Evaluation of the quality of antenatal care using electronic health record information in family medicine clinics of Mexico City

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Bernardo Hernández-Prado³  Eduardo Ortiz-Panozo⁴  Ricardo Pérez-Cuevas¹  Svetlana V Doubova² 

[1] Division of Social Protection and Health, Inter American Development Bank, Mexico City, México;Epidemiology and Health Services Research Unit CMN Siglo XXI, Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City, México;Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, USA;Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico

关键词: Mexico;    Family medicine clinics;    Electronic health record;    Quality evaluation;    Antenatal care;   

Others  :  1127319
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-168

 received in 2013-08-28, accepted in 2014-05-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Evaluation of the quality of antenatal care (ANC) using indicators should be part of the efforts to improve primary care services in developing countries. The growing use of the electronic health record (EHR) has the potential of making the evaluation more efficient. The objectives of this study were: (a) to develop quality indicators for ANC and (b) to evaluate the quality of ANC using EHR information in family medicine clinics (FMCs) of Mexico City.

Methods

We used a mixed methods approach including: (a) in-depth interviews with health professionals; (b) development of indicators following the RAND-UCLA method; (c) a retrospective cohort study of quality of care provided to 5342 women aged 12–49 years who had completed their pregnancy in 2009 and attended to at least one ANC visit with their family doctor. The study took place in four FMCs located in Mexico City. The source of information was the EHR. SAS statistical package served for programing and performing the descriptive statistical analysis.

Results

14 ANC quality indicators were developed. The evaluation showed that 40.6% of women began ANC in the first trimester; 63.5% with low-risk pregnancy attended four or more ANC visits; 4.4% were referred for routine obstetric ultrasound, and 41.1% with vaginal infection were prescribed metronidazole. On average, the percentage of recommended care that women received was 32.7%.

