%0 Journal Article
%T An examination of care received by women with recurrent miscarriage and infertility against guideline-based key performance indicators.
%A Linehan L
%A Hennessy M
%A O'Donoghue K
%J Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
%V 282
%N 0
%D Mar 2023
%M 36621261
%F 2.831
%R 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.01.002
%X <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>International guidelines for the management of recurrent miscarriage (RM) do not provide detailed guidance for the care of women/couples with concurrent infertility. Research studies concerning the investigation and treatment of RM frequently omit this cohort. The aim of this study was to assess the care of women/couples with infertility attending a RM clinic in a large tertiary unit in the Republic of Ireland.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We conducted an audit of women with RM and infertility attending our RM clinic from 2008 to 2020 against 110 established guideline-based key performance indicators (KPIs) for RM care, encompassing five categories: structure of care, counselling/supportive care, investigation, treatment and outcomes. Information was gathered from documentation from the RM clinic, hospital laboratory and electronic health records.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>We identified 128 women with infertility and RM. Information provision in RM clinics regarding modifiable risk factors (71 %; 91/128) and unexplained RM (53 %; 69/128) could be improved. Most women were investigated in line with KPIs, except for pelvic ultrasound (40 %; 51/128), cytogenetic analysis (27 %; 34/128) and 3D ultrasound (2 %; 2/128). Immunotherapies were seldom prescribed (<1%); however, 98 % (125/128) of women received aspirin, 48 % LMWH (62/128) and 16 % corticosteroids (21/128). Surgical interventions were uncommon (5 %; 6/128)). The subsequent pregnancy rate was 70 % (89/128), with 36 % undergoing artificial reproductive technology (32/89). The livebirth rate was 63 % (56/89); 37 % had a further pregnancy loss (33/89), of which two were second-trimester miscarriages.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Women with RM and infertility received care largely in line with RM guideline-based KPIs. However, we identified areas for improvement, including the quality of information provision, and access to certain investigations. While guideline-based KPIs allow for internationally applicable and reproducible audit that can direct service improvements, the experiences and needs of service-users are not captured, meriting further qualitative research.