Facilitators influencing midwives to leadership positions in policy, education and practice: A systematic integrative literature review.

The development of midwives as leaders is a crucial step towards achieving equality in sexual, reproductive, maternal, and neonatal health, Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). However, many midwives work only to implement policies made by others rather than being drivers of policy changes. Little is known and researched about why midwives are not involved in decision and policymaking related to sexual, reproductive, maternal, and neonatal health. Hence, with a focus on midwifery leadership within the global community and the limited opportunities for women to hold leadership positions, this research explores the facilitators influencing midwives' opportunities to become leaders in policy development, education and practice. Inspired by Whittemore and Knafl, this integrative literature review was conducted after twenty-two relevant articles were identified through a search of the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus. Inductive content analysis was applied to analyze data. The result indicates that for midwives to become influential leaders, they must be active in strategic planning at the highest level. This inevitably effects how far midwives can act as agents for change, even if they possess the knowledge and skills for a leadership position. Policies and regulations influence how midwives' status in society is acknowledged and recognized. A clearly articulated educational pathway will enable their professional growth and expertise, making them knowledgeable and skillful as leaders. Enabling midwives to step into leadership positions at government level requires reforms which include midwives in decision-making. Excluding midwives from decision-making processes is detrimental to the goal of achieving universal health coverage. The first step is to provide midwives with a protected title, enabling them to work autonomously in an enabling environment with normal pregnancy and birth to achieve the SDG 2030 goals.

Prognostic accuracy of qSOFA in predicting 28-day mortality among infected patients in an emergency department: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have evaluated the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria in emergency department (ED)settings. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic accuracy of qSOFA compared with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting the 28-day mortality of infected patients admitted to an ED. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study of all adult (≥18 years) infected patients admitted to the ED of Slagelse Hospital, Denmark, was conducted from 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018. Patients were enrolled consecutively and data related to SIRS and qSOFA criteria were obtained from electronic triage record. Information regarding mortality was obtained from the Danish Civil Registration System. The original cut-off values of ≥2 was used to determine the prognostic accuracy of SIRS and qSOFA criteria for predicting 28-day mortality and was assessed by analyses of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratios and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 2112 patients were included in this study. A total of 175 (8.3%) patients met at least two qSOFA criteria, while 1012 (47.9%) met at least two SIRS criteria on admission. A qSOFA criteria of at least two for predicting 28-day mortality had a sensitivity of 19.5% (95% CI 13.6% to 26.5%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 91.4% to 93.7%). A SIRS criteria of at least two for predicting 28-day mortality had a sensitivity of 52.8% (95% CI 44.8% to 60.8%) and a specificity of 52.5% (95% CI 50.2% to 54.7%). The AUROC values for qSOFA and SIRS were 0.63 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.67) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.57), respectively. CONCLUSION: Both SIRS and qSOFA had poor sensitivity for 28-day mortality. qSOFA improved the specificity at the expense of the sensitivity resulting in slightly higher prognostic accuracy overall.