309 research outputs found

    Utility of a routine ultrasound for detection of ectopic pregnancies among women requesting abortion:A retrospective review

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Routine ultrasound may be used in abortion services to determine gestational age and confirm an intrauterine pregnancy. However, ultrasound adds complexity to care and results may be inconclusive, delaying abortion. We sought to determine the rate of ectopic pregnancy and the utility of routine ultrasound in its detection, in a community abortion service. METHODS: Retrospective case record review of women requesting abortion over a 5-year period (2015–2019) with an outcome of ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) at a service (Edinburgh, UK) conducting routine ultrasound on all women. Records were searched for symptoms at presentation, development of symptoms during clinical care, significant risk factors and routine ultrasound findings. RESULTS: Only 29/11 381 women (0.25%, 95% CI 0.18%, 0.33%) had an ectopic pregnancy or PUL (tubal=18, caesarean scar=1, heterotopic=1, PUL=9). Eleven (38%) cases had either symptoms at presentation (n=8) and/or significant risk factors for ectopic pregnancy (n=4). A further 12 women developed symptoms during their clinical care. Of the remaining six, three were PUL treated with methotrexate and three were ectopic (salpingectomy=2, methotrexate=1). In three cases, the baseline ultrasound indicated a probable early intrauterine pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Ectopic pregnancies are uncommon among women presenting for abortion. The value of routine ultrasound in excluding ectopic pregnancy in symptom-free women without significant risk factors is questionable as it may aid detection of some cases but may provide false reassurance that a pregnancy is intrauterine

    The patient reporting and action for a safe environment (PRASE) intervention: a feasibility study

    Get PDF
    Background: There is growing interest in the role of patients in improving patient safety. One such role is providing feedback on the safety of their care. Here we describe the development and feasibility testing of an intervention that collects patient feedback on patient safety, brings together staff to consider this feedback and to plan improvement strategies. We address two research questions: i) to explore the feasibility of the process of systematically collecting feedback from patients about the safety of care as part of the PRASE intervention; and, ii) to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the PRASE intervention for staff, and to understand more about how staff use the patient feedback for service improvement. Method: We conducted a feasibility study using a wait-list controlled design across six wards within an acute teaching hospital. Intervention wards were asked to participate in two cycles of the PRASE (Patient Reporting & Action for a Safe Environment) intervention across a six-month period. Participants were patients on participating wards. To explore the acceptability of the intervention for staff, observations of action planning meetings, interviews with a lead person for the intervention on each ward and recorded researcher reflections were analysed thematically and synthesised. Results: Recruitment of patients using computer tablets at their bedside was straightforward, with the majority of patients willing and able to provide feedback. Randomisation of the intervention was acceptable to staff, with no evidence of differential response rates between intervention and control groups. In general, ward staff were positive about the use of patient feedback for service improvement and were able to use the feedback as a basis for action planning, although engagement with the process was variable. Gathering a multidisciplinary team together for action planning was found to be challenging, and implementing action plans was sometimes hindered by the need to co-ordinate action across multiple services. Discussion: The PRASE intervention was found to be acceptable to staff and patients. However, before proceeding to a full cluster randomised controlled trial, the intervention requires adaptation to account for the difficulties in implementing action plans within three months, the need for a facilitator to support the action planning meetings, and the provision of training and senior management support for participating ward teams. Conclusions: The PRASE intervention represents a promising method for the systematic collection of patient feedback about the safety of hospital care

    Consortium for the Study of Pregnancy Treatments (Co-OPT): An international birth cohort to study the effects of antenatal corticosteroids

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) are widely prescribed to improve outcomes following preterm birth. Significant knowledge gaps surround their safety, long-term effects, optimal timing and dosage. Almost half of women given ACS give birth outside the "therapeutic window" and have not delivered over 7 days later. Overtreatment with ACS is a concern, as evidence accumulates of risks of unnecessary ACS exposure. METHODS: The Consortium for the Study of Pregnancy Treatments (Co-OPT) was established to address research questions surrounding safety of medications in pregnancy. We created an international birth cohort containing information on ACS exposure and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by combining data from four national/provincial birth registers and one hospital database, and follow-up through linked population-level data from death registers and electronic health records. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The Co-OPT ACS cohort contains 2.28 million pregnancies and babies, born in Finland, Iceland, Israel, Canada and Scotland, between 1990 and 2019. Births from 22 to 45 weeks' gestation were included; 92.9% were at term (≥ 37 completed weeks). 3.6% of babies were exposed to ACS (67.0% and 77.9% of singleton and multiple births before 34 weeks, respectively). Rates of ACS exposure increased across the study period. Of all ACS-exposed babies, 26.8% were born at term. Longitudinal childhood data were available for 1.64 million live births. Follow-up includes diagnoses of a range of physical and mental disorders from the Finnish Hospital Register, diagnoses of mental, behavioural, and neurodevelopmental disorders from the Icelandic Patient Registers, and preschool reviews from the Scottish Child Health Surveillance Programme. The Co-OPT ACS cohort is the largest international birth cohort to date with data on ACS exposure and maternal, perinatal and childhood outcomes. Its large scale will enable assessment of important rare outcomes such as perinatal mortality, and comprehensive evaluation of the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of ACS

    Consortium for the Study of Pregnancy Treatments (Co-OPT) : An international birth cohort to study the effects of antenatal corticosteroids

    Get PDF
    Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Co-OPT collaborators from Finland, Iceland, Israel, Nova Scotia, and Scotland, who have provided high-quality patient data, without which the Co-OPT ACS cohort would not have been possible. We acknowledge Public Health Scotland for providing us with a secure data analytical platform in which to undertake this research and are particularly grateful to Anna Schneider who has been the data controller for this project. Co-OPT collaborators: Karel Allegaert (Belgium), Jasper Been (Netherlands), David Burgner (Australia), Sohinee Bhattacharya (UK), Kate Duhig (UK), Kristjana Einarsdóttir (Iceland), John Fahey (Canada), Lani Florian (UK), Abigail Fraser (UK), Mika Gissler (Finland), Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman (USA), Bo Jacobsson (Sweden), Eyal Krispin (Israel), Stefan Kuhle (Canada), Marius Lahti-Pulkkinen (Finland), Jessica Miller (Australia), Ben Mol (Australia), Sarah Murray (UK), Jane Norman (UK), Lars Henning Pedersen (Denmark), Richard Riley (UK), Devender Roberts (UK), Ewoud Schuit (Netherlands), Aziz Sheikh (UK), Ting Shi (UK), Joshua Vogel (Australia), Rachael Wood (UK), John Wright (UK), Helga Zoega (Australia). Funding Information: The Co-OPT ACS study is funded through a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship grant (Funding Reference number 209560/Z/17) awarded to Sarah J Stock. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The Sponsor of the study is the University of Edinburgh (www.ed.ac. uk), Sponsor reference AC19119. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
    corecore