The efficient use of the maternity workforce and the implications for safety and quality in maternity care : a population-based, cross-sectional study

Background: The performance of maternity services is seen as a touchstone of whether or not we are delivering high-quality NHS care. Staffing has been identified in numerous reports as being a critical component of safe, effective, user-centred care. There is little evidence regarding the impact of maternity workforce staffing and skill mix on the safety, quality and cost of maternity care in the UK. Objectives: To understand the relationship between organisational factors, maternity workforce staffing and skill mix, cost and indicators of safe and high-quality care. Design and methods: Data included Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) from 143 NHS trusts in England in 2010–11 (656,969 delivery records), NHS Workforce Statistics, England, 2010–11, Care Quality Commission Maternity Survey of women’s experiences 2010 and NHS reference costs 2010/11. Ten indicators were derived from HES data. They included healthy mother and healthy baby outcomes and mode of birth. Adjustments were made for background characteristics and clinical risk. Data were analysed to examine the influence of organisational factors, staffing and costs using multilevel logistic regression models. A production function analysis examined the relationship between staffing, skill mix and output. Results: Outcomes were largely determined by women’s level of clinical risk [based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance], parity and age. The effects of trust size and trust university status were small. Larger trust size reduced the chance of a healthy mother outcome and also reduced the likelihood of a healthy mother/healthy baby dyad outcome, and increased the chances of other childbirth interventions. Increased investment in staff did not necessarily have an effect on the outcome and experience measures chosen, although there was a higher rate of intact perineum and also of delivery with bodily integrity in trusts with greater levels of midwifery staffing. An analysis of the multiplicative effects of parity and clinical risk with the staffing variables was more revealing. Increasing the number of doctors had the greatest impact on outcomes in higher-risk women and increasing the number of midwives had the greatest impact on outcomes in lower-risk women. Although increased numbers of support workers impacted on reducing childbirth interventions in lower-risk women, they also had a negative impact on the healthy mother/healthy baby dyad outcomes in all women. In terms of maximising the capacity of a trust to deliver babies, midwives and support workers were found to be substitutes for each other, as were consultants and other doctors. However, any substitution between staff groups could impact on the quality of care given. Economically speaking, midwives are best used in combination with consultants and other doctors. Conclusions: Staffing levels have positive and negative effects on some outcomes, and deployment of doctors and midwives where they have most beneficial impact is important. Managers may wish to exercise caution in increasing the number of support workers who care for higher-risk women. There also appear to be limited opportunities for role substitution. Future work: Wide variations in outcomes remain after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical risk, and organisational factors. Further research is required on what may be influencing unexplained variation such as organisational climate and culture, use of NICE guidelines in practice, variation of models of care within trusts and women’s choices. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on maternity care in Europe

Editoria

A continuity of care programme for women at risk of preterm birth in the UK : process evaluation of a hybrid randomised controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND: The development and evaluation of specific maternity care packages designed to address preterm birth remains a public health priority. We aim to evaluate the implementation, context, and potential mechanisms of action, of a new care pathway that combined midwifery continuity of care with a specialist obstetric clinic for women at risk of preterm birth (POPPIE) in London (UK). METHODS: We did a multiphase mixed method triangulation evaluation nested within a hybrid type 2, randomised controlled trial in London (United Kingdom). Pregnant women with identified risk factors for preterm birth were eligible for trial participation and randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of care linked to a specialist obstetric clinic (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth, analysed according to intention to treat. Clinical and process outcome data were abstracted from medical records and electronic data systems, and coded by study team members, who were masked to study group allocation. Implementation data were collected from meeting records and key documents, postnatal surveys (n = 164), semi-structured interviews with women (n = 30), healthcare providers and stakeholders (n = 24) pre-, mid and post implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data from meeting records and key documents were examined narratively. Qualitative data from interviews were analysed using three thematic frameworks: Proctor’s (for implementation outcomes: appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, penetration, sustainability), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (for determinants of implementation), and published program theories of continuity models (for potential mechanisms). Data triangulation followed a convergent parallel and pragmatic approach which brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage. We averaged individual implementation measures across all domains to give a single composite implementation strength score which was compared to the primary outcome. RESULTS: Between May 9, 2017, and Sep 30, 2018, 553 women were assessed for eligibility and 334 were enrolled with less than 6% of loss to follow up (169 were assigned to the POPPIE group; 165 were to the standard group). There was no difference in the primary outcome (POPPIE group 83·3% versus standard group 84·7%; risk ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·90 to 1·08]). Appropriateness and adoption: The introduction of the POPPIE model was perceived as a positive fundamental change for local maternity services. Partnership working and additional funding were crucial for adoption. Fidelity: More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named or partner midwife, and a POPPIE midwife was present in more than 80% of births. Acceptability: Nearly 98% of women who responded to the postnatal survey were very satisfied with POPPIE model. Quantitative fidelity and acceptability results were supported by the qualitative findings. Penetration and sustainability: Despite delays (likely associated with lack of existing continuity models at the hospital), the model was embedded within established services and a joint decision was made to sustain and adapt the model after the trial (strongly facilitated by national maternal policy on continuity pathways). Potential mechanisms of impact identified included e.g. access to care, advocacy and perceptions of safety and trust. There was no association between implementation measures and the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The POPPIE model of care was a feasible and acceptable model of care that was implemented with high fidelity and sustained in maternity services. Larger powered trials are feasible and needed in other settings, to evaluate the impact and implementation of continuity programmes in other communities affected by preterm birth and women who experience social disadvantage and vulnerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UKCRN Portfolio Database (prospectively registered, 24 April 2017): 31951. ISRCTN registry (retrospectively registered, 21 August 2017): ISRCTN37733900

