Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Perspectives on communication in labor and delivery: A focus group analysis

Journal of Perinatology volume 31, pages 240–245 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to elicit and explore perceptions of barriers to optimal communication among clinicians on a labor and delivery unit, and to use this information to select and design approaches to improve communication.

Study Design:

A qualitative research design using a focus group format was utilized. Attending and resident obstetricians and anesthesiologists, as well as staff nurses, pharmacists and unit secretaries participated in the focus groups, which were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using a framework analysis approach.

Result:

In total, 18 focus groups with a total of 92 participants were conducted. Eight key themes emerged regarding specific barriers to effective communication among clinicians in the labor and delivery setting. The most prominent of these themes included issues with inter-departmental coordination, clinical accessibility (the ability to reach other clinicians), lack of a consistent approach for clinical documentation, and the involvement of multiple care providers. On the basis of these themes, multiple interventions were designed to enhance communication.

Conclusion:

Focus group methodology can be used to elicit a detailed description of communication practices of clinicians on a labor and delivery unit, permitting an exploration of specific barriers to communication and the identification of potential solutions to those barriers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. New Engl J Med 1991; 324: 377–384.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, Orav EJ, Zeena T, Williams EJ et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000; 38: 261–271.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Institute of Medicine. Medical Professional Liability and the Delivery of Obstetrical Care: Volume 1. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1989.

  4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Professional Liability and its Effects: Report of a 1987 Survey of ACOG's Membership. Opinion Research Corporation: Washington, DC, 1988.

  5. Barbieri RL . Professional liability payments in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 578–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kravitz RL, Rolph JE, McGuigan K . Malpractice claims data as a quality improvement tool: epidemiology of error in four specialties. JAMA 1991; 266: 2087–2097.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. The Joint Commission. Sentinel Event Alert, Issue 30, 2004.

  8. Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, Badihi Y, Biesky M, Sprung CL et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1995; 23: 294–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds.). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chassin MR, Becher EC . The wrong patient. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 826–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM . Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med 2004; 79: 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arora V, Johnson J, Lovinger D, Humphrey HJ, Meltzer DO . Communication failures in patient sign-out and suggestions for improvement: a critical incident analysis. Qual Saf Health 2005; 14: 401–447.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Salas E, Wilson KA, Murphy CE, King H, Salisbury M . Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safety 2008; 34: 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ritchie J, Spencer L . Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: A Bryman, RG Burgess (eds). Analysing Qualitative Data. Routledge: London, 1994, pp 173–194.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Peshkin A . The goodness of qualitative research. Educat Res 1993; 22: 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Runciman WB . Qualitative versus quantitative research: balancing cost, yield, and feasibility. Qual Safety Health 2002; 11: 146–117.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoff TJ, Sutcliffe KM . Studying patient safety in health care organizations: accentuate the qualitative. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safety 2006; 32: 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thomas EJ, Sherwood GD, Mulhollem JL, Sexton JB, Helmreich RL . Working together in the neonatal intensive care unit: provider perspectives. J Perinatol 2004; 24: 552–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Forster EJ, Fung I, Caughey S, Oppenheimer L, Beach C, Shojania KG et al. Adverse events detected by clinical surveillance on an obstetric service. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1073–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. White AA, Pichert JW, Bledsoe SH, Irwin C, Entman SS . Cause and effect analysis of closed claims in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 1031–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sheehan D, Robertson L, Ormond T . Comparison of language used and patterns of communication in interprofessional and multidisciplinary teams. J Interprofessional Care 2007; 21: 17–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Beaulieu MD, Samson L, Rocher G, Rioux M, Boucher L, Del Grande C . Investigating the barriers to teaching family physicians’ and specialists’ collaboration in the training environment: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ 2009; 9: 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kilgore RV, Langford RW . Reducing the failure risk of interdisciplinary healthcare teams. Crit Care Nurs Q 2009; 32: 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Petrie HG . Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. J Aesthetic Educ 1976; 10: 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reader TW, Flin R, Mearns K, Cuthbertson BH . Developing a team performance framework for the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 1787–1793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sinclair LB, Lingard LA, Mohabeer RN . What's so great about rehabilitation teams? An ethnographic study of interprofessional collaboration in a rehabilitation unit. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 1196–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hudson B . Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working: The Sedgefield Integrated Team. J Interprofessional Care 2007; 21: 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Excellence in Academic Medicine grant from the State of Illinois.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    W A Grobman

  2. Northwestern University Institute for Healthcare Studies, Chicago, IL, USA

    W A Grobman, J Holl & D Woods

  3. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA

    K M Gleason, B Wassilak & M K Szekendi

Authors
  1. W A Grobman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Holl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K M Gleason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B Wassilak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M K Szekendi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W A Grobman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grobman, W., Holl, J., Woods, D. et al. Perspectives on communication in labor and delivery: A focus group analysis. J Perinatol 31, 240–245 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2010.147

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2010.147

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links