Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Audit-identified avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths in low resource settings: a systematic review

  • Hasan S Merali1Email author,
  • Stuart Lipsitz2,
  • Nathanael Hevelone2,
  • Atul A Gawande2, 3,
  • Angela Lashoher4,
  • Priya Agrawal5 and
  • Jonathan Spector5, 6
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth201414:280

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-280

Received: 17 December 2013

Accepted: 5 August 2014

Published: 16 August 2014

Abstract

Background

Audits provide a rational framework for quality improvement by systematically assessing clinical practices against accepted standards with the aim to develop recommendations and interventions that target modifiable deficiencies in care. Most childbirth-associated mortality audits in developing countries are focused on a single facility and, up to now, the avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths cataloged in these reports have not been pooled and analyzed. We sought to identity the most frequent avoidable factors in childbirth-related deaths globally through a systematic review of all published mortality audits in low and lower-middle income countries.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of published literature from 1965 to November 2011 in Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, LILACS and African Index Medicus. Inclusion criteria were audits from low and lower-middle income countries that identified at least one avoidable factor in maternal or perinatal mortality. Each study included in the analysis was assigned a quality score using a previously published instrument. A meta-analysis was performed for each avoidable factor taking into account the sample sizes and quality score from each individual audit. The study was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.

Results

Thirty-nine studies comprising 44 datasets and a total of 6,205 audited deaths met inclusion criteria. The analysis yielded 42 different avoidable factors, which fell into four categories: health worker-oriented factors, patient-oriented factors, transport/referral factors, and administrative/supply factors. The top three factors by attributable deaths were substandard care by a health worker, patient delay, and deficiencies in blood transfusion capacity (accounting for 688, 665, and 634 deaths attributable, respectively). Health worker-oriented factors accounted for two-thirds of the avoidable factors identified.

Conclusions

Audits provide insight into where systematic deficiencies in clinical care occur and can therefore provide crucial direction for the targeting of interventions to mitigate or eliminate health system failures. Given that the main causes of maternal and perinatal deaths are generally consistent across low resource settings, the specific avoidable factors identified in this review can help to inform the rational design of health systems with the aim of achieving continued progress towards Millennium Development Goals Four and Five.

Keywords

Maternal Fetal Neonatal Perinatal Avoidable Factors Death Mortality

Background

Devising strategies that measurably improve maternal and newborn care in low resource settings is an urgent global priority [1, 2]. Nearly 300,000 maternal deaths [3], 3 million newborn deaths [4], and 1 million intrapartum-related stillbirths [5], take place each year in grossly disproportionate geographic patterns. Given that there are many countries with very low childbirth-related mortality rates, it is clear that high childbirth-related mortality burdens are not inevitable. Rational bolstering of health systems saves lives, even in lower income settings where resources are limited.

The major complications that result in maternal, newborn, and fetal deaths are well described. For mothers, these are traditionally categorized as excessive hemorrhage, infection, hypertensive disorders, and obstructed labor [6]. For babies, these are intrapartum-related events (previously called birth asphyxia), infection, and complications of prematurity [7]. Avoidable stillbirths are largely attributed to inadequate intrapartum care [5]. These categories provide an important orientation to the general causes of childbirth-related deaths and as such are fundamental to establishing a basis for strengthening health systems. However, a limitation of these somewhat broad categorizations is insight into where exactly deficiencies in clinical care are occurring, information that is critical to the design and implementation of effective health system improvements. For example, a maternal death from hemorrhage can result from absent prophylactic oxytocin, undetected bleeding, and/or inaccessible blood transfusion capability—three different types of system failures that necessitate different intervention approaches to prevent failure recurrence. Targeted health system strengthening relies on a systematic analysis of the events that lead to deaths in order to determine if avoidable breakdowns in medical care are present. If such deficiencies exist, fully characterizing them and pinpointing precisely where in the clinical care continuum they occur provides clinicians, policymakers, and other stakeholders with information needed to effectively address them.

Audits are tools that provide a logical framework for quality improvement by systematically assessing clinical practices against accepted standards [8]. Mortality audits have demonstrated success in helping to reduce childbirth-related deaths in lower income countries [911]. Since the main causes of maternal and perinatal deaths are consistent across lower income countries, it stands to reason that there are also similarities in the avoidable factors associated with those deaths.

Most maternal and perinatal death audits have been restricted to a single facility or region with no widely utilized centralized mechanism for aggregating data from across countries [1214]. Up to now, the avoidable factors in deaths cataloged in these reports have not been comprehensively pooled and analyzed. We sought to identify the most frequently reported factors in avoidable childbirth-related deaths globally through a systematic review of all published reports of mortality audits in low and lower-middle income countries. Our main objectives were to identify those factors that repeatedly account for high proportions of avoidable maternal and perinatal deaths in individual audits as well as to identify the avoidable factors that contribute to the most deaths overall.

