Why the EEPD?
EEPD Structure
Slide Shows
Publicity Flier
Help Please
New Words and Concepts
I.  Discussion Topics
 II.  Nightmares!
 III.  Datasets(>80)
 IV.  Data Resource
 V.  Logical Priority
VI.  Perinatal RIOs
VII.  Prognosis
VIII.  Signposts
IX.  Leaflet Lists & Links
 X.  Whiteboards
 XI.  Casenotes
XII. Proformas (inc. Gyn)
XIII. Computer Printouts
XIV. Care Paths
XV. S.IN.B.A.D s
XVI. Questionnaires
XVII. Codes
XVIII. Audit Benchmarking
XIX. Filofaxes Mnemonics
XX. Anecdotal Evidence
XXI. Training
XXII. Organisation
XXIII. Equipment
XXIV. Leaflets (inc. Gyn)
XXIV. Safe Motherhood
XXVI. Neonatology
XXVII. Gynaecology
A. Initiatives
B. Related WEB sites
C. Commercial IT
D. IT Contracts
E. IT Programs
F. Publications
G. Contacts
RISCOS essential
About R Fawdry
Feedback
EPR News
Acknowledgements
Web Design

 

Previous Page

 

EEPD Volume 3. Datasets

P. Datasets for Audits

 Subsection Editor: Needed

If interested in the possibility of editing this subsection  Click here 

Discussion Links: None specific so far. Use www.eepd.org.uk

 

This Encyclopaedia is based on the premise that 

“Electronic Patient Records (EPRs), in each separate ACUTE HOSPITAL SPECIALITY AND SUB-SPECIALITY, will only attain their true potential when, following intense, open, web-based discussions, their detailed chronologically-arranged, flow-patterned questions and the full range of all allowable answer-options are, by stages, internationally standardised.”

 

The more that the international standardisation suggested above takes careful account of audit ideas and needs, such as the “Robson Caesarean Audit” or the “Standard Primp Audit”, the easier it will be to do regular electronic audits without increasing the workload.

 

Auditing how often “Planned Caesareans” have to be done as an emergency can only be done on a regular basis, without any extra work load, if one of the routine options for the urgency of a Caesarean includes not just the 4 standard RCOG categories but also the answer option “Planned Caesarean, done as an Emergency”

 

Many other similar examples where long-term audit can be done without any extra workload; just by getting the right questions and the right answer options; hence this section.

 

So many aspects of Maternity Care can potentially be electronically Audited, (and Benchmarked, i.e. compared with other similar maternity units) on a regular basis that EEPD Volume 18 includes draft suggestions for monthly topics.

 

Standard or Local Audits

Because of the total failure of the many NHS-IT and other initiatives to facilitate national standards regarding data items for national audit, many maternity and obstetric anaesthesia units have set up independent audits using unique local paper proformas and on locally unique Access databases.

Sadly each initiative requires extra work by the staff and is of no “Individual Care Value”  For Difference between “Individual Care Value” and “Collective Analysis Value” click here. www.fawdry.info/eepd/01_ess/b_eprs/Value.pdf

 

General Maternity

Maternity Care Dashboard Audit (2008)

 

Clinical Negligence Audit (2000)

Changing Childbirth Audit (2000)

 

Asquam Project Audit Proposals (2000)

 

Health Outcome Indicators. Normal Pregnancy and Childbirth (1998)

 

Safer Childhood Audit Proposals (1999)

Effective Procedures Suitable for Audit. RCOG (1998)

    Standard Primip Audit Proposals (1996)

Using the concept of a “Standard” Low risk, Primiparous Birth to compare the performance of different hospitals

 

Haemorrhage

Major Obstetric Haemorrhage (2007) - Scottish Confidential Audit of Severe Maternal Morbidity - 

  • Scan of Original (Awaiting Scanning)
  • ”Cut and Paste” MS Word version (In Preparation)

General Caesarean Audits

National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit (2000)

All Caesarean Sections done in the UK from 1 May 2000 until 31 July 2000 Survey being done under the auspices of the RCOG, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the National Childbirth Trust

 

Robson Caesarean Audit Proposals (1996)

A useful way to classify Caesarean Sections to facilitate comparisons between different hospitals

 

Local Caesarean Audits

Brighton (Royal Sussex) Access Database (2010)

As currently entered on an Access database

www.fawdry.info/eepd/03_dat/p_audit/caesars/CSAuditBright10.pdf

For further information 

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/midwifery/trusts-shed-light-on-c-section-rise/5022463.article

     Coventry Hospital (UHCW) Caesarean Audit Proforma (2010)

As currently entered on an Access database

www.fawdry.info/eepd/03_dat/p_audit/caesars/CSAuditCov10.pdf

     Stirling Hospital Caesarean Audit Proforma (2010)

As currently entered on an Access database

www.fawdry.info/eepd/03_dat/p_audit/caesars/CSAuditStir09.pdf

 

Next Page

 

 

Email:

 

 
The EEPD by Dr. Rupert Fawdry is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available via http://eepd.org.uk/?page_id=56.
Website Development by NOS Web Services