Experiences of maternity care among women at increased risk of preterm birth receiving midwifery continuity of care compared to women receiving standard care : results from the POPPIE pilot trial

Background: Midwifery continuity of care models for women at low and mixed risk of complications have been shown to improve women’s experiences of care. However, there is limited research on care experiences among women at increased risk of preterm birth. We aimed to explore the experiences of care among women with risk factors for preterm birth participating in a pilot trial (POPPIE) of a midwifery continuity of care model which included a specialist obstetric clinic. Methods: A total of 334 pregnant women identified at increased risk of preterm birth were randomly allocated to either midwifery continuity of care (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. Women in both groups were followed up at six-to-eight weeks postpartum and were invited to complete a postnatal survey either online or by post. An equal status exploratory sequential mixed method design was chosen to collect and analyse the quantitative postnatal survey data and qualitative interviews data. The postnatal survey included measures of social support, trust, perceptions of safety, quality of care, control during childbirth, bonding and quality of life. Categorical data were analysed with chi-squared tests and continuous data were analysed with t-tests and/or Mann-Whitney U test to measure differences in measures scores among groups. The qualitative interview data were subjected to a thematic framework analysis. Data triangulation brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage. Findings: A total of 166 women completed the survey and 30 women were interviewed (90 and 16 in POPPIE group; 76 and 14 in standard group). We found survey respondents in the POPPIE group, compared to respondents in the standard group, were significantly more likely to report greater trust in midwives (Mann-Whitney U, p<0.0001), greater perceptions of safety during the antenatal care (t-test, p = 0.0138), have a particular midwife to contact when they needed during their pregnancy (t-test, p<0.0001) and the postnatal period (chi-squared, p<0.0001). They reported increased involvement in decisions regarding antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care (t-test, p = 0.002; p = 0.008; p = 0.006 respectively); and greater postnatal support and advice about: feeding the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), handling, settling and looking after the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), baby’s health and progress (chi-squared, p = 0.039), their own health and recovery (chi-squared, p = 0.006) and who to contact about any emotional changes (chi-squared, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between groups in the reporting of perceptions of safety during birth and the postnatal period, concerns raised during labour and birth taken seriously, being left alone during childbirth at a time of worries, control during labour, bonding, social support, and physical and mental health related quality of life after birth. Results from qualitative interviews provided insight and depth into many of these findings, with women in the POPPIE group reporting more positive experiences of bonding towards their babies and more positive physical health postnatally. Conclusions: Compared with standard maternity care, women at increased risk of PTB who received midwifery continuity of care were more likely to report increased perceptions of trust, safety and quality of care. Trial registration: ISRCTN (Number: 37733900); UK CRN (ID: 31951)