Methods

Eligibility

Studies from low and lower-middle income countries were considered, using World Bank criteria for stratification of country by gross national income (GNI) per capita [15]. Studies were eligible if they performed an audit of maternal or perinatal deaths using medical records, meetings of health workers, and/or interviews of health workers or patient families. Studies had to explicitly identify at least one avoidable factor in a maternal or perinatal death, and studies had to utilize definitions for maternal and perinatal deaths that were reasonably similar to those used by WHO. Maternal deaths are defined by WHO as “the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes” [16]. The perinatal period, as defined by the WHO, “commences at 22 completed weeks (154 days) of gestation and ends seven completed days after birth” [17]. Perinatal mortality refers to stillbirths and newborn deaths in the first week of life [17]. For the purpose of this analysis, a factor in an “avoidable death” was defined as one that was assessed to be directly related to the death; in other words, if the factor had been avoided than the death would probably not have occurred [18]. Audits that did not report specific avoidable causes in maternal and/or perinatal deaths were excluded. Two investigators (HSM and JS) determined the eligibility of the articles independently and any discrepancy was resolved by a discussion between these two investigators.

Search strategy

We performed a systematic search of published literature from 1965 to November 2011 in Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, LILACS and African Index Medicus. The search strategy included various combinations of exploded and focused MeSH headings and keyword searching using the terms Perinatal, Maternal, Mothers, Neonatal, Newborn, Infant, Mortality, Audit, Clinical Audit, Death, Fatal Outcome, Avoidable, Preventable, and Developing Countries. A previously described “snowball” search strategy was also performed in which papers were identified through bibliographies of key studies [19]. We also attempted to identify additional relevant studies, in particular non-published datasets, through queries to experts and international organizations concerned with maternal and perinatal health. Articles in all languages were considered and translated when necessary.

Quality scoring

Each article that met inclusion criteria was assigned a quality score in order to impose a weighing scheme according to the quality of the study. The score, developed to analyze the quality of obstetrical care in low and middle income countries [20], utilizes a numerical scale ranging from zero (lowest quality) to nine (highest quality). Calculation of the quality score was conducted by assessing the following criteria: selection of audit cases (maximum 3 points), quality control during the audit process (maximum 4 points), and reliability of the audit (maximum 2 points) (See Nine-point clinical audit quality criteria). Two investigators (HSM and JS) independently scored each audit by assigning one point for each criterion met by the article. If there was a discrepancy between the scores of the two investigators, the two scores were averaged to arrive at a final score.

Nine-point clinical audit quality criteria adapted from Pirkle et al.[20].

Selection of cases

Description of study population with clear case definition

Description of sampling strategy

Consideration of missing cases

Data quality control

Criterion-based clinical audit pilot or pre-tested

Description of staff profile

Training of staff

Data entry validity checks

Reliability

Standardized data collection form

Inter-observer/inter-site variability assessed

Statistical analysis and reporting

A meta-analysis was performed for each avoidable factor identified. First, we calculated the percent of studies where the factor was determined to be a cause of a maternal or perinatal death. Next, for those studies where the factor was determined to be a cause of death, a “pooled” or combined estimate of the percentage of deaths in those studies due to the factor was calculated. The pooled estimate was calculated using a weighted average of the estimates from the individual studies via accepted meta-analysis techniques [21, 22], in which the study is treated as a random effect. We estimated the weighted averages, confidence intervals for the weighted averages, and the variance of the random study effect using an iteratively reweighted least squares approach [21]. The weights used in the iteratively reweighted least squares approach takes into account the sample size from each individual study, the variance of the random study effect, and the quality score of each study. This approach is semi-parametric in that is gives unbiased estimates regardless of the type of outcome variable (continuous, categorical or percentages). Finally, we determined the total number of attributable deaths for each avoidable factor. The study was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines [23], (See Additional file 1). All analyses were performed using SAS/STAT 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 2011).

Results

Search results

The search returned 3,775 results and an additional 16 papers were added from reference lists. There were 691 duplicate entries and 2,975 were subsequently removed after abstract screening. The full texts of the 125 remaining articles were reviewed and 39 met inclusion criteria (Figure 1). These 39 studies included a total of 44 datasets since five studies included multiple datasets; one study included datasets from two different time periods [24], one study included datasets from two different countries [25], and two studies included datasets from both maternal and perinatal populations [24, 26]. Two other studies analyzed deaths from different time periods [27, 28] but the time periods were contiguous in these studies and so they were considered as one dataset each. We were unable to identify unpublished audits of maternal and newborn deaths that met inclusion criteria. Therefore, only published data were used. We summarized the datasets and categorized them by type of measure examined [2462] (Table 1).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2393-14-280/MediaObjects/12884_2013_Article_1154_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Literature search flowchart.

Table 1

Summary of study datasets (n = 44)

Authors

Country

Year

Population

Mortality rate/ratio in sample

No. of audits

% avoidable mortality

Methods

Quality score

Ozumba BC, Nwogu-Ikojo EE [29]

Nigeria

2003-2005

Maternal

2,397/100,000

47

70

Retrospective case record review at a university-associated tertiary care hospital

4

Suprakito G, Wirth ME, Achadi E [30]

Indonesia

1998-1999

Maternal

-

130

-

Prospective case record review, staff interviews, and verbal autopsy in 3 districts comprising 5 hospitals and 55 community health centers

5.5

Jacques S, Edgard-Marius O, Bruno D [31]

Benin

2003

Maternal

1,735/100,000

231

55-72

Retrospective case record review at 4 referral hospitals

5

Vangeenderhuysen C, Banos JP, Mahaman T [32]

Niger

1993-1994

Maternal

1,547/100,000

25

84

Prospective case record review, staff interviews, and family interviews in a group of urban hospitals

