Quality of facility-based maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic: online survey investigating maternal perspectives in 12 countries of the WHO European Region

Background Multi-country studies assessing the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by WHO Standards, are lacking. Methods Women who gave birth in 12 countries of the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020 - March 15, 2021 answered an online questionnaire, including 40 WHO Standard-based Quality Measures. Findings 21,027 mothers were included in the analysis. Among those who experienced labour (N=18,063), 41·8% (26·1%- 63·5%) experienced difficulties in accessing antenatal care, 62% (12·6%-99·0%) were not allowed a companion of choice, 31·1% (16·5%-56·9%) received inadequate breastfeeding support, 34·4% (5·2%-64·8%) reported that health workers were not always using protective personal equipment, and 31·8% (17·8%-53·1%) rated the health workers’ number as “insufficient”. Episiotomy was performed in 20·1% (6·1%-66·0%) of spontaneous vaginal births and fundal pressure applied in 41·2% (11·5% -100%) of instrumental vaginal births. In addition, 23·9% women felt they were not treated with dignity (12·8%-59·8%), 12·5% (7·0%-23·4%) suffered abuse, and 2·4% (0·1%-26·2%) made informal payments. Most findings were significantly worse among women with prelabour caesarean birth (N=2,964). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant differences among countries, with Croatia, Romania, Serbia showing significant lower QMNC Indexes and Luxemburg showing a significantly higher QMNC Index than the total sample. Younger women and those with operative births also reported significantly lower QMNC Indexes. Interpretation Mothers reports revealed large inequities in QMNC across countries of the WHO European Region. Quality improvement initiatives to reduce these inequities and promote evidence-based, patient-centred respectful care for all mothers and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond are urgently needed. Funding The study was financially supported by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336This research was funded by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste Italy

Regional differences in the quality of maternal and neonatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: Results from the IMAgiNE EURO study

Objective: To compare women's perspectives on the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth across Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2 (NUTS-II) regions in Portugal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Women participating in the cross-sectional IMAgiNE EURO study who gave birth in Portugal from March 1, 2020, to October 28, 2021, completed a structured questionnaire with 40 key WHO standards-based quality measures. Four domains of QMNC were assessed: (1) provision of care; (2) experience of care; (3) availability of human and physical resources; and (4) reorganizational changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Frequencies for each quality measure within each QMNC domain were computed overall and by region. Results: Out of 1845 participants, one-third (33.7%) had a cesarean. Examples of high-quality care included: low frequencies of lack of early breastfeeding and rooming-in (8.0% and 7.7%, respectively) and informal payment (0.7%); adequate staff professionalism (94.6%); adequate room comfort and equipment (95.2%). However, substandard practices with large heterogeneity across regions were also reported. Among women who experienced labor, the percentage of instrumental vaginal births ranged from 22.3% in the Algarve to 33.5% in Center; among these, fundal pressure ranged from 34.8% in Lisbon to 66.7% in Center. Episiotomy was performed in 39.3% of noninstrumental vaginal births with variations between 31.8% in the North to 59.8% in Center. One in four women reported inadequate breastfeeding support (26.1%, ranging from 19.4% in Algarve to 31.5% in Lisbon). One in five reported no exclusive breastfeeding at discharge (22.1%; 19.5% in Lisbon to 28.2% in Algarve). Conclusion: Urgent actions are needed to harmonize QMNC and reduce inequities across regions in Portugal. © 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.Funding text 1: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome - Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste - Italy. This study was supported by Portuguese fundings through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, in the scope of the projects EPIUnit - UIDB/04750/2020, ITR - LA/P/0064/2020, and HEILab - UIDB/05380/2020, and by the European Social Fund (ESF) and FCT (SFRH/BPD/117597/2016; RC postdoctoral fellowship). We are grateful to the women who dedicated their time to complete the survey, to Associação Portuguesa pelos Direitos da Mulher na Gravidez e Parto (APDMGP) for support with survey dissemination and to nurse Louise Semião for assistance provided in back-translation of the questionnaires. Special thanks to the IMAgiNE EURO study group for their contribution to the development of this project and support for this manuscript.; Funding text 2: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome ‐ Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste ‐ Italy. This study was supported by Portuguese fundings through FCT ‐ Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, in the scope of the projects EPIUnit ‐ UIDB/04750/2020, ITR ‐ LA/P/0064/2020, and HEILab ‐ UIDB/05380/2020, and by the European Social Fund (ESF) and FCT (SFRH/BPD/117597/2016; RC postdoctoral fellowship). We are grateful to the women who dedicated their time to complete the survey, to Associação Portuguesa pelos Direitos da Mulher na Gravidez e Parto (APDMGP) for support with survey dissemination and to nurse Louise Semião for assistance provided in back‐translation of the questionnaires. Special thanks to the IMAgiNE EURO study group for their contribution to the development of this project and support for this manuscript. ; Funding text 3: IMAgiNE EURO project was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome ‐ Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste ‐ Italy. This study was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia; European Social Fund (ESF) Funding informatio

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p<0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p<0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised