MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803102126 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000003451

Identifying Barriers to Implementation of the National Partnership for Maternal Safety Obstetric Hemorrhage Bundle at a Tertiary Center: Utilization of the Delphi Method

2018· article· en· W2803102126 on OpenAlexaff
Annemaria De Tina, Anthony Chau, Daniela Carusi, Julian N. Robinson, Lawrence C. Tsen, Michaela K. Farber

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral partnershipDelphi methodMultidisciplinary approachPatient safetyNursingDelphiTertiary careMedical emergencyFamily medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the National Partnership for Maternal Safety (NPMS) developed an obstetric hemorrhage consensus bundle to provide birthing facilities in the United States with consistent, validated practice guidelines for postpartum hemorrhage management. The process of implementing each bundle element at a large tertiary labor and delivery unit has not been described; we sought to identify practice deficiencies and perceived barriers to bundle implementation among multidisciplinary providers. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, consensus-building study based on the Delphi method. A multidisciplinary expert panel comprised of anesthesiologists, obstetricians, nurses, and surgical technicians was assembled and participated in 4 sequential questionnaires. The first round identified bundle elements that experts determined as not currently adequate and perceived barriers to implementation. The second round established prioritization of elements within each professional group; and the third round ranked the elements with at least 60% agreement on feasibility of implementation and positive impact on patient care. The last round revealed responses across all 4 professional groups to derive a final consensus. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: A total of 38 experts completed the study (11 anesthesiologists, 11 obstetricians, 10 nurses, and 6 surgical technicians). While all 13 (100%) NPMS obstetric bundle elements were described as deficient in our labor and delivery unit by a provider in at least 1 discipline, consensus among at least 3 of the 4 disciplines was achieved for 6 element deficiencies. Barriers to implementation were determined. The initiatives that achieved consensus as possessing high patient impact and implementation feasibility were protocol-driven management, unit-based simulation drills, blood loss quantification, and team huddles and debriefings. CONCLUSIONS: The NPMS obstetric hemorrhage bundle was created to help guide practice and systems improvement for US birthing facilities. The Delphi method enabled identification of deficient elements and perceived barriers to element implementation, as well as group consensus on elements with highest patient impact and feasibility. Multidisciplinary group consensus can identify deficiencies and promote tangible, quality improvements in a large, tertiary-care labor and delivery unit. Institutions may utilize our described technique to guide implementation of future care bundles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207