Woman-centred care during pregnancy and birth in Ireland: thematic analysis of women's and clinicians' experiences

Background: Recent policy and service provision recommends a woman-centred approach to maternity care. Midwifeled models of care are seen as one important strategy for enhancing women’s choice; a core element of woman-centred care. In the Republic of Ireland, an obstetric consultant-led, midwife-managed service model currently predominates and there is limited exploration of the concept of women centred care from the perspectives of those directly involved; that is, women, midwives, general practitioners and obstetricians. This study considers women’s and clinicians’ views, experiences and perspectives of woman-centred maternity care in Ireland. Methods: A descriptive qualitative design. Participants (n = 31) were purposively sampled from two geographically distinct maternity units. Interviews were face-to-face or over the telephone, one-to-one or focus groups. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed. Results: Five major themes representing women’s and clinicians’ views, experiences and perspectives of women-centred care emerged from the data. These were Protecting Normality, Education and Decision Making, Continuity, Empowerment for Women-Centred Care and Building Capacity for Women-Centred Care. Within these major themes, sub-themes emerged that reflect key elements of women-centred care. These were respect, partnership in decision making, information sharing, educational impact, continuity of service, staff continuity and availability, genuine choice, promoting women’s autonomy, individualized care, staff competency and practice organization. Conclusion: Women centred-care, as perceived by participants in this study, is not routinely provided in Ireland and women subscribe to the dominant culture that views safety as paramount. Women-centred care can best be facilitated through continuity of carer and in particular through midwife led models of care; however, there is potential to provide women-centred care within existing labour wards in terms of consistency of care, education of women, common approaches to care across professions and women’s choice. To achieve this, however, future research is required to better understand the role of midwife-led care within existing labour ward settings. While a positive view of women-centred care was found; there is still a difference in approach and imbalance of power between the professions. More research is required to consider how these differences impact care provision and how they might be overcome

Round 1 of eDelphi: Rating for 38 potential core outcomes.

<p>Round 1 of eDelphi: Rating for 38 potential core outcomes.</p

Flow diagram of eDelphi process and core outcome generation.

<p>Flow diagram of eDelphi process and core outcome generation.</p

Final “COS Adult Cardiac Surgery”.

<p>Final “COS Adult Cardiac Surgery”.</p

Round 2 of eDelphi: Rating for 34 potential core outcomes.

<p>Round 2 of eDelphi: Rating for 34 potential core outcomes.</p

A guidance framework to aid in the selection of nursing and midwifery care process metrics and indicators

Aim: To describe the development of a guidance framework to assist nurses and midwives in selecting nursing and midwifery care process metrics and indicators for use in practice. Background: Process metrics are measures of care provision activities by nurses and midwives. Methods: Phase 1 was a rapid review assessment of the literature conducted to identify an initial framework. Six electronic databases were searched with Google Scholar and reference tracking performed. Phase 2 was expert review of the developing framework by nursing and midwifery experts in practice, academia and an international expert in quality care metrics. Results: The literature assessment yielded 28 papers with 59 metric attributes identified. From this, a six‐domain framework was developed. Following expert review, the framework was reduced to four domains: “Process Focused,” “Important,” “Operational” and “Feasible.” Conclusions: This is the first framework specifically to guide nurses and midwives in selecting nursing and midwifery process metrics and indicators

Characteristics of participants.

