• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一种用于评估死产护理标准的形式和审查流程。

A pro forma and review process for the assessment of standards of care in stillbirths.

机构信息

Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

BJOG. 2011 Dec;118(13):1661-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03094.x. Epub 2011 Sep 6.

DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03094.x
PMID:21895952
Abstract

Stillbirth rates do not address deficiencies in care. We collected information on stillbirths from 2004 to 2009 using a standardised pro forma. A local panel used the pro forma to grade the level of care received by the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI) categorisation. Comparison using kappa scores showed agreement between local and external multidisciplinary panels of similar referral patterns (n = 47, κ = 0.7), and that the categorisation was unaffected by the individual who fills out the pro forma (n = 17, κ = 0.5). There was less agreement between the local panel and adverse event review (n = 100, κ = 0.45). This report represents a validation of the pro forma and the review process for standard use in all units.

摘要

死产率并不能解决护理缺陷问题。我们使用标准化表格收集了 2004 年至 2009 年的死产信息。一个本地小组使用该表格按照保密性婴儿死亡及出生缺陷调查(CESDI)分类标准来评估所接受的护理水平。kappa 评分的比较显示,具有相似转诊模式的本地和外部多学科小组之间存在一致性(n = 47,κ = 0.7),并且分类不受填写表格的个人的影响(n = 17,κ = 0.5)。本地小组和不良事件审查之间的一致性较小(n = 100,κ = 0.45)。本报告代表了对表格和审查流程的验证,可在所有单位常规使用。

相似文献

1
A pro forma and review process for the assessment of standards of care in stillbirths.一种用于评估死产护理标准的形式和审查流程。
BJOG. 2011 Dec;118(13):1661-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03094.x. Epub 2011 Sep 6.
2
Impacts of participating in confidential enquiry panels: a qualitative study.参与保密调查小组的影响:一项定性研究。
BJOG. 2006 Apr;113(4):387-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00883.x.
3
Do panels vary when assessing intrapartum adverse events? The reproducibility of assessments by hospital risk management groups.评估分娩期不良事件时各小组的评估结果是否存在差异?医院风险管理小组评估的可重复性。
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):359-62. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.018572.
4
Suboptimal care in stillbirths - a retrospective audit study.死产护理不佳——一项回顾性审计研究
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(4):444-50. doi: 10.1080/00016340701207724.
5
Substandard care in antepartum term stillbirths: prospective cohort study.产前足月死胎中不达标护理:前瞻性队列研究。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Dec;90(12):1416-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01251.x. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
6
Prospective community-based cluster census and case-control study of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.约旦河西岸和加沙地带死产和新生儿死亡的前瞻性社区整群普查及病例对照研究。
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Jul;22(4):321-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2008.00943.x.
7
Beyond the numbers: reporting potentially avoidable perinatal deaths.超越数字:报告潜在可避免的围产期死亡。
BJOG. 2012 Feb;119(3):381-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03187.x.
8
Aetiology of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in rural Ghana: implications for health programming in developing countries.加纳农村死产和新生儿死亡的病因:对发展中国家卫生规划的启示。
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Sep;22(5):430-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2008.00961.x.
9
Confidential regional enquiry into mature stillbirths and neonatal deaths--a multi-disciplinary peer panel perspective of the perinatal care of 238 deaths.关于成熟死产和新生儿死亡的保密地区调查——238例死亡围产期护理的多学科同行专家视角
Singapore Med J. 1999 Apr;40(4):251-5.
10
Does the introduction of a COPD pro-forma improve the standards of care delivered by junior doctors in the emergency department.初级医生在急诊科使用 COPD 表单是否能提高护理标准。
COPD. 2010 Jun;7(3):199-203. doi: 10.3109/15412555.2010.481699.

引用本文的文献

1
Facility-based stillbirth review processes used in different countries across the world: a systematic review.全球不同国家使用的基于机构的死产审查流程:一项系统评价
EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Apr 27;59:101976. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101976. eCollection 2023 May.