Objective To systematically develop evidence‐based bundles for care of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Methods An international technical consultation was conducted in 2017 to develop draft bundles of clinical interventions for PPH taken from the WHO's 2012 and 2017 PPH recommendations and based on the validated “GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision” framework. Twenty‐three global maternal‐health experts participated in the development process, which was informed by a systematic literature search on bundle definitions, designs, and implementation experiences. Over a 6‐month period, the expert panel met online and via teleconferences, culminating in a 2‐day in‐person meeting. Results The consultation led to the definition of two care bundles for facility implementation. The “first response to PPH bundle” comprises uterotonics, isotonic crystalloids, tranexamic acid, and uterine massage. The “response to refractory PPH bundle” comprises compressive measures (aortic or bimanual uterine compression), the non‐pneumatic antishock garment, and intrauterine balloon tamponade (IBT). Advocacy, training, teamwork, communication, and use of best clinical practices were defined as PPH bundle supporting elements. Conclusion For the first response bundle, further research should assess its feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness; and identify optimal implementation strategies. For the response to refractory bundle, further research should address pending controversies, including the operational definition of refractory PPH and effectiveness of IBT devices.
Objectives In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol (FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols. Design Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new shock. Setting ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating hospitals. Patients Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497 subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT Lite. Interventions Fluid management by protocol. Measurements and Main Results Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite, −136 ±491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502 mL in FACTT Liberal (p < 0.001). Mortality was not different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84). Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ±0.3) were equivalent to FACTT Conservative (14.6±0.5) (p = 0.61) and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ±0.5, p < 0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p = 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p = 0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%) (p = 0.18 vs Lite). Conclusions FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
The ESM-UBT device arrests hemorrhage, prevents shock progression, and is associated with high survival rates among women with uncontrolled PPH from uterine atony.
BackgroundAs global emergency care grows, practical and effective performance measures are needed to ensure high quality care. Our objective was to systematically catalog and classify metrics that have been used to measure the quality of emergency care in resource-limited settings.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the gray literature using standardized terms. The references of included articles were also reviewed. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts for relevance; full text was then reviewed by three researchers. A structured data extraction tool was used to identify and classify metrics into one of six Institute of Medicine (IOM) quality domains (safe, timely, efficient, effective, equitable, patient-centered) and one of three of Donabedian’s structure/process/outcome categories. A fourth expert reviewer blinded to the initial classifications re-classified all indicators, with a weighted kappa of 0.89.ResultsA total of 1705 articles were screened, 95 received full text review, and 34 met inclusion criteria. One hundred eighty unique metrics were identified, predominantly process (57 %) and structure measures (27 %); 16 % of metrics were related to outcomes. Most metrics evaluated the effectiveness (52 %) and timeliness (28 %) of care, with few addressing the patient centeredness (11 %), safety (4 %), resource-efficiency (3 %), or equitability (1 %) of care.ConclusionsThe published quality metrics in emergency care in resource-limited settings primarily focus on the effectiveness and timeliness of care. As global emergency care is built and strengthened, outcome-based measures and those focused on the safety, efficiency, and equitability of care need to be developed and studied to improve quality of care and resource utilization.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12245-015-0088-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.