4

El Amin S, Langhoff-Roos J, Bodker B, et al. [33]

Sudan

2000

Perinatal

82/1,000

43

58-82

Prospective external audit by multidisciplinary team through case presentations and grading forms at a maternity hospital

7.5

Mbaruku G, van Roosmalen J, Kimondo I, et al. [34]

Tanzania

2002-2004

Perinatal

38/1,000

200

-

Retrospective audit by case record review and family interviews at a regional hospital

5.5

Bouvier-Colle MH, Ouedraogo C, Dumont A [35]

West Africa

1994-1996

Maternal

311/100,000

55

69

Prospective survey using questionnaires and verbal autopsy in 6 West African countries: Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, and Senegal. Deaths occurred in hospitals, in health centers, and at home

6

Chigbu CO, Okezie OA, Odugu BU [36]

Nigeria

1999-2007

Perinatal

89/1,000

316

-

Retrospective case record review, physician interview, and midwife interview at a university teaching hospital

3

van Roosmalen J [37]

Tanzania

1971-1976

Perinatal

48/1,000

137

25

Retrospective case record review at a district hospital

2

De Muylder X [38]

Zimbabwe

1984-1986

Perinatal

31/1,000

319

76

Prospective medical record review, family interviews, laboratory evaluation, and necropsy at 6 peripheral birth centers and a referral district hospital

3

Cham M, Vangen S, Sundby J [39]

Gambia

2002

Maternal

279/100,000

42

“Majority”

Prospective medical record review, health worker interviews, and verbal autopsy in one rural district involving 17 birth facilities and one hospital

6

Dumont A, Tourigny C, Fournier P [40]

Senegal

2004-2005

Maternal

-

69

48

Prospective medical record review, health worker interviews, and family interviews at 5 referral hospitals

7

Frost O [26]

Ethiopia

1980

Maternal

780/100,000

30

-

Prospective medical record review and health worker interviews at a national referral hospital

4

Frost O [26]

Ethiopia

1980

Perinatal

9/1,000

291

8

Prospective medical record review and health worker interviews at a national referral hospital

4

Price TG [41]

Tanzania

1983

Maternal

250/100,000

115

-

Prospective case record review and questionnaires in a region comprising of hospitals, health centers, and dispensaries

5

Adetoro OO [42]

Nigeria

1972-1983

Maternal

450/100,000

624

-

Retrospective medical record review at a national referral center

3

Bullough CH [43]

Malawi

1977

Maternal

263/100,000

109

88

Prospective questionnaires completed by physicians and midwives at 1 central hospital, 8 district hospitals, 6 mission hospitals, and 92 rural birth facilities

4

Johnstone FD, Ochiel SO [44]

Kenya

1976-1977

Perinatal

97/1,000

393

-

Retrospective case record review at a national referral hospital

3

Hinderaker SG, Olsen BE, Bergsjo PB, et al. [45]

Tanzania

1996-1996

Perinatal

27/1,000

136

51-65

Prospective interviews of antenatal care attendees combined with retrospective household surveys using verbal autopsy and medical records in 7 rural communities. Deaths occurred at home and in rural health facilities.

7

D’Ambruoso L, Byass P, Qomariyah SN, et al.[25]

Indonesia

2002-2006

Maternal

-

104

-

Retrospective review of verbal autopsies in a community with a district hospital and 19 health centers

6

D’Ambruoso L, Byass P, Qomariyah SN, et al.[25]

Burkina Faso

2002-2006

Maternal

-

70

-

Retrospective review of verbal autopsies in a community with 5 hospitals and 66 health centers

6

Hailu S, Enqueselassie F, Berhane Y [46]

Ethiopia

2005-2006

Maternal

-

34

35

Retrospective case record review and health worker interviews in 5 public hospitals

5.5

Issah K, Nang-Beifubah A, Opoku CF [47]

Ghana

2009

Maternal

-

47

49

Prospective questionnaires completed by health workers in a community with 6 hospitals and 73 health centers

5

Jafarey S, Rizvi T, Koblinsky M, et al.[48]

Pakistan

2005-2007

Maternal

-

128

-

Retrospective and prospective verbal autopsy in two districts at the community and hospital levels

8

Kongnyuy E, Mlava G, van den Broek N [49]

Malawi

2007

Maternal

-

43

-

Prospective register review, referral note review, case record review, and family interviews in 9 hospitals

5

Waiswa P, Kallander K, Peterson S, et al. [50]

Uganda

2005-2008

Perinatal

-

64

-

Retrospective case record review from volunteer collected data, and a standard verbal autopsy questionnaire. Study included home and hospital deaths.

7

Sorensen BL, Elsass P, Nielsen BB, et al. [51]

Tanzania

2006-2008

Maternal

549/100,000

62

-

Retrospective case record review, staff observations, and staff interviews at a regional hospital

4.5

Lori JR, Starke AE [52]

Liberia

2008

Maternal

-

28

-

Prospective case record review using a standard audit tool, combined with interviews conducted by trained nurses at the community and hospital level

6

Granja AC, Machungo F, Bergstrom S [53]

Mozambique

1989-1990

Maternal

340/100,000

106

40

Retrospective medical record review at an urban referral hospital

3

Granja AC, Machungo F, Gomes, A, et al. [54]

Mozambique

1989-1993

Maternal

320/100,000

239

75

Retrospective medical record review at an urban referral hospital

2.5

Kidanto HL, Mogren I, van Roosmalen J, et al. [55]

Tanzania

2007

Perinatal

92/1,000

133

52-75

Retrospective multidisciplinary audit panel of internal and external reviewers using a structured assessment protocol and grading form at a national hospital

7

Olsen BE, Hinderaker SG, Bergsjo P, et al. [56]

Tanzania

1995-1996

Maternal

-

45

31

Retrospective and prospective review of hospital records, village leader reported deaths, household surveys and antenatal clinic records at the community and hospital level. Verbal autopsy questionnaires were also used.

