Childbirth care practices in public sector facilities in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A descriptive study

Objectives: To explore reported hospital policies and practices during normal childbirth in maternity wards in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to assess and verify whether these practices are evidence-based. Design: Quantitative design, in the form of a descriptive questionnaire, based on a tool extracted from the literature. Setting: Nine government hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. These hospitals have varied ownership, including Ministry of Health (MOH), military, teaching and other government hospitals. Participants: Key individuals responsible for the day-to-day running of the maternity ward. Measurements: Nine interviews using descriptive structured questionnaire were conducted. Data were analysed using SPSS for Windows (version 16.0). Findings: The surveyed hospitals were found to be well equipped to deal with obstetric emergencies, and many follow evidence-based procedures. On average, the Caesarean section rate was found to be 22.4%, but with considerable variances between hospitals. Some unnecessary procedures that are known to be ineffective or harmful and that are not recommended for routine use, including pubic shaving, enemas, episiotomy, electronic foetal monitoring (EFM) and intravenous (IV) infusion, were found to be frequently practiced. Only 22% of the hospitals sampled reported allowing a companion to attend labour and delivery. Key Conclusions: Many aspects of recommended EBP were used in the hospitals studied. However, the results of this study clearly indicate that there is wide variation between hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in some obstetric practices. Furthermore, the findings suggest that some practices at these hospitals are not supported by evidence as being beneficial for mothers or babies and are positively discouraged under international guidelines. Implications for practice: This study has specific implications for obstetricians, midwives and nurses working in maternity Units. It gives an overview of current hospital policies and practices during normal childbirth. It is likely to contribute to improving the health and well-being of women, and have implications for service provision. It could also help in the development of technical information for policy-makers, and health care professionals for normal childbirth care

Women’s views on partnership working with midwives during pregnancy and childbirth

This is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Sally Boyle, Hilary Thomas, and Fiona Brooks, ‘Women׳s views on partnership working with midwives during pregnancy and childbirth’, Midwifery, Vol. 32: 21-29, January 2016, which has been published in final form at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.09.001. This manuscript version is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License CC BY NC-ND 4.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.Objective: To explore whether the UK Government agenda for partnership working and choice was realised or desired for women during pregnancy and childbirth. Design: A qualitative study was used to explore women’s experience of partnership working with midwives. Data was generated using a diary interview method throughout pregnancy and birth. Setting: 16 women were recruited from two district general hospitals in the South East of England. Findings: Three themes emerged from the data: organisation of care, relationships and choice. Women described their antenatal care as ‘ticking the box’, with midwives focusing on the biomedical aspects of care but not meeting their psycho-social and emotional needs. Time poverty was a significant factor in this finding. Women rarely described developing a partnership relationship with midwives due to a lack of continuity of care and time in which to formulate such relationships. In contrast women attending birth centres for their antenatal care were able to form relationships with a group of midwives who shared a philosophy of care and had sufficient time in which to meet women’s holistic needs. Most of the women in this study did not feel they were offered the choices as outlined in the national choice agenda (DoH, 2007). Implications for Practice: NHS Trusts should review the models of care available to women to ensure that these are not only safe but support women’s psycho-social and emotional needs as well. Partnership case loading models enable midwives and women to form trusting relationships that empowers women to feel involved in decision making and to exercise choice. Group antenatal and postnatal care models also effectively utilise midwifery time whilst increasing maternal satisfaction and social engagement. Technology should also be used more effectively to facilitate inter-professional communication and to provide a more flexible service to women.Peer reviewe

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.

BACKGROUND: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models' characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria. RESULTS: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0-32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised

COSMOS: COmparing Standard Maternity care with One-to-one midwifery Support: a randomised controlled trial

Background: In Australia and internationally, there is concern about the growing proportion of women giving birth by caesarean section. There is evidence of increased risk of placenta accreta and percreta in subsequent pregnancies as well as decreased fertility; and significant resource implications. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of continuity of midwifery care have reported reduced caesareans and other interventions in labour, as well as increased maternal satisfaction, with no statistically significant differences in perinatal morbidity or mortality. RCTs conducted in the UK and in Australia have largely measured the effect of teams of care providers (commonly 6&ndash;12 midwives) with very few testing caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care. This study aims to determine whether caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care for women at low risk of medical complications decreases the proportion of women delivering by caesarean section compared with women receiving \u27standard\u27 care. This paper presents the trial protocol in detail.Methods/design: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women who are identified at low medical risk will be recruited from the antenatal booking clinics of a tertiary women\u27s hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Baseline data will be collected, then women randomised to caseload midwifery or standard low risk care. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a designated primary midwife with one or two antenatal visits conducted by a \u27back-up\u27 midwife. The midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary. If the woman has an extended labour, or if the primary midwife is unavailable, care will be provided by the back-up midwife. For women allocated to standard care, options include midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. Data will be collected at recruitment (self administered survey) and at 2 and 6 months postpartum by postal survey. Medical/obstetric outcomes will be abstracted from the medical record. The sample size of 2008 was calculated to identify a decrease in caesarean birth from 19 to 14% and detect a range of other significant clinical differences. Comprehensive process and economic evaluations will be conducted.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012607000073404.<br /

The Mother's Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care.

OBJECTIVE:To develop and validate a new instrument that assesses women's autonomy and role in decision making during maternity care. DESIGN:Through a community-based participatory research process, service users designed, content validated, and administered a cross-sectional quantitative survey, including 31 items on the experience of decision-making. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Pregnancy experiences (n = 2514) were reported by 1672 women who saw a single type of primary maternity care provider in British Columbia. They described care by a midwife, family physician or obstetrician during 1, 2 or 3 maternity care cycles. We conducted psychometric testing in three separate samples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:We assessed reliability, item-to-total correlations, and the factor structure of the The Mothers' Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale. We report MADM scores by care provider type, length of prenatal appointments, preferences for role in decision-making, and satisfaction with experience of decision-making. RESULTS:The MADM scale measures a single construct: autonomy in decision-making during maternity care. Cronbach alphas for the scale exceeded 0.90 for all samples and all provider groups. All item-to-total correlations were replicable across three samples and exceeded 0.7. Eigenvalue and scree plots exhibited a clear 90-degree angle, and factor analysis generated a one factor scale. MADM median scores were highest among women who were cared for by midwives, and 10 or more points lower for those who saw physicians. Increased time for prenatal appointments was associated with higher scale scores, and there were significant differences between providers with respect to average time spent in prenatal appointments. Midwifery care was associated with higher MADM scores, even during short prenatal appointments (<15 minutes). Among women who preferred to lead decisions around their care (90.8%), and who were dissatisfied with their experience of decision making, MADM scores were very low (median 14). Women with physician carers were consistently more likely to report dissatisfaction with their involvement in decision making. DISCUSSION:The Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale is a reliable instrument for assessment of the experience of decision making during maternity care. This new scale was developed and content validated by community members representing various populations of childbearing women in BC including women from vulnerable populations. MADM measures women's ability to lead decision making, whether they are given enough time to consider their options, and whether their choices are respected. Women who experienced midwifery care reported greater autonomy than women under physician care, when engaging in decision-making around maternity care options. Differences in models of care, professional education, regulatory standards, and compensation for prenatal visits between midwives and physicians likely affect the time available for these discussions and prioritization of a shared decision making process. CONCLUSION:The MADM scale reflects person-driven priorities, and reliably assesses interactions with maternity providers related to a person's ability to lead decision-making over the course of maternity care