Cited by 71Emergency and Acute Care StudiesMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsReproductive Health and Contraception

Understanding the experience of miscarriage in the emergency department

MacWilliams, Kate, Hughes, Jean, Aston, Megan, Field, Simon, Moffatt, Faith Wight·2016·Journal of Emergency Nursing

Abstract

Introduction Up to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, which can be a significant life event for women with psychological implications. Because the only preventative measure for a miscarriage is risk factor modification, the treatment focuses on confirming the miscarriage has occurred and medical management of symptoms. Although women experiencing a miscarriage are frequently directed to seek medical care in emergency departments, the patients are often triaged as nonemergent patients unless they are unstable, which exposes women to potentially prolonged wait times. Research about miscarriages and emergency departments predominantly focus on medical management with little understanding of how emergency care shapes the experience of miscarriage for women.Methods Seeking to describe the experiences of women coming to the emergency department for care while having a miscarriage, interpretive phenomenology-a form of qualitative research-guided this study. Eight women were recruited to participate in semi-structured face-to-face interviews of 60 to 90 minutes in length. Data were analyzed using hermeneutics and thematic analysis.Results Five themes emerged: "Pregnant/Life: Miscarriage/Death"; "Deciding to go to the emergency department: Something's wrong"; "Not an illness: A different kind of trauma"; "Need for acknowledgement"; and "Leaving the emergency department: What now?". Participants believed their losses were not acknowledged but instead dismissed. These experiences, combined with a perceived lack of discharge education and clarity regarding follow-up, created experiences of marginalization.Discussion This study describes the experience of miscarrying in emergency departments and provides insights regarding how nursing and physician care may affect patient perceptions of marginalization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jen.2016.05.011

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacWilliams, K., Hughes, J., Aston, M., Field, S., & Moffatt, F. W.
Venue
Journal of Emergency Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
504-512
ISSN
0099-1767 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2493726108
Cited by
71
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Emergency Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
miscarriage, emergency department care, patient experience, marginalization, discharge education, follow-up care, emergency department triage, trauma and loss, patient perception of care
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Nova Scotia, Emergency Nursing, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review