5.5

Oladapo OT, Ariba AJ, Odusoga OL [28]

Nigeria

1999-2004

Maternal

2508-2931/100,000*

71

-

Retrospective case record review at tertiary care hospital. Reviewed by committee of 3 consultants and 3 residents.

4

Byaruhanga RN [57]

Uganda

1997-1998

Perinatal

68/1000

235

-

Prospective case record review by a team comprised of a pediatrician, obstetrician and three midwives at a tertiary referral hospital

5

De Muylder X [58]

Zimbabwe

1985-1987

Maternal

137/100,000

70

50

Retrospective case record review by a multidisciplinary committee of deaths occurring at district and rural hospitals

3.5

Bhatt RV [24]

India

1967-1968

Maternal

1,448/100,000

43

10

Prospective case record review combined with staff meetings and interviews of caregivers at a university teaching hospital

6

Bhatt RV [24]

India

1967-1968

Perinatal

115/1,000

342

-

Prospective case record review combined with staff meetings and interviews of caregivers at a university teaching hospital

6

Bhatt RV [24]

India

1983-1984

Maternal

1,152/100,000

36

1.5

Prospective case record review combined with staff meetings and interviews of caregivers at a university teaching hospital

6

Bhatt RV [24]

India

1983-1984

Perinatal

101/1,000

315

-

Prospective case record review combined with staff meetings and interviews of caregivers at a university teaching hospital

6

Mbarku G, Bergstrom S [27]

Tanzania

1984-1991

Maternal

186 – 933/100,000*

132

-

Retrospective and prospective case record review with interventions in 1986 at a regional hospital

3

Steklenberg J, van Roosmalen J [59]

Zambia

1999-2001

Maternal

1,359/100,000

15

-

Prospective case record review and regular maternal mortality review meetings at a district hospital.

4.5

Ouedraogo C, Bouvier-Coller MH [60]

Burkinia Faso, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Senegal

1985-1997

Maternal

Variable by country

55

-

Retrospective case record review combined with “verbal autopsy” using a questionnaires and a multidisciplinary team review of all cases at the hospital level

5

Qazi GR [61]

Pakistan

1992

Maternal

-

40

-

Retrospective case record review at a university teaching hospital

3

Rachid B, Abouchadi S, de Brouwere V, Belghiti A [62]

Morocco

2009

Maternal

-

436

76

Retrospective case record review for healthcare setting deaths, and verbal autopsy for home deaths

2.5

*2 calculations covering two different time periods within a continuous time period.

Dataset characteristics

Forty-four datasets were included in the study, comprising a total of 6,205 audited deaths. The majority of the datasets, 82%, came from African studies. Two datasets (4.5%) were from Pakistan [48, 61], two (4.5%) from Indonesia [25, 30], and four (9.1%) from India [24]. Of note, the four datasets from India were obtained from the same investigation [24]. The oldest dataset was from 1967 [24] and the most recent datasets were from 2009 [47, 62]. Thirty-one of the 44 datasets (70.5%) examined maternal deaths while the other 13 datasets (29.5%) examined perinatal deaths. Study methods varied and there were an equal number of datasets that employed prospective methods (45.5%) as those that used retrospective methods (45.5%). Four of the datasets [27, 45, 48, 56] (9.1%) used a combined retrospective and prospective methodology. The majority of the datasets, 72.7%, described hospital populations, while the remaining 27.3% described both hospital and community populations. Many of the studies reported the maternal mortality rate and perinatal mortality rate from their audited populations, and these varied between studies. Just under half of the studies (47.7%) estimated the percentage of deaths that were thought to be avoidable in the sample audited, and this ranged from 1.5% to 88%. Quality scores for the audits ranged between 2–8 (See Table 1).

Avoidable factors

Overall there were 42 avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths identified from the 44 datasets. These 42 factors fell into four general categories: health worker-oriented factors were the most common, accounting for 28 (66.7%) of the 42 factors; the next most common, in descending order of frequency, were patient-oriented factors (14.3%), administrative/supply factors (11.9%), and transport/referral factors (7.1%). All of the factors are summarized by category in Table 2 (within each category, factors are listed in order of relative number of attributable deaths).
Table 2

Summary of the 42 avoidable factors, listed by category and in descending order of attributable deaths

Health worker-oriented factors

Patient–oriented factors

Administrative/supply factors

Transport/ referral factors

Substandard health worker practice

Patient delay

Poor blood transfusion capacity or inappropriate administration

Unidentified lack or delay in transport

Delay in care on admission to birth facility

Poor antenatal care

Medication shortage

Poor transport between facilities

Delayed operative delivery

Use of herbal medicine

General supply/ equipment shortage

Poor transportation from home to facility

Inadequate intrapartum monitoring of mother/fetus

Cultural inhibitions causing delay in seeking care

Unsanitary environment

 

