Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 1998 Nov;51(11):850–853. doi: 10.1136/jcp.51.11.850

Improving the quality of perinatal and infant necropsy examinations: a follow up study.

G M Vujanić 1, P H Cartlidge 1, J H Stewart 1
PMCID: PMC500981  PMID: 10193328

Abstract

AIM: To compare the quality of perinatal and infant necropsy examinations in 1996 with those performed in 1993. METHODS: Cohort analysis, with data from the All Wales Perinatal Survey, of 1027 deaths (540 in 1993; 487 in 1996) of babies between 20 weeks' gestation and one year of age. The quality of the necropsy was assessed by scoring aspects identified as being part of the investigation. RESULTS: Necropsy was performed in 335 cases (62%) in 1993 and in 320 cases (66%) in 1996. The proportion done in a regional centre increased significantly from 39% (131/335) in 1993 to 76% (243/320) in 1996 (p < 0.0001). The quality of necropsy was above the minimum standard in 54% of cases in 1993 (171/314) compared with 93% in 1996 (289/312) (p < 0.0001). Improvement occurred in all categories. For stillbirths, 35% (46/133) were above the minimum standard in 1993 compared with 90% (104/116) in 1996 (p < 0.0001); for cases not classified as sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), the improvement was from 62% in 1993 (40/65) to 97% in 1996 (73/75) (p < 0.0001); and for SUDI cases, the improvement was from 32% in 1993 (10/31) to 91% in 1996 (21/23) (p < 0.0001). The quality of both non-regional and regional necropsies improved. For non-regional cases, the score was above the minimum standard in 28% (51/183) in 1993 compared with 69% (52/75) in 1996 (p < 0.0001); for regional cases it improved from 92% (120/131) in 1993 to 100% (237/237) in 1996 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of perinatal and infant necropsies improved considerably between 1993 and 1996, reflecting better awareness of the importance of good quality examination and an increase in referrals to paediatric centres.

Full text

PDF
850

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cartlidge P. H., Dawson A. T., Stewart J. H., Vujanic G. M. Value and quality of perinatal and infant postmortem examinations: cohort analysis of 400 consecutive deaths. BMJ. 1995 Jan 21;310(6973):155–158. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Favara B. E., Cottreau C., McIntyre L., Valdes-Dapena M. Pediatric pathology and the autopsy. Pediatr Pathol. 1989;9(2):109–116. doi: 10.3109/15513818909022339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gau G. The ultimate audit. Br Med J. 1977 Jun 18;1(6076):1580–1581. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.6076.1580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Porter H. J., Keeling J. W. Value of perinatal necropsy examination. J Clin Pathol. 1987 Feb;40(2):180–184. doi: 10.1136/jcp.40.2.180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rushton D. I. West Midlands perinatal mortality survey, 1987. An audit of 300 perinatal autopsies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Jul;98(7):624–627. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb13446.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Shen-Schwarz S., Neish C., Hill L. M. Antenatal ultrasound for fetal anomalies: importance of perinatal autopsy. Pediatr Pathol. 1989;9(1):1–9. doi: 10.3109/15513818909022327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Thornton C. M., O'Hara M. D. A regional audit of perinatal and infant autopsies in Northern Ireland. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Jan;105(1):18–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09344.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Vujanić G. M., Cartlidge P. H., Stewart J. H., Dawson A. J. Perinatal and infant postmortem examinations: how well are we doing? J Clin Pathol. 1995 Nov;48(11):998–1001. doi: 10.1136/jcp.48.11.998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wright C., Cameron H., Lamb W. A study of the quality of perinatal autopsy in the former northern region. The Northern Perinatal Mortality Survey Steering Group. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Jan;105(1):24–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09345.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES