and ability to look after personal hygiene. The lowest ranked items were pain and shivering. In structural validity, correlation of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 score was moderate with the global health visual analog scale (r=0.511) and EuroQol 5-dimension 3L scores (r=-0.509). In reliability, Cronbach alpha was 0.72 and more than 80% of individual items correlated. In responsiveness, Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scores did not change significantly over the study period. CONCLUSION: Quantitative inpatient recovery following vaginal delivery is superior to cesarean delivery. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 appears to be a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure following these delivery modes. Further studies are needed to determine how to improve recovery domains identified in this study, to evaluate Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 in different languages and determine whether these domains impact outcomes beyond hospitalization.