Safe childbirth: Concept Analysis According to the Walker and Avant Method
Objective: This study analyzed the concept of "Safe delivery" using the method proposed by Walker and Avant, which establishes eight steps for the construction of a concept.
Method: Literature search was carried out in the Virtual Health Library (VHL) and the Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo) in the period from April to July 2016. Controlled descriptors were: "Parturition", "Safety" and "Patient safety", in Portuguese and English. The compound term "Safe Delivery" was also used. Thirty two productions were included in this analysis.
Results: Among the attributes, maternal and fetal monitoring stand out and, as antecedent, the identification of risks for preventing damage. The reduction of maternal and infant mortality and the well-being of the mother-child binomial were evident in this work. Following the establishment of model case and opposite case, the definition of safe delivery was obtained: "the set of care measures that seek to identify risks, prevent damage and/or complications during delivery, ensuring maternal and fetal monitoring in favor of the welfare of mother and child ".
Conclusion: The analysis of the essential attributes, its antecedents and consequences made it possible to define the concept of safe delivery. However, it is considered that this concept is changeable bearing in mind that there is a lack of randomized studies to identify potential risks to childbirth.
2. Souza JP. A mortalidade materna e os novos objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável (2016-2030). Rev. bras. ginecol. obstet, v. 37, n. 12, p. 549-551, 2015.
3. Dias JMG, Oliveira APS, Cipolotti R, Monteiro BKSM, Pereira RO. Mortalidade materna. Rev. méd. Minas Gerais, 2015; 25(2): 173-179.
4. WHO. World Health Organization. WHO checklist targets major causes of maternal and newborn deaths in health facilities. Disponível em:
5. Laughon SK, Branch DW, Beaver J, et al. Changes in labor patterns over 50 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:419.e1-9.
6. Fernandes MGM, Nóbrega MML, Garcia TR, Macêdo-Costal, KNF. Análise conceitual: considerações metodológicas. Rev. bras. enferm, 2011; 64 (6): 1150-1156.
7. Mota DDCF, CRUZ, DALM, PIMENTA, CAM. Fadiga: uma análise do conceito. Acta paul. enferm. 2005; 18 (3): 285-93.
8. Walker LO, Avant KC. Concept development. In: Walker LO, Avant KC. Strategies for theory construction in nursing. 3.ed. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange; 1995.
9. Mendes KDS, Silveira, RCCP, Galvão, CM. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto contexto - enferm., Florianópolis. 2008 Dez; 17 (4): 758-64.
10. BVS. Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde. 2016. Disponivel em: http://brasil.bvs.br/vhl/sobre-a-bvs/2016. Acesso em: 25 jul 2016.
11. Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Flow Diagram. 2009. Disponível em: http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/ FlowDiagram.aspx. Acesso em: 16 jul. 2016.
12. Guise JM, Lowe NK, Connell L. Patient safety in obstetrics: what aviators, firefighters and others can teach us. Nurs Womens Health. 2008 Jun; 12 (3): 208-15.
13. HOWICK, J. et al. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2.[Internet]. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. 2011.
14. GRÜNEBAUM, Amos et al. Home birth is unsafe: FOR: The safety of planned homebirths: a clinical fiction. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, v. 122, n. 9, p. 1235-1235, 2015.
15. Aibar L; Rabanaque MJ; Mozas J; Puertas A; Aranaz JM; Aibar C. Improving patient safety by detecting obstetric care-related adverse events: application of a new screening guide. Arch Gynecl Obstet; 289(5):945-52, 2014 May.
16. CAUGHEY, A. B. et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, v. 210, n.3, p.179-93, 2014.
17. Obstetric care consensus nº1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar; 123 (3): 693-711.
18. Pettker CM, Grobman WA. Obstetric Safety and Quality. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 jul; 126 (1): 196-206.
19. Jackson M, Dahlen H, Schmied V. Birthing outside the system: perceptions of risk amongst Australian women who have freebirths and high risk homebirths. Midwifery. 2012 Oct; 28 (5): 561-7.
20. Lyndon A, Sexton JB, Simpson KR, Rosenstein A, Lee KA, Wachter RM. Predictors of likelihood of speaking up about safety concerns in labour and delivery. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Sep; 21 (9): 791-9.
21. Fahy K. What makes a midwifery modelo f care safe? Women Birth. 2012 Mar; 25 (1): 1-3.
22. Burke C, Grobman W, Miller D. Interdisciplinary collaboration to maintain a culture of safety in a labor and delivery setting. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2013 Apr-Jun; 27 (2): 113-23; quis 124-5.
23. Martijn L; Jacobs A; Harmsen M; Maassen I; Wensing M. Patient safety in midwifery care for low-risk women: instrument development. J Midiwifery Womens Health. 2012 Jul-Aug; 57 (4): 386-95.
24. Sentell T, Chang A, Cheng Y, Miyamura J. Maternal Quality and safety outcomes for Asians and Pacific Islanders in Hawai’I: na observational study from five years of statewide data. 2014; 14:298.
25. Lyndon A, Zlatnik MG, Wachter RM. Effective physician-nurse communication: a patient safety essential for labor and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug; 205 (2): 91-6.
26. Lyndon A, Johnson MC, Bingham D, Napolitano PG, Joseph G, Maxfield DG, O’Keeffe DF. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2015 May-Jun; 44 (3): 341-9.
27. Berkowitz RL. Of parachutes and patiente care: a call to action. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul; 205 (1): 7-9.
28. Smythe E. Safety is an interpretive act: a hermeneutic analysis of care in childbirth. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010 Dec; 47 (12): 1474-82.
29. Dornfeld, D, Pedro, ENR. The health team and the safety of the mother-baby binomial during labor and birth. Invest Educ Enferm. 2015 Jan-Apr; 33 (1): 44-52.
30. Davis J, Kenny TH, Doyle JL, McCarroll M, von Gruenigen VE.
31. Patabenge M, Senanayake H. Implementation of the WHO safe childbirth checklist programa t a tertiarycare setting in Sri Lanka: a developing coutry experiense. BMC Pregnacy Childbirth. 15: 12.
Copyright policies & self-archiving
We are a RoMEO green journal.
Author's Pre-print: author can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
Author's Post-print: author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing)
Publisher's Version/PDF: author can archive publisher's version/PDF
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access and Benefits of Publishing Open Access).
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Articles are published Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ©