‘Never waste a crisis’: a commentary on the COVID‐19 pandemic as a driver for innovation in maternity care

Abstract unavailable

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study

BackgroundThe national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises.AimTo compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations.MethodA multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders.FindingsBoth countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised.ConclusionWe recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events

‘Never waste a crisis’: a commentary on the COVID‐19 pandemic as a driver for innovation in maternity care

Abstract unavailable

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study

Background The national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises. Aim To compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations. Method A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders. Findings Both countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised. Conclusion We recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events

Clonal dissemination of highly virulent extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from the urine of non-hospitalised patients in Zagreb region

Recent data suggest that extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli is an emergent cause of urinary tract infections in non-hospitalised patients in different countries. The aim of this study was to characterise ESBL-producing E. coli strains isolated from the urine of outpatients in the Zagreb region of Croatia. During the 5-month study period, a total of 2451 E. coli strains were isolated from the urine of non-hospitalised patients with significant bacteriuria. A total of 39 ESBL-producing E. coli strains (1.59%) were collected and characterised

Early tracheostomy after initiation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is associated with decreased duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support

Timing of tracheostomy placement for patients with respiratory failure requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support is variable and continues to depend on surgeon preference. We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive adult patients supported with peripheral venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome at a single institution with the hypothesis that early tracheostomy (within 7 days of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation) decreases the duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. The primary endpoint was duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Secondary endpoints included mortality, overall and intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and time from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation to liberation from ventilator, intensive care unit discharge, and hospital discharge. Overall and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation–associated hospital costs were compared. A total of 50 patients were identified for inclusion (early n = 21; late n = 29). Baseline characteristics including indices of disease severity were similar between groups. Duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was significantly shorter in the early tracheostomy group (12 vs. 21 days; p = 0.005). Median extracorporeal membrane oxygenation–related costs were significantly decreased in the early tracheostomy group ($3,624 vs.$5,603, p = 0.03). Early tracheostomy placement is associated with decreased time on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support and reduced extracorporeal membrane oxygenation–related costs in this cohort. Validation in a prospective cohort or a clinical trial is indicated

Making maternity and neonatal care personalised in the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the Babies Born Better survey in the UK and the Netherlands

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on women’s birth experiences. To date, there are no studies that use both quantitative and qualitative data to compare women’s birth experiences before and during the pandemic, across more than one country. Aim To examine women’s birth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the experiences of women who gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) or the Netherlands (NL) either before or during the pandemic. Method This study is based on analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from the online Babies Born Better survey. Responses recorded by women giving birth in the UK and the NL between June and December 2020 have been used, encompassing women who gave birth between 2017 and 2020. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and chi-squared tests were performed to compare women who gave birth pre- versus during pandemic and separately by country. Qualitative data was analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Findings Respondents in both the UK and the NL who gave birth during the pandemic were as likely, or, if they had a self-reported above average standard of life, more likely to rate their labour and birth experience positively when compared to women who gave birth pre-pandemic. This was despite the fact that those labouring in the pandemic reported a lack of support and limits placed on freedom of choice. Two potential explanatory themes were identified in the qualitative data: respondents had lower expectations of care during the pandemic, and they appreciated the efforts of staff to give individualised care, despite the rules. Conclusion Our study implies that many women labouring during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced restrictions, but their experience was mitigated by staff actions. However, personalised care should not be maintained by the good will of care providers, but should be a priority in maternity care policy to benefit all service users equitably