A Structural, Cognitive, and Behavioral Model for Error Analysis of Group B Streptococcus Prophylaxis in Pregnancy.

Pub Date : 2022-02-04 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1742235
Robert E Murphy, Jane C Ibekwe, Stella I Ibekwe, Jerrie S Refuerzo
{"title":"A Structural, Cognitive, and Behavioral Model for Error Analysis of Group B Streptococcus Prophylaxis in Pregnancy.","authors":"Robert E Murphy,&nbsp;Jane C Ibekwe,&nbsp;Stella I Ibekwe,&nbsp;Jerrie S Refuerzo","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1742235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to develop a structural-cognitive-behavioral model for error analysis of group B streptococcus (GBS) prophylaxis failure, classify delivery cases into this model, and examine compliance with treatment guidelines. A retrospective, cohort study was conducted of women with liveborn pregnancies greater than 24 weeks in April 2018 at a single hospital. We created a structural-cognitive-behavioral model of five assessments for adherence to GBS prophylaxis guidelines and then classified these into four distinct error stages. A descriptive analysis was performed to determine if the pregnancy had a perfect process, a GBS prophylaxis failure, or a fortuitous outcome. There were 313 women who met the study criteria. The rate of GBS positive was 12.8%, negative 37.4%, and unknown 49.8%. The most common errors were cognitive perception errors related to incorrectly documenting GBS status, 57.7% ( <i>N</i>  = 79). Of these errors, 15.2% ( <i>N</i>  = 12) led to GBS prophylaxis failure. Perfect outcomes occurred in 62.7% ( <i>N</i>  = 196) women, GBS prophylaxis failure occurred in 13.7% ( <i>N</i>  = 43), and fortuitous outcomes occurred in 23.6% ( <i>N</i>  = 74). In our study, we were able to identify structural, cognitive, and behavioral errors that contribute to GBS prophylaxis failures. In other cases, these errors may contribute to fortuitous outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/80/14/10-1055-s-0041-1742235.PMC8816629.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a structural-cognitive-behavioral model for error analysis of group B streptococcus (GBS) prophylaxis failure, classify delivery cases into this model, and examine compliance with treatment guidelines. A retrospective, cohort study was conducted of women with liveborn pregnancies greater than 24 weeks in April 2018 at a single hospital. We created a structural-cognitive-behavioral model of five assessments for adherence to GBS prophylaxis guidelines and then classified these into four distinct error stages. A descriptive analysis was performed to determine if the pregnancy had a perfect process, a GBS prophylaxis failure, or a fortuitous outcome. There were 313 women who met the study criteria. The rate of GBS positive was 12.8%, negative 37.4%, and unknown 49.8%. The most common errors were cognitive perception errors related to incorrectly documenting GBS status, 57.7% ( N  = 79). Of these errors, 15.2% ( N  = 12) led to GBS prophylaxis failure. Perfect outcomes occurred in 62.7% ( N  = 196) women, GBS prophylaxis failure occurred in 13.7% ( N  = 43), and fortuitous outcomes occurred in 23.6% ( N  = 74). In our study, we were able to identify structural, cognitive, and behavioral errors that contribute to GBS prophylaxis failures. In other cases, these errors may contribute to fortuitous outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
妊娠期B族链球菌预防错误分析的结构、认知和行为模型。
本研究的目的是建立一个结构-认知-行为模型,用于B族链球菌(GBS)预防失败的错误分析,将分娩病例分类到该模型中,并检查治疗指南的依从性。2018年4月,在一家医院对活产妊娠超过24周的妇女进行了回顾性队列研究。我们创建了一个结构-认知-行为模型,对GBS预防指南的依从性进行了五种评估,然后将这些评估分为四个不同的错误阶段。进行描述性分析,以确定怀孕是否有一个完美的过程,GBS预防失败,或一个偶然的结果。有313名女性符合研究标准。GBS阳性率为12.8%,阴性37.4%,未知49.8%。最常见的错误是与不正确记录GBS状态相关的认知知觉错误,占57.7% (N = 79)。在这些错误中,15.2% (N = 12)导致GBS预防失败。62.7% (N = 196)的妇女出现完美结局,13.7% (N = 43)的妇女出现GBS预防失败,23.6% (N = 74)的妇女出现意外结局。在我们的研究中,我们能够识别导致GBS预防失败的结构,认知和行为错误。在其他情况下,这些错误可能会导致偶然的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1