Suppr超能文献

利用记分卡反馈改进出生时的定量失血测量

Using Scorecard Feedback to Improve Quantitative Blood Loss Measurement at Birth.

作者信息

Steinberg Marilyn Cejka

出版信息

Nurs Womens Health. 2019 Oct;23(5):390-403. doi: 10.1016/j.nwh.2019.07.008.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To increase the percentage of cases in which quantitative blood loss (QBL) was documented by labor and delivery nurses for women giving birth.

DESIGN

Quality improvement project.

SETTING/LOCAL PROBLEM: Labor and delivery unit of a community hospital in which a previous implementation of QBL measurement was not sustained.

PARTICIPANTS

Labor and delivery nurses were the focus of the intervention, but the entire multidisciplinary team became involved.

INTERVENTION/MEASUREMENTS: Based on literature supporting the use of scorecard feedback to stimulate performance improvement, weekly blinded individual scorecards showing the percentage of births attended by each labor and delivery nurse with QBL documented and a run chart showing the percentage of all births with QBL documented were posted on the unit and discussed during huddles for 12 weeks. Data on blood product administration were collected, and charts comparing QBL and estimated blood loss (EBL) volumes documented were shared with nurses and physicians.

RESULTS

Over 12 weeks, the percentage of births with QBL documented increased from 22.7% to 80.0%. Consistent with previous reports comparing QBL and EBL volumes at birth, there was a significant difference between the mean QBL volume (mean = 482.20 ml, standard deviation = 358.03) and the mean EBL volume (mean = 313.15 ml, standard deviation = 211.91; p < .001) for total births. The mean QBL volume was also greater than the mean EBL volume for vaginal and cesarean births, but those differences were not statistically significant. There was no increase in blood product administration associated with the increase in QBL documentation.

CONCLUSION

Discussing weekly scorecards and a run chart of QBL measurement was associated with an increase in documentation of QBL by labor and delivery nurses. Planning this project and discussing the results engaged the entire multidisciplinary team in more consistent measurement of QBL. The increased level of QBL documentation has been sustained for longer than 1 year.

摘要

目的

提高分娩时定量失血量(QBL)有记录的产妇病例比例。

设计

质量改进项目。

背景/当地问题:一家社区医院的分娩科室,此前实施的QBL测量未能持续。

参与者

分娩护士是干预重点,但整个多学科团队都参与其中。

干预/测量:基于支持使用记分卡反馈来促进绩效改进的文献,每周张贴显示每位分娩护士记录有QBL的分娩比例的盲法个人记分卡,以及显示所有记录有QBL的分娩比例的运行图,并在12周的碰头会上进行讨论。收集血液制品使用数据,并将记录的QBL和估计失血量(EBL)量的对比图表与护士和医生分享。

结果

在12周内,记录有QBL的分娩比例从22.7%增至80.0%。与之前比较出生时QBL和EBL量的报告一致,所有分娩的平均QBL量(均值 = 482.20毫升,标准差 = 358.03)与平均EBL量(均值 = 313.15毫升,标准差 = 211.91;p <.001)之间存在显著差异。阴道分娩和剖宫产的平均QBL量也大于平均EBL量,但这些差异无统计学意义。QBL记录增加并未伴随血液制品使用增加。

结论

每周讨论QBL测量的记分卡和运行图与分娩护士记录QBL的增加相关。规划该项目并讨论结果使整个多学科团队更一致地测量QBL。QBL记录增加的水平已持续超过1年。

相似文献

1
Using Scorecard Feedback to Improve Quantitative Blood Loss Measurement at Birth.
Nurs Womens Health. 2019 Oct;23(5):390-403. doi: 10.1016/j.nwh.2019.07.008.
2
A Proactive Approach to Quantification of Blood Loss in the Perinatal Setting.
Nurs Womens Health. 2019 Dec;23(6):471-477. doi: 10.1016/j.nwh.2019.09.007. Epub 2019 Nov 2.
3
Impact of measuring quantification of blood loss versus estimation of blood loss during cesarean deliveries.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Feb;160(2):670-677. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14337. Epub 2022 Jul 27.
4
Automated Quantification of Blood Loss versus Visual Estimation in 274 Vaginal Deliveries.
Am J Perinatol. 2021 Aug;38(10):1031-1035. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701507. Epub 2020 Feb 12.
5
Effect of Quantification of Blood Loss on Activation of a Postpartum Hemorrhage Protocol and Use of Resources.
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2020 Mar;49(2):137-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2020.01.002. Epub 2020 Feb 8.
6
Effect of Implementing Quantitative Blood Loss Assessment at the Time of Delivery.
Am J Perinatol. 2019 Nov;36(13):1332-1336. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1688823. Epub 2019 May 14.
8
Quantitative blood loss after vaginal delivery: a retrospective analysis of 104 079 measurements at 41 institutions.
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2022 Aug;51:103256. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2022.103256. Epub 2022 Jan 12.
9
Ability of an obstetric hemorrhage risk assessment tool to predict quantitative peripartum blood loss.
J Perinat Med. 2024 Aug 2;52(8):837-842. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2024-0187. Print 2024 Oct 28.
10
Visual estimation of blood loss versus quantitative blood loss for maternal outcomes related to obstetrical hemorrhage.
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2023 Mar 13;36(3):341-345. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2023.2187248. eCollection 2023.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验