A Structural, Cognitive, and Behavioral Model for Error Analysis of Group B Streptococcus Prophylaxis in Pregnancy

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a structural-cognitive-behavioral model for error analysis of group B streptococcus (GBS) prophylaxis failure, classify delivery cases into this model, and examine compliance with treatment guidelines. A retrospective, cohort study was conducted of women with liveborn pregnancies greater than 24 weeks in April 2018 at a single hospital. We created a structural-cognitive-behavioral model of five assessments for adherence to GBS prophylaxis guidelines and then classified these into four distinct error stages. A descriptive analysis was performed to determine if the pregnancy had a perfect process, a GBS prophylaxis failure, or a fortuitous outcome. There were 313 women who met the study criteria. The rate of GBS positive was 12.8%, negative 37.4%, and unknown 49.8%. The most common errors were cognitive perception errors related to incorrectly documenting GBS status, 57.7% (N = 79). Of these errors, 15.2% (N = 12) led to GBS prophylaxis failure. Perfect outcomes occurred in 62.7% (N = 196) women, GBS prophylaxis failure occurred in 13.7% (N = 43), and fortuitous outcomes occurred in 23.6% (N = 74). In our study, we were able to identify structural, cognitive, and behavioral errors that contribute to GBS prophylaxis failures. In other cases, these errors may contribute to fortuitous outcomes.

Keywords

error management and prevention - sociotechnical aspects of information technology - cognition - clinical practice guideline - group B streptococcus

Clinical Relevance Statement

We created a model to analyze the structural, cognitive, and behavioral components as detected from electronic health records in the process of group B prophylaxis in pregnant patients. While errors in data availability or documentation were common, comprehension/decision-making errors were most correlated to GBS prophylaxis. Improved techniques for error detection and mitigation will need to be developed.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research and approved by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Institutional Review Board: Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (HSC-17–0617).

Source of Financial Support

Departmental at UT Health.

Publication History

Received: 22 June 2021

Accepted: 08 October 2021

Article published online:
04 February 2022

• References

• 1 Verani JR, McGee L, Schrag SJ. Division of Bacterial Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease–revised guidelines from CDC, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59 (RR-10, No. RR-10): 1-36
• 2 Group B strep (GBS) Clinical Overview. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed December 2, 2018 at: http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/clinicians/clinical-overview.html
• 3 Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Sánchez PJ. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Early onset neonatal sepsis: the burden of group B Streptococcal and E. coli disease continues. Pediatrics 2011; 127 (05) 817-826
• 4 Group B strep (GBS) Fast Facts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed December 2, 2018 at: http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/about/fast-facts.html
• 5 Phares CR, Lynfield R, Farley MM. et al; Active Bacterial Core surveillance/Emerging Infections Program Network. Epidemiology of invasive group B streptococcal disease in the United States, 1999-2005. JAMA 2008; 299 (17) 2056-2065
• 6 Glasgow TS, Young PC, Wallin J. et al. Association of intrapartum antibiotic exposure and late-onset serious bacterial infections in infants. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (03) 696-702
• 7 Endsley MR. Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. Proc Hum Factors Soc Annu Meet 1988; 32 (02) 97-101
• 8 Schulz CM, Krautheim V, Hackemann A, Kreuzer M, Kochs EF, Wagner KJ. Situation awareness errors in anesthesia and critical care in 200 cases of a critical incident reporting system. BMC Anesthesiol 2016; 16: 4
• 9 Brady PW, Muething S, Kotagal U. et al. Improving situation awareness to reduce unrecognized clinical deterioration and serious safety events. Pediatrics 2013; 131 (01) e298-e308
• 10 Rodriguez AC, Lee Jr DA, Makic MBF. Situational awareness in critical care: an aviation approach to reduce error. J Perianesth Nurs 2017; 32 (06) 650-652
• 11 Edozien LC. Situational awareness and its application in the delivery suite. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (01) 65-69
• 12 Singh H, Giardina TD, Petersen LA. et al. Exploring situational awareness in diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21 (01) 30-38
• 13 Poon EG, Keohane CA, Yoon CS. et al. Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (18) 1698-1707
• 14 Bianco A, Larosa E, Pileggi C, Pavia M. Collaborative Working Group. Appropriateness of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent neonatal group B streptococcus disease. PLoS One 2016; 11 (11) e0166179
• 15 Verani JR, Spina NL, Lynfield R. et al. Early-onset group B streptococcal disease in the United States: potential for further reduction. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (04) 828-837
• 16 Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 782. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (01) e19-e40