Inadequate initial maternal assessment and management

Financial constraints

Inadequate operating theatre facilities

 

Unavailability of health worker for key intervention

No knowledge of danger symptoms

  

Poor communication between health workers

   

Missed or unskilled breech delivery

   

Substandard health worker antenatal care practices

   

Inadequate monitoring of mothers in hypovolemic or septic shock

   

Poor neonatal resuscitation

   

Inadequate management of hypertensive related disorders

   

Failure to diagnose/ treat neonatal infection

   

Failure to diagnose preterm labor

   

Failure to diagnose/ treat syphilis

   

Health worker related referral delay

   

Inadequate management of 3rd stage of labor

   

Poor postpartum maternal monitoring

   

Inappropriate indication for operative delivery

   

Inadequate partogram usage

   

Failure to diagnose/treat maternal/fetal infection

   

Anesthesia complications during operative delivery

   

Inadequate response to poor labor progress

   

Inadequate action taken for fetal distress

   

Inadequate assessment of fetal distress

   

Inadequate assisted vaginal delivery

   

Inappropriate discharge when patient not well

   

Health worker industrial strike

   
The top 10 avoidable factors, listed in order of attributable deaths, are shown in Table 3. The number of deaths attributable to these factors ranged between 251 – 688 of the total sample of 6,205 audited deaths. Each of the top 10 avoidable factors was reported in a maternal or perinatal death in 10 – 23 (22.7% - 52.3%) of the datasets. The most common factors reported overall were patient and transport delays, each of which was a reported factor in 52.3% of the datasets. Health care worker-oriented factors were the most common category of factors among the top 10 factors, accounting for six out of ten factors. Substandard health worker practice was responsible for the most deaths (688 deaths), and we estimated that this factor contributed to 28.5% of the deaths in datasets where it was identified as an avoidable factor (See Additional file 2).
Table 3

Top 10 audit-identified avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths

Factor

Category

Datasets in which factor was an identified cause of death; n = 44 (%)

Estimate of the factor’s contribution to deaths in datasets in which it was identified; % (CI)

Total number of attributable deaths due to factor in the entire sample; n = 6205 (%)

Substandard health worker practice

Health worker-oriented factor

18 (40.9)

28.5 (19.5 – 39.7)

688 (11.1)

Patient delay

Patient-oriented factor

23 (52.3)

22.2 (16.0 – 30.0)

665 (10.7)

Poor blood transfusion capacity or inappropriate administration

Administrative/ supply factor

21 (47.7)

24.9 (18.5 – 32.6)

634 (10.2)

Delay in care on admission to birth facility

Health worker-oriented factor

20 (45.5)

26.6 (18.5 – 36.6)

628 (10.1)

Undefined lack of or delay in transport

Transport/ referral factor

23 (52.3)

23.7 (16.2 – 33.4)

546 (8.8)

Delayed operative delivery

Health worker-oriented factor

12 (27.3)

23.1 (11.0 – 42.1)

442 (7.1)

Inadequate intrapartum monitoring of mother/fetus

Health worker-oriented factor

10 (22.7)

24.3 (13.8 – 39.1)

374 (6)

Inadequate initial maternal assessment/ management

Health worker-oriented factor

10 (22.7)

20.0 (10.5 – 34.7)

339 (5.5)

Poor antenatal care

Patient-oriented factor

11 (25.0)

14.3 (7.0 – 27.0)

301 (4.9)

Unavailability of health worker for key intervention

Health worker-oriented factor

10 (22.7)

22.4 (10.6 – 41.2)

251 (4)

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of avoidable factors in global maternal and perinatal deaths identified by mortality audits. Numerous avoidable factors were identified and found to be related to the behaviors and practices of both health workers and patients, as well as to administrative, supply, referral and transport problems. Chronologically, factors took place across the continuum of childbirth from the antenatal period, through labor and delivery, and into the postpartum and postnatal periods, though the majority of factors were clustered in the intrapartum period.

The most important avoidable factor by attributable deaths was substandard practice by health workers. While it would have been beneficial for audits to describe more precisely the specific substandard practices, there remains value in knowing that the majority of deaths were thought to have been avoidable if health workers performed better. This has implications for current strategies focused on assuring the presence of skilled health workers at every delivery, including campaigns that incentivize women to deliver in health facilities [6366]. Our data are consistent with the idea that the presence of health workers at deliveries does not alone ensure the safe care of women and newborns. Adequate health worker training is vital and, presumably, so too are refresher courses and patient safety and quality initiatives that help to ensure that minimum standards of care are reliably delivered by health workers at each and every birth. While the audits specifically refer to substandard health worker practice, future work might include efforts to better understand how health care workers are supported or disempowered by the larger health system.

The second most important avoidable factor by attributable deaths was patient delay. Cultural issues and failure by women and their communities to recognize danger signs proved to be significant factors in maternal and perinatal deaths. Detailed descriptions of the specific reasons for patient delay in the studies included delays due to decision-making control by the ‘head of household,’ childcare concerns for other children in the family, mistrust of the health system, and peer pressure by other members of the community. The data suggest that education in the antenatal period should not be reserved for women alone, but also made available to other members of her family and even the community-at-large, parties which may exert influence over the timing of the woman’s presentation to skilled care. This is supported by a recent study in Kenya that also found strong a strong link between women’s structure of social support and likelihood of institutional delivery [67].

The third most important avoidable factor by attributable deaths related to blood transfusion capacity. Specific reasons cited included lack of accessibility to a blood bank, lack of materials for blood collection, blood safety concerns, recruitment of donors, and lack of infrastructure. One typical example of limited blood transfusion capacity was noted in the study by Adetoro [42], in which it was described how the blood bank at their hospital is open only for 8 hours daily. At all other times, blood must be retrieved from the blood bank of a larger hospital, located 4 kilometers away. Not only was distance an issue, but the authors also found that the larger hospital’s blood bank frequently suffered a lack of blood supply, and husbands and other relatives were unwilling to donate blood when asked.

The main limitation of this systematic review derives from limitations of the individual audits. As mentioned above, the assessment of avoidable factors in many cases would have benefited from a greater degree of granularity. For instance, factors such as “substandard health worker practice” and “poor antenatal care” provide a broad orientation to where deficiencies in care occur, but greater specificity (e.g., what specific substandard heath worker practice took place? Why was antenatal care poor?) would provide more precise direction in order to successfully inform health solutions that target existing gaps in the health care system. Therefore, while the quantitative analyses presented are useful for helping to appreciate the relative frequencies with which avoidable factors were reported, the results of this study may have greater qualitative value through the description of where and when preventable deficiencies in care were reported to have occurred.

A second limitation was the lack of standardized audit forms used in the different studies included in this analysis. Only 25 studies used a standardized form within their own study and none of these were identical between studies. This likely resulted in differences regarding how factors were both identified and labeled.

A third limitation is that the analysis was limited to published datasets in the medical literature. As a result, the sample of deaths audited was not random. The majority of the datasets included were from Africa, and data were not weighted based on population size.

Finally, a limitation of this review is the number of datasets included. While the number of datasets identified was robust on an absolute scale, we were surprised that more did not exist given that the inclusion criteria were liberal in terms of study date (1965 onwards) and geography (any low- and lower-middle income country). Audits are a proven method for helping to improve quality of care relating to childbirth [68], and some countries, such as South Africa in particular, have taken pioneering efforts to incorporate audits into the national healthcare system [12, 13, 18]. The findings of this review that relatively so few audits are being conducted (or, at least, reported) globally could constitute a call to action for stakeholders to initiate mortality audit programs, particularly in settings where rates of maternal and perinatal deaths are high.

Conclusions

Audit processes highlight precisely where breakdowns in clinical care occur and are an established method for facilitating quality improvement in health systems. Through a systematic review of avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal mortality we are able to identify the specific timing and nature of factors that are reported to be associated with severe childbirth-related harm in low resource settings. These data can be used to inform the development of health system improvements that specifically target known deficiencies in care, which represents a rational approach for measurably improving health and achieving progress towards Millennium Development Goals Four and Five.

Abbreviations

MDG: 

Millennium development goal

WHO: 

World Health Organization.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Grace Galvin (Harvard School of Public Health) and Paul Bain (Countway Library, Harvard Medical School) for their assistance with developing the search strategy and obtaining the articles to be reviewed.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Hospital for Sick Children
(2)
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
(3)
Ariadne Labs: A Joint Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health
(4)
World Health Organization
(5)
Harvard School of Public Health
(6)
MassGeneral Hospital for Children

References

  1. Walker N, Yenokyan G, Friberg IK, Bryce J: Patterns in coverage of maternal, newborn, and child health interventions: projections of neonatal and under-5 mortality to 2035. Lancet. 2013, 382 (9897): 1029-1038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhutta ZA, Chopra M, Axelson H, Berman P, Boerma T, Bryce J, Bustreo F, Cavagnero E, Cometto G, Daelmans B, de Francisco A, Fogstad H, Gupta N, Laski L, Lawn J, Maliqi B, Mason E, Pitt C, Requejo J, Starrs A, Victora CG, Wardlaw T: Countdown to 2015 decade report (2000–10): taking stock of maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet. 2010, 375 (9730): 2032-2044.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, Ahn SY, Wang M, Makela SM, Lopez AD, Lozano R, Murray CJ: Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards millennium development goal 5. Lancet. 2010, 375 (9726): 1609-1623.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rajaratnam JK, Marcus JR, Flaxman AD, Wang H, Levin-Rector A, Dwyer L, Costa M, Lopez AD, Murray CJ: Neonatal, postneonatal, childhood, and under-5 mortality for 187 countries, 1970–2010: a systematic analysis of progress towards millennium development goal 4. Lancet. 2010, 375 (9730): 1988-2008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Pattinson R, Cousens S, Kumar R, Ibiebele I, Gardosi J, Day LT, Stanton C: Stillbirths: where? when? why? how to make the data count?. Lancet. 2011, 377 (9775): 1448-1463.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ronsmans C, Graham WJ: Maternal mortality: who, when, where, and why. Lancet. 2006, 368 (9542): 1189-1200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J: 4 million neonatal deaths: when? where? why?. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9462): 891-900.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mancey-Jones M, Brugha RF: Using perinatal audit to promote change: a review. Health Policy Plan. 1997, 12 (3): 183-192.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pattinson R, Kerber K, Waiswa P, Day LT, Mussell F, Asiruddin SK, Blencowe H, Lawn JE: Perinatal mortality audit: counting, accountability, and overcoming challenges in scaling up in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009, 107 (Suppl 1): S113-S121. S121-112View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumont A, Fournier P, Abrahamowicz M, Traore M, Haddad S, Fraser WD: Quality of care, risk management, and technology in obstetrics to reduce hospital-based maternal mortality in Senegal and Mali (QUARITE): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2013, 382 (9887): 146-157.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kidanto HL, Wangwe P, Kilewo CD, Nystrom L, Lindmark G: Improved quality of management of eclampsia patients through criteria based audit at Muhimbili National Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. bridging the quality gap. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012, 12: 134-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradshaw D, Chopra M, Kerber K, Lawn JE, Bamford L, Moodley J, Pattinson R, Patrick M, Stephen C, Velaphi S: Every death counts: use of mortality audit data for decision making to save the lives of mothers, babies, and children in South Africa. Lancet. 2008, 371 (9620): 1294-1304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Saving Mothers 2008–2010: Fifth report on the confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in South Africa. http://www.hst.org.za/sites/default/files/savingmothersshort.pdf,
  14. Pattinson RC: Saving Babies: A Perinatal Care Survey of South Africa 2000 Executive Summary. 2000, Pretoria, South Africa: The MRC Unit for Maternal and Infant Health Care StrategiesGoogle Scholar
  15. World Bank: World Development Indicators. 2011, Washington, DC: World BankGoogle Scholar
  16. World Health Organization: health statistics and information systems. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indmaternalmortality/en/,
  17. World Health Organization: maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health. http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/maternal/maternal_perinatal/en/,
  18. Saving babies 2003–2005: fifth perinatal care survey of South Africa. http://bettercare.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Saving-Babies-2003-2005.pdf,
  19. Aveyard H: Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide. 2010, New York: Open University Press, 2Google Scholar
  20. Pirkle CM, Dumont A, Zunzunegui MV: Criterion-based clinical audit to assess quality of obstetrical care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011, 23 (4): 456-463.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Chang BH, Waternaux C, Lipsitz S: Meta-analysis of binary data: which within study variance estimate to use?. Stat Med. 2001, 20 (13): 1947-1956.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7 (3): 177-188.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009, 339: b2700-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Bhatt RV: Professional responsibility in maternity care: role of medical audit. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1989, 30 (1): 47-50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. D’Ambruoso L, Byass P, Qomariyah SN, Ouedraogo M: A lost cause? extending verbal autopsy to investigate biomedical and socio-cultural causes of maternal death in Burkina Faso and Indonesia. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 71 (10): 1728-1738.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Frost O: Maternal and perinatal deaths in an Addis Ababa Hospital, 1980. Ethiop Med J. 1984, 22 (3): 143-146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mbaruku G, Bergstrom S: Reducing maternal mortality in Kigoma, Tanzania. Health Policy Plan. 1995, 10 (1): 71-78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Oladapo OT, Ariba AJ, Odusoga OL: Changing patterns of emergency obstetric care at a Nigerian University hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007, 98 (3): 278-284.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ozumba BC, Nwogu-Ikojo EE: Avoidable maternal mortality in Enugu, Nigeria. Public Health. 2008, 122: 354-360.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Supratikto G, Wirth ME, Achadi E, Cohen S, Ronsmans C: A district-based audit of the causes and circumstances of maternal deaths in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Bull World Health Organ. 2002, 80 (3): 228-234.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacques S, Edgard-Marius O, Bruno D: Maternal deaths audit in four Benin referral hospitals: quality of emergency care causes and contributing factors. Afr J Reprod Health. 2006, 10: 28-40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vangeenderhuysen C, Banos JP, Mahaman T: Preventable maternal mortality in an urban area in Niamey (Niger). Sante. 1995, 5: 49-54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. El Amin S, Langhoff-Roos J, Bødker B, Bakr AA, Ashmeig AL, Ibrahim SA, Lindmark G: Introducing qualitative perinatal audit in a tertiary hospital in Sudan. Health Policy Plan. 2002, 17: 296-303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mbaruku G, van Roosmalen J, Kimondo I, Bilango F, Bergström S: Perinatal audit using the 3-delays model in western Tanzania. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009, 106: 85-88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Bouvier-Colle MH, Ouedraogo C, Dumont A, Vangeenderhuysen C, Salanave B, Decam C: Maternal mortality in West Africa. rates, causes and substandard care from a prospective survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001, 80: 113-119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Chigbu CO, Okezie OA, Odugu BU: Intrapartum stillbirth in a Nigerian tertiary hospital setting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009, 104: 18-21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Roosmalen J: Perinatal mortality in rural Tanzania. