Beyond maternal death: improving the quality of maternal care through national studies of ‘near-miss’ maternal morbidity

Knight M, Acosta C, Brocklehurst P, Cheshire A, Fitzpatrick K, Hinton L, Jokinen M, Kemp B, Kurinczuk JJ, Lewis G, Lindquist A, Locock L, Nair M, Patel N, Quigley M, Ridge D, Rivero-Arias O, Sellers S, Shah A on behalf of the UKNeS coapplicant group. Background Studies of maternal mortality have been shown to result in important improvements to women’s health. It is now recognised that in countries such as the UK, where maternal deaths are rare, the study of near-miss severe maternal morbidity provides additional information to aid disease prevention, treatment and service provision. Objectives To (1) estimate the incidence of specific near-miss morbidities; (2) assess the contribution of existing risk factors to incidence; (3) describe different interventions and their impact on outcomes and costs; (4) identify any groups in which outcomes differ; (5) investigate factors associated with maternal death; (6) compare an external confidential enquiry or a local review approach for investigating quality of care for affected women; and (7) assess the longer-term impacts. Methods Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods including primary national observational studies, database analyses, surveys and case studies overseen by a user advisory group. Setting Maternity units in all four countries of the UK. Participants Women with near-miss maternal morbidities, their partners and comparison women without severe morbidity. Main outcome measures The incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of uterine rupture, placenta accreta, haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, severe sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism and pregnancy at advanced maternal age (≥ 48 years at completion of pregnancy); factors associated with progression from severe morbidity to death; associations between severe maternal morbidity and ethnicity and socioeconomic status; lessons for care identified by local and external review; economic evaluation of interventions for management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH); women’s experiences of near-miss maternal morbidity; long-term outcomes; and models of maternity care commissioned through experience-led and standard approaches. Results Women and their partners reported long-term impacts of near-miss maternal morbidities on their physical and mental health. Older maternal age and caesarean delivery are associated with severe maternal morbidity in both current and future pregnancies. Antibiotic prescription for pregnant or postpartum women with suspected infection does not necessarily prevent progression to severe sepsis, which may be rapidly progressive. Delay in delivery, of up to 48 hours, may be safely undertaken in women with HELLP syndrome in whom there is no fetal compromise. Uterine compression sutures are a cost-effective second-line therapy for PPH. Medical comorbidities are associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of maternal death from direct pregnancy complications. External reviews identified more specific clinical messages for care than local reviews. Experience-led commissioning may be used as a way to commission maternity services. Limitations This programme used observational studies, some with limited sample size, and the possibility of uncontrolled confounding cannot be excluded. Conclusions Implementation of the findings of this research could prevent both future severe pregnancy complications as well as improving the outcome of pregnancy for women. One of the clearest findings relates to the population of women with other medical and mental health problems in pregnancy and their risk of severe morbidity. Further research into models of pre-pregnancy, pregnancy and postnatal care is clearly needed

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Background: The Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. Design: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. Interventions: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale – Observer Rated. Results: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference –1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.27 to –0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference –0.71, 95% CI –2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. Limitations: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. Conclusions: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways

Models of care for musculoskeletal health: A cross-sectional qualitative study of Australian stakeholders' perspectives on relevance and standardised evaluation

Background: The prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions are predicted to rapidly escalate in the coming decades. Effective strategies are required to minimise 'evidence-practice', 'burden-policy' and 'burden-service' gaps and optimise health system responsiveness for sustainable, best-practice healthcare. One mechanism by which evidence can be translated into practice and policy is through Models of Care (MoCs), which provide a blueprint for health services planning and delivery. While evidence supports the effectiveness of musculoskeletal MoCs for improving health outcomes and system efficiencies, no standardised national approach to evaluation in terms of their 'readiness' for implementation and 'success' after implementation, is yet available. Further, the value assigned to MoCs by end users is uncertain. This qualitative study aimed to explore end users' views on the relevance of musculoskeletal MoCs to their work and value of a standardised evaluation approach. Methods: A cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken. Subject matter experts (SMEs) with health, policy and administration and consumer backgrounds were drawn from three Australian states. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed and piloted to explore perceptions about musculoskeletal MoCs including: i) aspects important to their work (or life, for consumers) ii) usefulness of standardised evaluation frameworks to judge 'readiness' and 'success' and iii) challenges associated with standardised evaluation. Verbatim transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach to derive key themes. Results: Twenty-seven SMEs (n = 19; 70.4 % female) including five (18.5 %) consumers participated in the study. MoCs were perceived as critical for influencing and initiating changes to best-practice healthcare planning and delivery and providing practical guidance on how to implement and evaluate services. A 'readiness' evaluation framework assessing whether critical components across the health system had been considered prior to implementation was strongly supported, while 'success' was perceived as an already familiar evaluation concept. Perceived challenges associated with standardised evaluation included identifying, defining and measuring key 'readiness' and 'success' indicators; impacts of systems and context changes; cost; meaningful stakeholder consultation and developing a widely applicable framework. Conclusions: A standardised evaluation framework that includes a strong focus on 'readiness' is important to ensure successful and sustainable implementation of musculoskeletal MoCs