Conclusions

It is feasible to develop quality indicators suitable for evaluating the quality of ANC using routine EHR data. The study identified the ANC areas that require improvement; which can guide future strategies aimed at improving ANC quality.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Doubova et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Carroli G, Rooney C, Villar J: How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidence. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001, 15(Suppl 1):1-42.
• [2]Menezes EV, Yakoob MY, Soomro T, Haws RA, Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA: Reducing stillbirths: prevention and management of medical disorders and infections during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009, 9(Suppl 1):S4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]World Health Organization: Department of Making Pregnancy Safer and Department of Reproductive Health and Research: Standards of Maternal and Neonatal Care. Geneva: WHO; 2007.
• [4]Velasco-Murillo V, Padilla I, Cruz De la L, Acosta-Cázares B: ENCOPREVENIMSS 2003 reproductive health. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2006, 44(Suppl 1):S87-95.
• [5]UNICEF: Progreso desde la cumbre mundial en favor de la infancia. Un análisis estadístico. UNICEF 2001. Available at: http://www.cinu.org.mx/biblioteca/documentos/infancia/sgreport_adapted_stats_sp.pdf webcite
• [6]Lozano R, Wang H, Foreman KJ, Rajaratnam JK, Naghavi M, Marcus JR, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Lofgren KT, Phillips D, Atkinson C, Lopez AD, Murray CJ: Progress towards Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 on maternal and child mortality: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet 2011, 378:1139-1165.
• [7]Pérez-Cuevas R, Ruiz B, Reyes H, Pedrote B, Massa R, Vargas L, Sánchez L, Estrada C, Michaus F, Castro A, Muñoz O: Implementation and evaluation of the Family Medicine Improvement Process experimental model. In Family medicine at the dawn of the 21st Century. Edited by García-Peña C, Muñoz O, Durán L. Mexico: IMSS; 2005:55-74.
• [8]Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL: Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 1st eds. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 2007.
• [9]Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE: A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Inn J Technol Assess Health Care 1986, 2:53-63.
• [10]World Health Organization: Pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum and newborn care - A guide for essential practice. Geneva: WHO; 2006. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/924159084x_eng.pdf webcite
• [11]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Antenatal care routine care for the healthy pregnant women. UK: Clinical Guideline; 2008.
• [12]Akkerman D, Cleland L, Croft G, Eskuchen K, Heim C, Levine A, Setterlund L, Stark C, Vickers J, Westby E: Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Routine Prenatal Care. Updated July 2012. Available at: https://www.icsi.org/_asset/13n9y4/Prenatal.pdf webcite
• [13]Instituto Mexicano Del Seguro Social: Dirección de prestaciones médicas: Guía de práctica clínica. México DF: Control prenatal con enfoque de riesgo; 2009.
• [14]Gifford D, Murata P, McGlynn EA: PRENATAL CARE. Pages 189-257. In Quality of Care for Women: A Review of Selected Clinical Conditions and Quality Indicators. Edited by Mcglynn EA, Kerr E, Damberg CL, Asch SM. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND; 2000. Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1284/mr1284.ch14.pdf webcite
• [15]Shekelle PG, MacLean CH, Morton SC, Wenger NS: Assessing care of vulnerable elders: methods for developing quality indicators. Ann Intern Med 2001, 135:647-652.
• [16]Simas TA, Liao X, Garrison A, Sullivan GM, Howard AE, Hardy JR: Impact of updated Institute of Medicine guidelines on prepregnancy body mass index categorization, gestational weight gain recommendations, and needed counseling. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2011, 20:837-844.
• [17]McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:2635-2645.
• [18]Barber SL: Public and private prenatal care providers in urban Mexico: how does their quality compare? Int J Qual Health Care 2006, 18:306-313.
• [19]Trinh LT, Michael John D, Byles J: Antenatal care adequacy in three provinces of Vietnam: long An, Ben Tre y Quang Ngai. Public Health Reports 2006, 121:468-475.
• [20]Passos AA, Moura ER: Process indicators in the program for humanization of the prenatal care and childbirth in Ceará State, Brazil: analysis of historical series (2001–2006). Cad Saúde Pública 2008, 24:1572-1580.
• [21]Kyei NN, Chansa C, Gabrysch S: Quality of antenatal care in Zambia: a national assessment. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012, 12:151. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, McGlynn EA, Campbell S, Brook RH, Roland MO: Can health care quality indicators be transferred between countries. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12:8-12.
• [23]Secretaría de Salud. Dirección General de Epidemiología: Sistema nacional de vigilancia epidemiológica: informe semanal no. 40 de vigilancia epidemiológica de defunciones maternas. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2011.
• [24]Fernández A, Oviedo E: Salud electrónica en América Latina y el Caribe: avances y desafíos. CEPAL: Santiago de Chile; 2010.
• [25]Williams F, Boren SA: The role of the electronic medical record (EMR) in care delivery development in developing countries: a systematic review. Inform Prim Care 2008, 16:139-145.
• [26]EURO-PERISTAT project with SCPE, EUROCAT, EURONEOSTAT: European perinatal health report. Better statistics for better health in pregnant women and their babies. Paris: EURO-PERISTAT; 2008.
• [27]Hernández-Herrera RJ, Alcalá-Galván LG, Flores-Santos R: Neural defect prevalence in 248,352 consecutive newborns. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2008, 46:201-204.
• [28]Scholl TO, Johnson WG: Folic acid: influence on the outcome of pregnancy. Am J Clin Nutr 2000, 71(5 Suppl):S1295-1303.
• [29]Posey DL, Khoury MJ, Mulinare J, Adams MJ Jr, Ou CY: Is mutated MTHFR a risk factor for neural tube defects? Lancet 1996, 347:686-687.
• [30]Pérez-Cuevas R, Doubova SV, Baridó-Murguía E, Tena-Alavez G: Quality of care in preeclampsia. In McGraw-Hill Interamericana Editores, S.A. de C.V. Edited by Romero-Arauz JF, Tena-Alavez G, Jiménez-Solís GA. México, D.F: Preeclampsia. Enfermedades hipertensivas de embarazo; 2009:49-64.
• [31]World Health Organization: Guidelines for the management of sexually transmitted infections. Geneva: WHO; 2005.
• [32]Brocklehurst P, Gordon A, Heatley E, Milan SJ: Antibiotics for treating bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013., 1CD000262