TY - JOUR
T1 - Adherence to guideline-based quality indicators in early pregnancy care in hospitals with and without an early pregnancy assessment unit
AU - van den Berg, M. M. J.
AU - van den Boogaard, E.
AU - Hermens, R. P. M. G.
AU - Goddijn, M.
AU - van der Veen, Fulco
AU - Hajenius, P. J.
N1 - Funding Information: We thank professionals from all participating centres for their contribution to this study: RC Dullemond, MD, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s Hertogenbosch; J Gianotten, MD, PhD, Spaarne Gasthuis location Haarlem; EM Kaaijk, MD, PhD, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, location East Amsterdam; YM van Kasteren, MD, PhD, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar; E Hink, MD, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre; N van Mello, MD, PhD, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc; A Mulders, MD, PhD, the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam; and PJ Hajenius, MD, PhD, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - Research question: How do hospitals with and without an early pregnancy assessment unit (EPAU) adhere to guideline-based quality indicators for an EPAU relating to logistics, access to services and quality of early pregnancy care? Design: A qualitative interview study assessing the adherence to 19 quality indicators in four hospitals with an EPAU and four hospitals without an EPAU in the Netherlands. For each quality indicator, a ratio for guideline adherence was calculated. Overall non-adherence per hospital was defined as less than 100% adherence to the 19 quality indicators. Results: Non-adherence was seen in three indicators (3/19 [16%]) for hospitals with an EPAU and in five indicators (5/19 [26%]) for hospitals without an EPAU. A standard digital system for the registration of ultrasound findings and clear explanation of all treatment options was present in all hospitals with an EPAU and in three hospitals without an EPAU. Certified ultrasound training for working staff members was absent in all hospitals. A discrete waiting area was present in one hospital with an EPAU compared with none of the hospitals without an EPAU. Self-referrals from women with a previous ectopic pregnancy was accepted in one hospital with and in one hospital without an EPAU. Conclusions: Non-adherence to guideline-based quality indicators for an EPAU was about the same for hospitals with and without an EPAU in the Netherlands.
AB - Research question: How do hospitals with and without an early pregnancy assessment unit (EPAU) adhere to guideline-based quality indicators for an EPAU relating to logistics, access to services and quality of early pregnancy care? Design: A qualitative interview study assessing the adherence to 19 quality indicators in four hospitals with an EPAU and four hospitals without an EPAU in the Netherlands. For each quality indicator, a ratio for guideline adherence was calculated. Overall non-adherence per hospital was defined as less than 100% adherence to the 19 quality indicators. Results: Non-adherence was seen in three indicators (3/19 [16%]) for hospitals with an EPAU and in five indicators (5/19 [26%]) for hospitals without an EPAU. A standard digital system for the registration of ultrasound findings and clear explanation of all treatment options was present in all hospitals with an EPAU and in three hospitals without an EPAU. Certified ultrasound training for working staff members was absent in all hospitals. A discrete waiting area was present in one hospital with an EPAU compared with none of the hospitals without an EPAU. Self-referrals from women with a previous ectopic pregnancy was accepted in one hospital with and in one hospital without an EPAU. Conclusions: Non-adherence to guideline-based quality indicators for an EPAU was about the same for hospitals with and without an EPAU in the Netherlands.
KW - Early pregnancy loss
KW - Guideline adherence
KW - Quality indicators
KW - Quality of care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131804979&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.04.012
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.04.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 35688756
SN - 1472-6483
VL - 45
SP - 583
EP - 588
JO - Reproductive BioMedicine Online
JF - Reproductive BioMedicine Online
IS - 3
ER -