Antenatal detection of large-for-gestational-age fetuses following implementation of the Growth Assessment Protocol: secondary analysis of a randomised control trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) affects the antenatal detection of large for gestational age (LGA) or maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst LGA babies. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a pragmatic open randomised cluster control trial comparing the GAP with standard care. SETTING: Eleven UK maternity units. POPULATION: Pregnant women and their LGA babies born at ≥36+0  weeks of gestation. METHODS: Clusters were randomly allocated to GAP implementation or standard care. Data were collected from electronic patient records. Trial arms were compared using summary statistics, with unadjusted and adjusted (two-stage cluster summary approach) differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of detection of LGA (estimated fetal weight on ultrasound scan above the 90th centile after 34+0  weeks of gestation, defined by either population or customised growth charts), maternal and perinatal outcomes (e.g. mode of birth, postpartum haemorrhage, severe perineal tears, birthweight and gestational age, neonatal unit admission, perinatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity and mortality). RESULTS: A total of 506 LGA babies were exposed to GAP and 618 babies received standard care. There were no significant differences in the rate of LGA detection (GAP 38.0% vs standard care 48.0%; adjusted effect size -4.9%; 95% CI -20.5, 10.7; p = 0.54), nor in any of the maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GAP did not change the rate of antenatal ultrasound detection of LGA when compared with standard care

Interventions to support effective communication between maternity care staff and women in labour : a mixed-methods systematic review

Objectives: the objectives of this review were (1) to assess whether interventions to support effective communication between maternity care staff and healthy women in labour with a term pregnancy could improve birth outcomes and experiences of care; and (2) to synthesize information related to the feasibility of implementation and resources required. Design: a mixed-methods systematic review. Setting and participants: studies which reported on interventions aimed at improving communication between maternity care staff and healthy women during normal labour and birth, with no apparent medical or obstetric complications, and their family members were included. ‘Maternity care staff’ included medical doctors (e.g. obstetricians, anaesthetists, physicians, family doctors, paediatricians), midwives, nurses and other skilled birth attendants providing labour, birth and immediate postnatal care. Studies from all birth settings (any country, any facility including home birth, any resource level) were included. Findings: two papers met the inclusion criteria. One was a step wedge randomised controlled trial conducted in Syria, and the other a sub-analysis of a randomised controlled trial from the United Kingdom. Both studies aimed to assess effects of communication training for maternity care staff on women's experiences of labour care. The study from Syria reported that a communication skills training intervention for resident doctors was not associated with higher satisfaction reported by women. In the UK study, patient-actors’ (experienced midwives) perceptions of safety and communication significantly improved for postpartum haemorrhage scenarios after training with patient-actors in local hospitals, compared with training using manikins in simulation centres, but no differences were identified for other scenarios. Both studies had methodological limitations. Key conclusions and implications for practice: the review identified a lack of evidence on impact of interventions to support effective communication between maternity care staff and healthy women during labour and birth. Very low quality evidence was found on effectiveness of communication training of maternity care staff. Robust studies which are able to identify characteristics of interventions to support effective communication in maternity care are urgently needed. Consideration also needs to be given to how organisations prepare, monitor and sustain interventions to support effective communication, which reflect outcomes of priority for women, local culture and context of labour and birth care

Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth : a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK

Background Midwifery continuity of care is the only health system intervention shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) and improve perinatal survival, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors for PTB. We aimed to assess feasibility, fidelity, and clinical outcomes of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with a specialist obstetric clinic for women considered at increased risk for PTB. Methods and findings We conducted a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group pilot trial at an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), in which pregnant women identified at increased risk of PTB were randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (Pilot study Of midwifery Practice in Preterm birth Including women’s Experiences [POPPIE] group) or standard care group (maternity care by different midwives working in designated clinical areas). Pregnant women attending for antenatal care at less than 24 weeks’ gestation were eligible if they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: previous cervical surgery, cerclage, premature rupture of membranes, PTB, or late miscarriage; previous short cervix or short cervix this pregnancy; or uterine abnormality and/or current smoker of tobacco. Feasibility outcomes included eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates, and fidelity of the model. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth. We analysed by intention to treat. Between 9 May 2017 and 30 September 2018, 334 women were recruited; 169 women were allocated to the POPPIE group and 165 to the standard group. Mean maternal age was 31 years; 32% of the women were from Black, Asian, and ethnic minority groups; 70% were in employment; and 46% had a university degree. Nearly 70% of women lived in areas of social deprivation. More than a quarter of women had at least one pre-existing medical condition and multiple risk factors for PTB. More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named/partner midwife, and a midwife from the POPPIE team was present at 80% of births. The incidence of the primary composite outcome showed no statistically significant difference between groups (POPPIE group 83.3% versus standard group 84.7%; risk ratio 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.08]; p = 0.742). Infants in the POPPIE group were significantly more likely to have skin-to-skin contact after birth, to have it for a longer time, and to breastfeed immediately after birth and at hospital discharge. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. The number of serious adverse events was similar in both groups and unrelated to the intervention (POPPIE group 6 versus standard group 5). Limitations of this study included the limited power and the nonmasking of group allocation; however, study assignment was masked to the statistician and researchers who analysed the data. Conclusions In this study, we found that it is feasible to set up and achieve fidelity of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with specialist obstetric care for women at increased risk of PTB in an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), but there is no impact on most outcomes for this population group. Larger appropriately powered trials are needed, including in other settings, to evaluate the impact of relational continuity and hypothesised mechanisms of effect based on increased trust and engagement, improved care coordination, and earlier referral on disadvantaged communities, including women with complex social factors and social vulnerability. Trial registration We prospectively registered the pilot trial on the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (ID number: 31951, 24 April 2017). We registered the trial on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (Number: 37733900, 21 August 2017) and before trial recruitment was completed (30 September 2018) when informed that prospective registration for a pilot trial was also required in a primary clinical trial registry recognised by WHO and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The protocol as registered and published has remained unchanged, and the analysis conforms to the original plan

Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth : a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK

Background: Midwifery continuity of care is the only health system intervention shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) and improve perinatal survival, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors for PTB. We aimed to assess feasibility, fidelity, and clinical outcomes of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with a specialist obstetric clinic for women considered at increased risk for PTB. Methods and findings: We conducted a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group pilot trial at an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), in which pregnant women identified at increased risk of PTB were randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (Pilot study Of midwifery Practice in Preterm birth Including women’s Experiences [POPPIE] group) or standard care group (maternity care by different midwives working in designated clinical areas). Pregnant women attending for antenatal care at less than 24 weeks' gestation were eligible if they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: previous cervical surgery, cerclage, premature rupture of membranes, PTB, or late miscarriage; previous short cervix or short cervix this pregnancy; or uterine abnormality and/or current smoker of tobacco. Feasibility outcomes included eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates, and fidelity of the model. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth. We analysed by intention to treat. Between 9 May 2017 and 30 September 2018, 334 women were recruited; 169 women were allocated to the POPPIE group and 165 to the standard group. Mean maternal age was 31 years; 32% of the women were from Black, Asian, and ethnic minority groups; 70% were in employment; and 46% had a university degree. Nearly 70% of women lived in areas of social deprivation. More than a quarter of women had at least one pre-existing medical condition and multiple risk factors for PTB. More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named/partner midwife, and a midwife from the POPPIE team was present at 80% of births. The incidence of the primary composite outcome showed no statistically significant difference between groups (POPPIE group 83.3% versus standard group 84.7%; risk ratio 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.08]; p = 0.742). Infants in the POPPIE group were significantly more likely to have skin-to-skin contact after birth, to have it for a longer time, and to breastfeed immediately after birth and at hospital discharge. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. The number of serious adverse events was similar in both groups and unrelated to the intervention (POPPIE group 6 versus standard group 5). Limitations of this study included the limited power and the nonmasking of group allocation; however, study assignment was masked to the statistician and researchers who analysed the data. Conclusions: In this study, we found that it is feasible to set up and achieve fidelity of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with specialist obstetric care for women at increased risk of PTB in an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), but there is no impact on most outcomes for this population group. Larger appropriately powered trials are needed, including in other settings, to evaluate the impact of relational continuity and hypothesised mechanisms of effect based on increased trust and engagement, improved care coordination, and earlier referral on disadvantaged communities, including women with complex social factors and social vulnerability. Trial registration: We prospectively registered the pilot trial on the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (ID number: 31951, 24 April 2017). We registered the trial on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (Number: 37733900, 21 August 2017) and before trial recruitment was completed (30 September 2018) when informed that prospective registration for a pilot trial was also required in a primary clinical trial registry recognised by WHO and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The protocol as registered and published has remained unchanged, and the analysis conforms to the original plan