Talk:Maternal near miss

Definition

One of the two references upon which this article depends states straight out "There is no consensus on how to define near miss."[1] How, then, did we get the very specific definition that this article maintains? How was the specific figure of 42 days arrived at? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm no subject matter expert, but I would say that a qualified guess is that it's taken from the WHO definition of Maternal death - that would be logical. Regarding your "no consensus": you should note the inherent ambiguity in any "near-miss" concept - a the core of it nothing happended. Under sligthly different conditions however, something could have happened. Defining what constitutes "sligthly different conditions" is the consensus issue. I would say, that this is one of the many directions this stub could grow. Another direction would be improved reporting practice, implications for learning from the reporting, etc. The new external link provided in the article space is quite good in this respect. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that the concept involves inherent ambiguity. What I am disputing is that when the concept involves inherent ambiguity and one of the two references we have for the concept says flat-out "There is no consensus on how to define near miss" that it is appropriate to say "42 days is the fencepost; not 41 or 43, but 42" and not tell who decided that the relevant value would be 42. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's by simple convention. There is no ambiguity about the 42 days. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Then who came up with the convention? Who? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Afd comment

Power.corrupts work on expanding this article is commendable. However, I see this Afd from an entirely different viewpoint. The "parent" Near miss (safety) article (subsection "Healthcare") was the natural place for the first edit on this topic, and would have benefitted from expansion. As content and references grow, a section of a parent article becomes its own article, with continuity with the parent, which retains some of the content of the newly expanded article. Hit-and-run edits are cluttering Wikipedia with multiple stubs about as useful as a Google search list, while existing articles languish or become dated. The telling point is that the reason that Maternal near miss came to Power.corrupts attention and was improved was that several editors found nothing compelling in its original form as a stand alone article. Although I recognize that there is controversy on this point, see Wikipedia:Depth. Ryanjo (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, near-miss is much broader field than what is evident from the Near miss (safety) article. It is borne out of troubles with preventing Civil aviation disasters, Three mile island disasters, Chernobyl disasters, Space shuttle disasters, etc. It is fraught with philosophical difficulties, see for instance March, J.G.; Sproull, L.S.; and Tamuz, M. (1991). "Learning from samples of one or fewer". Organizational Science. 2 (1): 1–13. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

What you call the "parent article" (Near miss (safety)) merely mentions some organizational setups - again a topic fraught with so many difficulties that it could warrent its own article. Then there are the application of "near-miss" in various fields, where it is modified to suit the specific circumstances of that field. Maternal near-miss is one such field, and it is so specific that I belive it warrants its own article. True, that my contribution is haphazard, and I'm not particularly happy with it, it was driven only by a desire to fend off deletion. You say: several editors found nothing compelling in its original form as a stand alone article. I would would say, how much (or how little) do you need to know about a topic, before you opt for deletion?

In principle, I like Wikipedia:Depth, and I strive for it in professional work. If Wikipedia started to pay editors serious money for serious contributions, it might be attainable. For a completely voluntary effort however, we have to settle for less than perfect, and trust incrementalism, that the sum of many, in isolation, insignificant contributions, may lead to an overall improvement (assumning nirvana). Power.corrupts (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

World Health Organization defines Maternal Near Miss

The World Health Organization has carried a broad international consultation and in 2009 defined the term maternal near miss. Standard criteria for identifying near near miss cases were developed and then validated in various countries. Several studies are being undertaken using these standard criteria including the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. The WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health is being implemented in 400 hospitals from 26 countries.

Sources

• Say L, Souza JP, Pattinson RC; WHO working group on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity classifications. Maternal near miss--towards a standard tool for monitoring quality of maternal health care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Jun;23(3):287-96.
• Pattinson R, Say L, Souza JP, Broek N, Rooney C; WHO Working Group on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Classifications. WHO maternal death and near-miss classifications. Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Oct;87(10):734 (Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755324/pdf/09-071001.pdf)