Applicability and comparison of the sub-Saharan Africa and original WHO maternal near-miss criteria in a rural hospital in Western Tanzania

Abstract

Background After the introduction of the maternal near-miss (MNM) criteria by the World Health Organization (WHO), an adapted version for low-income countries was defined but has never been validated in a rural hospital in this setting. Aim of this study was to identify the occurrence of MNM by both the use of the WHO and the adapted sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) MNM tool and to compare the applicability of both versions. Methods This cross-sectional study was done between November 2019 and July 2020 in Ndala Hospital, Tanzania. All pregnant women and women within 42 days after giving birth or termination of pregnancy were included when fulfilling at least one criterion according to either the WHO or the SSA MNM tool. Results The SSA MNM criteria identified 47 near-miss cases and all seven maternal deaths. The WHO criteria identified ten near-miss cases and five maternal deaths. There were 948 livebirths, consequently leading to maternal near-miss ratio (MNMR) of 50 (95% CI 34-60) and 11 (95% CI 4 – 16) per 1,000 livebirths for the SSA criteria and respectively the WHO MNM criteria. The difference in these numbers seems to be primarily attributed to the addition of defined severe complications in the clinical criteria and the adapted threshold for blood transfusions. Eclampsia and severe malaria form roughly half of these complications. Conclusions SSA MNM criteria are more suitable than the WHO criteria to identify patients with potentially life-threatening conditions (PLTC) in this rural hospital. The addition of clinical criteria and rejection of several unapplicable laboratory and management-based parameters in the SSA MNM tool seem appropriate adaptations for low-resource settings. However, some non-acute cases are discussable near-misses and the criterion “severe pre-eclampsia with ICU admission” seems not feasible in similar settings. Implementation of the SSA MNM criteria forms a strong basis for auditing. Better monitoring and documentation of patients will improve the use of the criteria and potentially the quality of audit sessions.