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989, 96: 827-834.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. De Muylder X: Perinatal mortality audit in a Zimbabwean district. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1989, 3: 284-293.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Cham M, Vangen S, Sundby J: Maternal deaths in rural Gambia. Glob Public Health. 2007, 2: 359-372.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dumont A, Tourigny C, Fournier P: Improving obstetric care in low-resource settings: implementation of facility-based maternal death reviews in five pilot hospitals in Senegal. Hum Resour Health. 2009, 7: 61-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Price TG: Preliminary report on maternal deaths in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania in 1983. J Obstet Gynaecol East Cent Africa. 1984, 3: 103-110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Adetoro OO: Maternal mortality--a twelve-year survey at the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital (U.I.T.H.) Ilorin, Nigeria. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1987, 25 (2): 93-98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Bullough CH: Analysis of maternal deaths in the Central Region of Malawi. East Afr Med J. 1981, 58: 25-36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnstone FD, Ochiel SO: Perinatal mortality at Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi. East Afr Med J. 1980, 57: 119-123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hinderaker SG, Olsen BE, Bergsjo PB, Gasheka P, Lie RT, Havnen J, Kvale G: Avoidable stillbirths and neonatal deaths in rural Tanzania. Bjog. 2003, 110 (6): 616-623.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hailu S, Enqueselassie F, Berhane Y: Health facility-based maternal death audit in Tigray, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Heal Dev. 2009, 23: 115-119.Google Scholar
  47. Issah K, Nang-Beifubah A, Opoku CF: Maternal and neonatal survival and mortality in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011, 113: 208-210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Jafarey SN, Rizvi T, Koblinsky M, Kureshy N: Verbal autopsy of maternal deaths in two districts of Pakistan–filling information gaps. J Health Popul Nutr. 2009, 27 (2): 170-183.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kongnyuy EJ, Mlava G, van den Broek N: Facility-based maternal death review in three districts in the central region of Malawi: an analysis of causes and characteristics of maternal deaths. Womens Health Issues. 2009, 19: 14-20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Waiswa P, Kallander K, Peterson S, Tomson G, Pariyo GW: Using the three delays model to understand why newborn babies die in eastern Uganda. Trop Med Int Health. 2010, 15: 964-972.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorensen BL, Elsass P, Nielsen BB, Massawe S, Nyakina J, Rasch V: Substandard emergency obstetric care - a confidential enquiry into maternal deaths at a regional hospital in Tanzania. Trop Med Int Health. 2010, 15: 894-900.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lori JR, Amable EE, Mertz SG, Moriarty K: Behavior change following implementation of home-based life-saving skills in Liberia, West Africa. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012, 57: 495-501.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Granja AC, Machungo F, Bergstrom S: Avoidability of maternal death in Mozambique: audit and retrospective risk assessment in 106 consecutive cases. Afr J Health Sci. 2000, 7: 83-87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Granja AC, Machungo F, Gomes A, Bergström S: Adolescent maternal mortality in Mozambique. J Adolesc Health. 2001, 28: 303-306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kidanto HL, Mogren I, van Roosmalen J, Thomas AN, Massawe SN, Nystrom L, Lindmark G: Introduction of a qualitative perinatal audit at Muhimbili National Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009, 9: 45-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Olsen BE, Hinderaker SG, Bergsjo P, Lie RT, Olsen OH, Gasheka P, Kvale G: Causes and characteristics of maternal deaths in rural northern Tanzania. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002, 81 (12): 1101-1109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Byaruhanga RN: Improving healthcare by perinatal mortality audit and feedback. Trop Doct. 2000, 30: 94-97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. De Muylder X: Maternal mortality audit in a Zimbabwean province. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1990, 247: 131-138.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Stekelenburg J, van Roosmalen J: The maternal mortality review meeting: experiences from Kalabo District Hospital, Zambia. Trop Doct. 2002, 32: 219-223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Ouédraogo C, Bouvier-Colle MH: Maternal mortality in West Africa: risk, rates, and rationale. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2002, 31: 80-89.Google Scholar
  61. Qazi G: Maternal mortality: an audit. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 1998, 9: 251-256.Google Scholar
  62. Rachid B, Abouchadi S, de Brouwere V: Implementation and outcomes of a national maternal mortality monitoring system in Morocco 2008–2009. Trop Med Int Health. 2011, 16: 54-Google Scholar
  63. Lim SS, Dandona L, Hoisington JA, James SL, Hogan MC, Gakidou E: India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana, a conditional cash transfer programme to increase births in health facilities: an impact evaluation. Lancet. 2010, 375 (9730): 2009-2023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Rana TG, Chataut BD, Shakya G, Nanda G, Pratt A, Sakai S: Strengthening emergency obstetric care in Nepal: the Women’s Right to Life and Health Project (WRLHP). Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007, 98 (3): 271-277.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Powell-Jackson T, Morrison J, Tiwari S, Neupane BD, Costello AM: The experiences of districts in implementing a national incentive programme to promote safe delivery in Nepal. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009, 9: 97-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Ekirapa-Kiracho E, Waiswa P, Rahman MH, Makumbi F, Kiwanuka N, Okui O, Rutebemberwa E, Bua J, Mutebi A, Nalwadda G, Serwadda D, Pariyo GW, Peters DH: Increasing access to institutional deliveries using demand and supply side incentives: early results from a quasi-experimental study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2011, 11 (Suppl 1): S11-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Ono M, Matsuyama A, Karama M, Honda S: Association between social support and place of delivery: a cross-sectional study in Kericho, Western Kenya. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013, 13: 214-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Bugalho A, Bergstrom S: Value of perinatal audit in obstetric care in the developing world: a ten-year experience of the Maputo model. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1993, 36 (4): 239-243.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/14/280/prepub

Copyright

© Merali et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.