Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.

Lisa Hinton, Francesca H Dakin, Karolina Kuberska, Nicola Boydell, Janet Willars, Tim Draycott, Cathy Winter, Richard J McManus, Lucy C Chappell, Sanhita Chakrabarti, Elizabeth Howland, Jenny George, Brandi Leach, Mary Dixon-Woods
{"title":"Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.","authors":"Lisa Hinton, Francesca H Dakin, Karolina Kuberska, Nicola Boydell, Janet Willars, Tim Draycott, Cathy Winter, Richard J McManus, Lucy C Chappell, Sanhita Chakrabarti, Elizabeth Howland, Jenny George, Brandi Leach, Mary Dixon-Woods","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"301-313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11041557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014329","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it.

Methods: This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers.

Findings: Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety.

Conclusions: This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远程产前护理的质量框架:与妇女、医疗保健专业人员和系统级利益相关者进行的定性研究。
背景高质量的产前护理对于确保最佳分娩结果以及降低孕产妇和胎儿死亡率和发病率的风险非常重要。新冠肺炎疫情扰乱了通常提供的产前护理,许多护理转向远程提供。我们的目的是从使用、提供和组织远程产前护理的人的角度来描述远程产前护理质量。方法:这项英国范围的研究包括采访和在线调查,邀请免费文本回复:自2020年3月以来怀孕或已怀孕的人;产科专业人员和产科服务管理人员以及系统层面的利益相关者。招聘采用了基于网络的方法、专业和社区网络以及有针对性的选定医院。面试记录的分析是基于持续比较法。使用研究人员开发的编码框架对自由文本调查结果进行了分析。调查参与者包括106名孕妇和105名医疗保健专业人员和管理人员/利益相关者。通过分析,形成了似乎与远程产前护理利益攸关方最相关的质量领域框架:效率和及时性;有效性安全可达性;公平和包容;人的中心性、选择和连续性。参与者报告说,远程护理在这些领域并不是直接的积极或消极的。更具交易性质的护理被认为更适合远程模式,但远程护理也被视为有可能破坏信任关系和连续性的重要方面,扩大或创造新形式的结构性不平等,并可能对安全造成风险。结论本研究提供了一个临时框架,有助于构建思维、政策和实践。通过概述与远程产前护理相关的一系列领域,该框架可能对指导政策、实践和研究具有价值。
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
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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