• M P Amelink-Verburg, J van Roosmalen, J M Roelofsen, J H Wolleswinkel-van den Bosch, and S P Verloove-Vanhorick.
• TNO Preventie en Gezondheid, afd. Jeugd, Postbus 2215, 2301 CE Leiden. mp.amelink@pg.tno.nl
• Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003 Nov 22; 147 (47): 2333-7.

ObjectiveTo evaluate a perinatal audit procedure by communicating the results to the caregivers (midwives and obstetricians) involved, in order to determine whether the audit led to specific suggestions for improving practice and whether evaluation of the panel assessments by caregivers leads to a different evaluation of the audit process.DesignDescriptive evaluation study.MethodBecause of privacy regulations, the results of a recently published audit concerning perinatal mortality were reported at an aggregated level. At their own request, two participating hospitals received panel assessment reports of their own cases. The audit procedure, the 77 panel assessments and the care provided were then evaluated during closed meetings with the caregivers affiliated to the respective hospitals.ResultsIn two audited cases of mortality the caregivers judged the panel's assessments as being too light and as too severe in one other case (Cohen's kappa: 0.98). Detailed case description was considered essential to the audit procedure. While aggregated reporting of audit results provides a general understanding of substandard factors in the care provided, feedback of results on an individual practice level led to specific suggestions for improvement (in relation to medical aspects, patient-caregiver relationship and collaboration between caregivers). Lack of anonymity appeared not to be an issue for the caregivers.ConclusionThe feedback of perinatal audit results to the caregivers involved as well as discussion of these results led to specific starting points in the areas of collaboration, documentation and policymaking at both individual and institutional level.

22 keywords...

hide…