LewisIntroduction: Aims, objectives and definitionsused in this ReportG LewisNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), University of Oxford, Oxford, UKCorrespondence: Professor Gwyneth Lewis, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OxfordOX3 7LF, UK. Email: gwyneth.lewis@npeu.ox.ac.ukIntroductionThis, the eighth Report of the United Kingdom (UK) Enquiriesin<strong>to</strong> Maternal Deaths, now known as <strong>Saving</strong> <strong>Mothers</strong>’<strong>Lives</strong>, continues the 56-year unbroken series of reviewsof <strong>maternal</strong> <strong>deaths</strong> undertaken <strong>to</strong> save more mothers’ livesand, more generally, <strong>to</strong> improve maternity services overall.Although the style and content of the Reports has changedover this time, the essential aims and objectives remain thesame. It is because of the sustained commitment of allhealth professionals who provide maternity and other servicesfor pregnant women in the UK that this Enquiry continues<strong>to</strong> be a highly respected and powerful force forimprovements in <strong>maternal</strong> health, both here in the UK andinternationally. As stated in previous Reports, and equallyvalid <strong>to</strong>day, reading the Report or preparing a statementfor an individual enquiry forms a crucial part of individual,professional, self-reflective learning. As long ago as 1954, itwas recognised that participating in a confidential enquiryhad a ‘powerful secondary effect’ in that ‘each participantin these enquiries, however experienced he or she may be,and whether his or her work is undertaken in a teachinghospital, a local hospital, in the community or the woman’shome must have benefited from their educative effect’. 1Personal experience is therefore recognised as a valuable<strong>to</strong>ol for harnessing beneficial changes in individual practice.Whereas many of the earlier Reports focused mainly onclinical issues, more recent Reports, as with the very earlies<strong>to</strong>nes in the 1950s, have also focused on the wider publichealthissues that contribute <strong>to</strong> poorer health and socialoutcomes. As a result, their findings and recommendationshave played a major part in helping in the development ofbroader policies designed <strong>to</strong> help reduce health inequalitiesfor the poorest of our families and for the most vulnerableand socially disadvantaged women. Particularly strikinghave been successive Governments’ commitments <strong>to</strong> reducethe wide variations in <strong>maternal</strong> mortality rates between themost and least advantaged mothers as identified by theseReports. By acting on similar findings in past Reports, thisEnquiry has also played a major part in defining the philosophyof our maternity services that now expect eachindividual woman and her family <strong>to</strong> be at the heart ofmaternity services designed <strong>to</strong> meet her own particularneeds, rather than vice versa.Telling the s<strong>to</strong>ryThe methodology used by the Enquiry goes beyond countingnumbers. Its philosophy, and that of those who participatein its process, is <strong>to</strong> recognise and respect every<strong>maternal</strong> death as a young woman who died before hertime, a mother, a member of a family and of her community.It does not demote women <strong>to</strong> numbers in statisticaltables; it goes beyond counting numbers <strong>to</strong> listen and tellthe s<strong>to</strong>ries of the women who died so as <strong>to</strong> learn lessonsthat may save the lives of other mothers and babies, as wellas aiming <strong>to</strong> improve the standard of <strong>maternal</strong> health overall.Consequently, its methodology and philosophy continue<strong>to</strong> form a major part of the strategies of the WorldHealth Organization (WHO) and its sister United Nationsorganisations and other donor agencies <strong>to</strong> reduce <strong>maternal</strong><strong>deaths</strong>. The WHO <strong>maternal</strong> mortality review <strong>to</strong>ol kit, andprogramme, Beyond the Numbers, 2 includes advice andpractical steps in choosing and implementing one or moreof five possible approaches <strong>to</strong> <strong>maternal</strong> death reviewsadaptable at any level and in any country. Theseapproaches are facility and community death reviews, ConfidentialEnquiries in<strong>to</strong> Maternal Deaths, near-miss reviewsand clinical audit. 