...
首页> 外文期刊>Reproductive Health >Classifying maternal deaths in Suriname using WHO ICD-MM: different interpretation by Physicians, National and International Maternal Death Review Committees
【24h】

Classifying maternal deaths in Suriname using WHO ICD-MM: different interpretation by Physicians, National and International Maternal Death Review Committees

机译:使用WHO ICD-MM进行苏里南的母体死亡:医师,国家和国际孕产妇死亡审查委员会的不同解释

获取原文
           

摘要

The World Health Organization (WHO) provides a framework (ICD-MM) to classify pregnancy-related deaths systematically, which enables global comparison among countries. We compared the classification of pregnancy-related deaths in Suriname by the attending physician and by the national maternal death review (MDR) committee and among the MDR committees of Suriname, Jamaica and the Netherlands. There were 89 possible pregnancy-related deaths in Suriname between 2010 and 2014. Nearly half (47%) were classified differently by the Surinamese MDR committee as compared to the classification of the attending physicians. All three MDR committees agreed that 18% (n?=?16/89) of the cases were no maternal deaths. Out of the remaining 73 cases, there was disagreement regarding whether 15% (n?=?11) were maternal deaths. The Surinamese and Jamaican MDR committees achieved greater consensus in classification than the Surinamese and the Netherlands MDR committees. The Netherlands MDR committee classified more deaths as unspecified than Surinamese and the Jamaican MDR committees. Underlying causes that achieved a high level of agreement among the three committees were abortive outcomes and obstetric hemorrhage, while little agreement was reported for unspecified and other direct causes. The issues encountered during maternal death classification using the ICD-MM guidelines included classification of suicide during early pregnancy; when to assume pregnancy without objective evidence; how to count maternal deaths occurring outside the country of residence; the relevance of direct or indirect cause attribution; and how to select the underlying cause when direct and indirect conditions or multiple comorbidities co-occur. Addressing these classification barriers in future revisions of the ICD-MM guidelines could enhance the feasibility of maternal death classification and facilitate global comparison. Insight into the underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths is essential to develop policies to avert preventable deaths. The WHO International Classification of Diseases-Maternal Mortality (ICD-MM) guidelines provide a framework to standardize maternal death classifications and enable comparison in and among countries over time. However, despite the implementation of these guidelines, differences in classification remain. We evaluated consensus on maternal death classification using the ICD-MM guidelines. The classification of pregnancy-related deaths in Suriname during 2010–2014 was compared in the country (between the attending physician and the national maternal death review (MDR) committee), and among the MDR committees from Suriname, Jamaica and the Netherlands. All reviewers applied the ICD-MM guidelines. The inter-rater reliability (Fleiss kappa [κ]) was used to measure agreement. Out of the 89 cases certified by attending physicians, 47% (n?=?42) were classified differently by the Surinamese MDR committee. The three MDR committees agreed that 18% (n?=?16/89) of these cases were no maternal deaths, and, therefore, excluded from further analyses. However, opinions differed whether 15% (n?=?11) of the remaining 73 cases were maternal deaths. The MDR committees achieved moderate agreement classifying the deaths into type (direct, indirect and unspecified) (κ?=?0.53) and underlying cause group (κ?=?0.52). The Netherlands MDR committee classified more maternal deaths as unspecified (19%), than the Jamaican (7%) and Surinamese (4%) committees did. The mutual agreement between the Surinamese and Jamaican MDR committees (κ?=?0.69 vs κ?=?0.63) was better than between the Surinamese and the Netherlands MDR committees (κ?=?0.48 vs κ?=?0.49) for classification into type and underlying cause group, respectively. Agreement on the underlying?cause category was excellent for abortive outcomes (κ?=?0.85) and obstetric hemorrhage (κ?=?0.74) and fair for unspecified (κ?=?0.29) and other direct causes (κ?=?0.32). Maternal death classification differs in Suriname and among MDR committees from different countries, despite using the ICD-MM guidelines on similar cases. Specific challenges in applying these guidelines included attribution of underlying cause when comorbidities occurred, the inclusion of deaths from suicides, and maternal deaths that occurred outside the country of residence.
机译:世界卫生组织(世卫组织)提供了一个框架(ICD-MM),系统地分类怀孕相关的死亡,这使得各国之间的全球比较能够实现。我们将主治医生和国家产妇死亡审查(MDR)委员会以及苏门赛,牙买加和荷兰的MDR委员会中的苏里南苏里南与苏里南患者妊娠与苏南人有关的死亡分类。 2010年至2014年间苏里南有89种可能的妊娠病死亡。与出席医师的分类相比,苏里南马林马斯议员委员会近一半(47%)不同。所有三个MDR委员会都同意18%(n?=?16/89)的病例没有产妇死亡。在剩下的73例案件中,有关15%(n吗?11)是孕产妇死亡的分歧。苏里南人和牙买加MDR委员会比苏里南人和荷兰MDR委员会的分类取得了更大的达成共识。荷兰MDR委员会将死亡更多的死亡与苏里南人和牙买加MDR委员会的委员会分类为未指明。在三个委员会之间实现高度协议的潜在原因是脱型结果和产科出血,而未指明和其他直接原因则报告了一点协议。使用ICD-MM指南的孕产妇死亡分类期间遇到的问题包括在怀孕期间自杀的分类;何时假设没有客观证据的怀孕;如何计算居住国外发生的产妇死亡;直接或间接导致归因的相关性;以及如何在直接和间接条件或多个合并症中选择潜在的原因。在未来的ICD-MM指南的修订中解决这些分类障碍可以提高母体死亡分类的可行性,并促进全球比较。洞察妊娠相关死亡的潜在原因对于制定避免可预防的死亡政策至关重要。妇女死亡率(ICD-MM)指南的世卫组织国际分类提供了一个标准化母体死亡分类的框架,并随着时间的推移在国家和国家之间进行比较。但是,尽管实施了这些指导方针,但仍仍然存在分类的差异。我们使用ICD-MM指南评估了对母体死亡分类的共识。在2010-2014期间苏里南妊娠相关死亡的分类在国家(参加医生和国家产妇死亡审查(MDR)委员会之间),以及来自苏里南,牙买加和荷兰的MDR委员会。所有审阅者都应用了ICD-MM指南。帧间可靠性(Fleiss Kappa [κ])用于衡量协议。在89例前89起案件中,由苏里南马赛马达姆人委员会分类为47%(n?=?42)。这三个MDR委员会同意,这些病例的18%(n?= 10/89)没有母体死亡,因此排除在进一步的分析之外。然而,剩余73例剩余73例的15%(n?='11)是孕产妇死亡的意见。 MDR委员会达到了中等协议,将死亡分类为类型(直接,间接和未指明)(κα=?0.53)和基本原因组(κα= 0.52)。荷兰MDR委员会将更多的孕产妇死亡分类为未指明(19%),而不是牙买加(7%)和苏里南人(4%)委员会。苏里南和牙买加MDR委员会之间的相互协议(κ?=?0.69vsκ?=?0.63)比苏里南人和荷兰MDR委员会(κ=?= 0.48 vsκα=?0.49)进行分类分别类型和底层原因组。关于潜在的协议?原因类别对于中止结果(κα= 0.85)和产科出血(κα= 0.74)和未指明的公平(κα=?0.29)和其他直接原因(κα=?0.32 )。尽管使用ICD-MM在类似案例的指导方针,母亲死亡分类在苏里南和不同国家的MDR委员会中的不同之处。应用这些指导方针的具体挑战包括在发生合并症的情况下归因于潜在的原因,将死亡纳入自杀之外的自杀病和母亲死亡人员。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号