Unsatisfactory colposcopy: clinical decision-making in conditions of uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: Unsatisfactory colposcopy, where the cells of interest are not visible in women with a positive cervical screening test, is a common area of clinical uncertainty due to the lack of clear evidence and guidance. Colposcopists' opinions and experiences are likely to have a significant influence on service provision and the development of national policy. The aim of this study was to analyse decision-making when applied to women with unsatisfactory colposcopy. METHODS: A multi-centre qualitative study utilizing a series of focus groups in an English healthcare region. Sampling aimed to ensure heterogeneity of experience and healthcare provider demographics. A topic guide covered a range of clinical and cytological variables and was compiled by the researchers and three expert Colposcopists. Using an iterative approach, thematic analysis was selected as the most appropriate method to identify factors affecting decision-making. RESULTS: Twenty-three Colposcopists from four units participated. The decision to treat was easier in women with high-grade cytology and high risk women with low-grade cytology such as heavy smokers, poor attenders, older women, those who had completed their families and women opting for treatment. Where decision-making was more complex, intuition and a multi-disciplinary approach were used to guide management. Areas of dissonance, which are affected by paucity of evidence and emotive factors, included cytological collection device, clinical setting and length of conservative follow-up and depth of excision in women at high risk of treatment-related morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety of missing a cancer deters long-term cytological follow-up, resulting in heterogeneity of care and higher than anticipated excisional treatments in women with low-grade screening and unsatisfactory colposcopy. In areas of clinical uncertainty when decisions are dominated by affect, clinical guidance can reduce the difficulty and anxiety of decision-making.

Using data and quality monitoring to enhance maternity outcomes: a qualitative study of risk managers' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Risk management is a core part of healthcare practice, especially within maternity services, where litigation and societal costs are high. There has been little investigation into the experiences and opinions of those staff directly involved in risk management: lead obstetricians and specialist risk midwives, who are ideally placed to identify how current implementation of risk management strategies can be improved. METHODS: A qualitative study of consultant-led maternity units in an English region. Semistructured interviews were conducted with the obstetric and midwifery risk management leads for each unit. We explored their approach to risk management, particularly their opinions regarding quality monitoring and related barriers/issues. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven staff from 12/15 maternity units participated. Key issues identified included: concern for the accuracy and validity of their local data, potential difficulties related to data collation, the negative impact of external interference by national regulatory bodies on local clinical priorities, the influence of the local culture of the maternity unit on levels of engagement in the risk management process, and scepticism about the value of benchmarking of maternity units without adjustment for population characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Local maternity risk managers may provide valuable, clinically relevant insights into current issues in clinical data monitoring. Improvements should focus on the accuracy and ease of data collation with a need for an agreed maternity indicators set, populated from validated databases, and not reliant on data collection systems that distract clinicians from patient activity and quality improvement. It is clear that working relationships between risk managers, their own clinical teams and external national bodies require improvement and alignment. Further discussion regarding benchmarking between maternity units is required prior to implementation. These findings are likely to be relevant to other clinical specialties.

Development of maternity dashboards across a UK health region; current practice, continuing problems.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the development of local clinical dashboards in line with UK national guidance and to identify ongoing issues being faced by maternity units, across an entire health region, in developing quality assurance systems. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-methods study involving all consultant-led maternity units in the South West of England Strategic Health Authority region (SWSHA). An electronic survey, followed by semi-structured interviews with the lead obstetrician and risk management midwife (or equivalent) of each maternity unit, to investigate methods employed to monitor outcomes locally, particularly the development of tools including maternity dashboards. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed to identify conceptual categories and themes. RESULTS: 12/15 eligible consultant-led maternity units participated in the study and 10/12 (83%) of these used a dashboard. There was an excessive number of non-standard indicators used by the maternity units, with 352 different quality indicators (QIs), covering 37 different indicator categories, with up to 39 different definitions for one particular QI. Issues identified were: an excess of indicators, disproportionate time taken to produce the dashboard, uncertainty surrounding thresholds for alert within the dashboards and a desire for more guidance and standardisation of indicators, and their use. CONCLUSIONS: Following recommendation by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, maternity dashboards have been widely adopted by maternity units across the SWSHA to provide a local quality assurance system. There is, however, wide variation in both the quality indicators monitored and their definition. There is an urgent requirement for a national and international core set of maternity QIs. Further guidance is also required to inform alert thresholds for adverse outcomes. These perinatal data are collected electronically, and automating the production of a standardised dashboard is both possible and desirable.

Intrapartum care quality indicators: a systematic approach for achieving consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To identify published maternity intrapartum quality indicators and rationalise them to a core set. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective qualitative consensus group exercise. A literature search identified sets of intrapartum quality indicators in the English language. These were rationalised to a shortlist using criteria adapted from 'The Good Clinical Indicator Guide'. An expert panel from key UK professions and organisations utilised a modified Delphi process to devise a final agreed set of intrapartum quality indicators that are specific, measurable, modifiable and relevant to clinical practice. Each indicator was rated in two rounds of web-based surveys, followed by a final face-to-face meeting of the panel. RESULTS: 290 clinical indicators were identified within 96 clinical categories with up to 18 different definitions. After rationalisation, 10 core and 24 additional quality indicators entered the Delphi process. A final panel of 12 indicators was defined. CONCLUSIONS: By using a simple Delphi process we have defined a set of broad clinical quality indicators that provide a comprehensive coverage of labour and delivery outcomes. We believe that this pragmatic portfolio will be useful for many wishing to develop performance monitoring and maternity dashboard systems.