3 This work, in modified form, is nowundertaken in more than 54 countries, including many ofthose with the poorest outcomes.Learning lessons for continualimprovementThis Enquiry is the oldest example of the use of the <strong>maternal</strong>mortality and morbidity surveillance cycle, now internationallyadopted by the WHO programme Beyond theNumbers, which promotes the use of <strong>maternal</strong> death ormorbidity reviews <strong>to</strong> <strong>make</strong> pregnancy <strong>safer</strong>. 2 The cycle,shown in Figure 1, is an ongoing process of deciding which<strong>deaths</strong> <strong>to</strong> review and identifying the cases, collecting andassessing the information, using it for recommendations,22 ª <strong>2011</strong> Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE), BJOG 118 (Suppl. 1), 1–203
Introduction: Aims, objectives and definitions used in this Report5. Evaluation andrefinement1. Identification ofcases2. Informationcollectionas an observational and self-reflective study, cannot everbe statistically powerful for the reasons cited above, itsfindings are still useful and important. The Enquiry haslong identified patterns of clinical practice, service provisionand public-health issues that may be causally related<strong>to</strong> <strong>maternal</strong> <strong>deaths</strong>. This method of <strong>reviewing</strong> individual<strong>deaths</strong> has been described by Rutstein et al. 7 as ‘sentinelevent reporting’.4. Recommendationsfor actionimplementing these and evaluating their impact beforerefining and improving the next cycle. The ultimate purposeof the surveillance process is action, not simply thecounting of cases and calculation of rates. All these steps:identification, data collection and analysis, action and evaluation,are crucial and need <strong>to</strong> be continued <strong>to</strong> justify theeffort and <strong>to</strong> <strong>make</strong> a difference. The impact of previousfindings of this Report continually demonstrate the contributionof such an observational study <strong>to</strong> both <strong>maternal</strong>and child health and the overall public health, and emphasisethe need for it <strong>to</strong> continue in the future. This will beparticularly important as our maternity services face newchallenges, such as a rising birth rate, more migrant womenwith difficult pregnancies, those who do not speak English,an increasing number of older mothers and those who havecomplex pre-existing <strong>maternal</strong> diseases and, underlyingthis, a generation of women who are not as fit and healthyas their own mothers were in the past.Sentinel event reporting3. Analysis of resultsFigure 1. The <strong>maternal</strong> mortality or morbidity surveillance cycle.‘‘Because of the very small numbers of <strong>deaths</strong> consideredby the Enquiry, it is not always possible <strong>to</strong> demonstratestatistically significant changes in the <strong>maternal</strong> death andother rates generated by the Reports, particularly withinsmaller causal subgroups. As his<strong>to</strong>ry has shown, this doesnot, however, diminish the impact of its findings. 4 Nevertheless,the development of ‘near-miss’ studies, such asthose conducted through the United Kingdom ObstetricSurveillance System (UKOSS), which works closely alongsidethis Enquiry, means that it is now possible <strong>to</strong> conductstudies with greater statistical power and so introduce anadditional degree of statistical rigour <strong>to</strong> the findings. 5,6Even before this development, the observational methodologyused has always been able <strong>to</strong> generate hypotheses,show trend lines and <strong>make</strong> recommendations that haveled <strong>to</strong> improvements in <strong>maternal</strong> health, as the dramaticdecline in <strong>deaths</strong> from thromboembolism reported in thisReport shows. Although the methodology, best describedJust as the investigation of an aeroplane accident goesbeyond the immediate reasons for the crash <strong>to</strong> the implicationsof the design, method of manufacture, maintenanceand operation of the plane, so should the study ofunnecessary undesirable health events yield crucial informationon the scientific, medical, social and personal fac<strong>to</strong>rsthat could lead <strong>to</strong> better health. Moreover, theevidence collected will not be limited <strong>to</strong> the fac<strong>to</strong>rs thatyield only <strong>to</strong> measures of medical control. If there is clearcut documented evidence that identifiable social, environmental,‘‘life-style’’, economic or genetic fac<strong>to</strong>rs areresponsible for special varieties of unnecessary disease,disability, or untimely death, these fac<strong>to</strong>rs should beidentified and eliminated whenever possible’’.It is this which <strong>Saving</strong> <strong>Mothers</strong>’ <strong>Lives</strong> aims <strong>to</strong> achieve.The evidence baseIn the past, some have questioned whether the Reports are‘evidence based’. The highest level of evidence of clinicaleffectiveness comes from systematic reviews of randomisedcontrolled trials, but these are simply not possible for most ofthe questions raised in relation <strong>to</strong> a <strong>maternal</strong> death (in developedcountries, at least), so observational methodologies arethe only way <strong>to</strong> address them. By conducting a national study,many of the biases traditionally attributed <strong>to</strong> centre-basedobservational studies, such as case-selection bias, are eliminated,so producing much higher quality evidence.The most comprehensive and up-<strong>to</strong>-date systematicreviews of relevance <strong>to</strong> these Enquiries are produced by theCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, whose edi<strong>to</strong>rialstructure is funded by the NHS Central Programme forResearch and Development. The Co-ordinating Edi<strong>to</strong>r of theGroup is a member of the edi<strong>to</strong>rial board of this Enquiry.Some Cochrane reviews are of direct relevance <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>picshighlighted by <strong>deaths</strong> described in recent Reports and havebeen cited <strong>to</strong> support recommendations. These includetreatments for eclampsia and pre-eclampsia and antibioticprophylaxis before caesarean section. However, many problemstackled in successive Reports have not been addressedby randomised trials, including prevention of thromboembolicdisease and treatment of amniotic fluid embolism ormassive obstetric haemorrhage.ª <strong>2011</strong> Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE), BJOG 118 (Suppl. 1), 1–203 23
- Page 1: Volume 118, Supplement 1, March 201
- Page 4 and 5: AcknowledgementsSaving Mothers’ L
- Page 6 and 7: AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsCMA
- Page 8 and 9: Forewordbeen written jointly by a m
- Page 10 and 11: ‘Top ten’ recommendationsServic
- Page 12 and 13: ‘Top ten’ recommendationscommun
- Page 14 and 15: ‘Top ten’ recommendationsof suc
- Page 16 and 17: ‘Top ten’ recommendationsMarch
- Page 18 and 19: Oates et al.Back to basicsM Oates 1
- Page 20 and 21: Oates et al.BreathlessnessBreathles
- Page 22 and 23: Oates et al.appropriate pathway of
- Page 26 and 27: LewisAn important limitation of ran
- Page 28 and 29: Lewismaternal and public health-pol
- Page 30 and 31: Lewisresult in a live birth at any
- Page 32 and 33: LewisChapter 1: The women who died
- Page 34 and 35: Lewiswho would not have been identi
- Page 36 and 37: Lewis1098Rate per 100 000 materniti
- Page 38 and 39: LewisTable 1.4. Numbers and rates o
- Page 40 and 41: Lewis2.50Rate per 100 000 materniti
- Page 42 and 43: LewisTable 1.9. Number of maternal
- Page 44 and 45: LewisTable 1.12. Numbers and percen
- Page 46 and 47: LewisThere were cases where a major
- Page 48 and 49: LewisBox 1.5. Classifications of Bo
- Page 50 and 51: LewisTable 1.20. Number and estimat
- Page 52 and 53: LewisNew countries of the European
- Page 54 and 55: LewisTable 1.23. Direct and Indirec
- Page 56 and 57: LewisTable 1.26. Characteristics* o
- Page 58 and 59: Lewis4 Lewis G (ed). The Confidenti
- Page 60 and 61: DrifeTable 2.1. Direct deaths from
- Page 62 and 63: Drifewomen who died in 2006-08 had
- Page 64 and 65: Drifedelivery she became breathless
- Page 66 and 67: DrifePathological overviewFourteen
- Page 68 and 69: NeilsonChapter 3: Pre-eclampsia and
- Page 70 and 71: Neilsontrue, and what might be the
- Page 72 and 73: NeilsonConclusionThe number of deat
- Page 74 and 75:
NormanBackgroundIn the UK, major ob
- Page 76 and 77:
Normanwhich there was catastrophic
- Page 78 and 79:
Normanrecommendations made in succe
- Page 80 and 81:
DawsonBox 5.1. The UK amniotic flui
- Page 82 and 83:
Dawsontry despite an extensive sear
- Page 84 and 85:
O’HerlihyTable 6.1. Numbers of Di
- Page 86 and 87:
O’Herlihytoxic shock syndrome aft
- Page 88 and 89:
HarperGroup A b-haemolytic streptoc
- Page 90 and 91:
Harperthe 6-week postnatal period,
- Page 92 and 93:
Harpera major intrapartum haemorrha
- Page 94 and 95:
HarperBox 7.1. Signs and symptoms o
- Page 96 and 97:
Harperwoman was given several litre
- Page 98 and 99:
Harper2 Lamagni TL, Efstratiou A, D
- Page 100 and 101:
LucasTable A7.1 Proposed new catego
- Page 102 and 103:
Lucasthe same infection scenario as
- Page 104 and 105:
McClure, CooperChapter 8: Anaesthes
- Page 106 and 107:
McClure, Cooperaddress, but protoco
- Page 108 and 109:
McClure, CooperPostpartum haemorrha
- Page 110 and 111:
McClure, CooperWorkloadA number of
- Page 112 and 113:
Nelson-PiercyTable 9.1. Indirect ma
- Page 114 and 115:
Nelson-Piercynary arteries. In view
- Page 116 and 117:
Nelson-Piercynormal left ventricle
- Page 118 and 119:
LucasAnnex 9.1. Pathological overvi
- Page 120 and 121:
Lucasdiac death that is non-ischaem
- Page 122 and 123:
de Swiet et al.causes but are aggra
- Page 124 and 125:
de Swiet et al.died of SUDEP before
- Page 126 and 127:
de Swiet et al.for 6 weeks after de
- Page 128 and 129:
de Swiet et al.mised. The obstetric
- Page 130 and 131:
de Swiet et al.CancerPregnancy does
- Page 132 and 133:
de Swiet et al.a thorough autopsy w
- Page 134 and 135:
Oates, CantwellChapter 11: Deaths f
- Page 136 and 137:
Oates, CantwellTable 11.1. Timing o
- Page 138 and 139:
Oates, CantwellTable 11.5. Maternal
- Page 140 and 141:
Oates, CantwellChild protection iss
- Page 142 and 143:
Oates, CantwellAll women who are su
- Page 144 and 145:
Oates, Cantwell4 Kendel RE, Chalmer
- Page 146 and 147:
Lewismaternal mortality rates or ra
- Page 148 and 149:
Annex 12.1. Domestic abuseAnnex 12.
- Page 150 and 151:
Annex 12.1. Domestic abuseshe could
- Page 152 and 153:
Garrod et al.supportive but challen
- Page 154 and 155:
Garrod et al.• Culture and system
- Page 156 and 157:
Garrod et al.the second stage and s
- Page 158 and 159:
Garrod et al.through the still heal
- Page 160 and 161:
ShakespeareChapter 14: General prac
- Page 162 and 163:
Shakespeareemergency caesarean sect
- Page 164 and 165:
ShakespeareCardiac diseaseDeaths fr
- Page 166 and 167:
Shakespearereduce the risks to the
- Page 168 and 169:
ShakespeareManaging a maternal deat
- Page 170 and 171:
Hulbertin the ED was of a high qual
- Page 172 and 173:
HulbertPre-eclampsia/eclampsia: lea
- Page 174 and 175:
HulbertTransfersWhen the obstetric
- Page 176 and 177:
Clutton-Brocksimply the case that s
- Page 178 and 179:
Clutton-BrockDiagnosis of sepsisTak
- Page 180 and 181:
Clutton-Brockpulseless electrical a
- Page 182 and 183:
Clutton-BrockImprovement Scotland (
- Page 184 and 185:
Lucas, Millward-Sadler95 mmHg. This
- Page 186 and 187:
Lucas, Millward-Sadleran agreed mai
- Page 188 and 189:
Annex 17.1. The main clinico-tholog
- Page 190 and 191:
MillerAppendix 1: The method of Enq
- Page 192 and 193:
MillerDatanotificationNotificationR
- Page 194 and 195:
Knight• investigating different m
- Page 196 and 197:
Knightbaseline incidence against wh
- Page 198 and 199:
LennoxAppendix 2B: Summary of Scott
- Page 200 and 201:
LennoxEvidence of effective managem
- Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 3: Contributors to the Mat
- Page 204 and 205:
Appendix 3: Contributors to the Mat