<p>Characteristics of participants.</p

Surgical Handover Core Outcome Measures (SH-CORE): a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover

Background Surgical handover is associated with a signicant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deciencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. Methods This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to nalise the COS. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015). Results will be presented at surgical scientic meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the ndings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. Discussion This study will develop the rst published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the rst use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. Trial registration Page 3/10 Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration number 2675. Available at http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675</p

Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials

Background: Systematic reviews of randomised trials guide policy and healthcare decisions. Yet, we observed that some reviews judge randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias (ROB) for sequence generation, potentially introducing bias. However, to date, the extent of this issue has not been well examined. We evaluated the consistency in the ROB assessment for sequence generation of randomised trials in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and explored the reviewers’ judgement of the quality of evidence for the related outcomes. Methods: Cochrane intervention reviews (01/01/2017–31/03/2017) were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched for systematic reviews in ten general medical journals with highest impact factors (01/01/2016–31/03/2017). We examined the proportion of reviews that rated the sequence generation domain as high, low or unclear risk of selection bias. For reviews that had rated any randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias, we examined the proportion that had assessed the quality of evidence. Results: Overall, 100 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. We evaluated 64 Cochrane reviews which comprised of 984 randomised trials; 0.8% (n = 8) and 52.2% (n = 514) were rated as high and unclear ROB for sequence generation respectively. We further evaluated 36 non-Cochrane reviews which comprised of 1376 trials; 5.8% (n = 80) and 39.6% (n = 545) were rated as high and unclear ROB respectively. Ninety percent (n = 10) of non- Cochrane reviews which rated randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation did not report an underlying reason. All Cochrane reviews assessed the quality of evidence (GRADE). For the non-Cochrane reviews, only just over half had assessed the quality of evidence. Conclusion: Systematic reviews of interventions frequently rate randomised trials as high or unclear ROB for sequence generation. In general, Cochrane reviews were more transparent than non-Cochrane reviews in ROB and quality of evidence assessment. The scientific community should more strongly promote consistent ROB assessment for sequence generation to minimise selection bias and support transparent quality of evidence assessment. Consistency ensures that appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants (Review)

Background Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as pre-eclampsia or polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). Their babies are also more likely to have health complications such as macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g) and being large-for-gestational age (birthweight above the 90th percentile for gestational age). Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term in women with gestational diabetes to minimise perinatal complications, especially those related to macrosomia. This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included “diabetic pregnant women”, which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with gestational diabetes and a sister review focuses on women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2). Objectives To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth), at or near term (37 to 40 weeks’ gestation) compared with an expectant approach for improving health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Search methods We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We included randomised trials comparing planned birth, at or near term (37 to 40 weeks’ gestation), with an expectant approach, for women with gestational diabetes. Cluster-randomised and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Data collection and analysis Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Main results The findings of this review are based on a single trial involving 425 women with gestational diabetes. The trial compared induction of labour with expectant management (waiting for the spontaneous onset of labour in the absence of any maternal or fetal issues that may necessitate birth) in pregnant women with gestational diabetes at term. We assessed the overall risk of bias as being low for most domains, apart from performance, detection and attrition bias (for outcome perineum intact), which we assessed as being at high risk. It was an open-label trial, and women and healthcare professionals were not blinded. There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, one trial, 425 women); or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.46, one trial, 425 women). For the primary outcome of maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity, there were no deaths in either group and serious maternal morbidity related to admissions to intensive care unit. The quality of the evidence contributing to these outcomes was assessed as very low, mainly due to the study having high risk of bias for some domains and because of the imprecision of effect estimates. In relation to primary neonatal outcomes, there were no perinatal deaths in either group. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision of effect estimates. There were no clear differences in infant outcomes between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management: shoulder dystocia (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.21, one trial, 425 infants, very low-quality evidence); large-for-gestational age (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.02, one trial, 425 infants, low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.54, one trial, 425 women); admission to intensive care unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); and intact perineum (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43, one trial, 425 women). No infant experienced a birth trauma, therefore, we could not draw conclusions about the effect of the intervention on the outcomes of brachial plexus injury and bone fracture at birth. Infants of women in the induction-of-labour group had higher incidences of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice) when compared to infants of women in the expectant-management group (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.46, one trial, 425 women). We found no data on the following prespecified outcomes of this review: postnatal depression, maternal satisfaction, length of postnatal stay (mother), acidaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, hypoxia ischaemic encephalopathy, small-for-gestational age, length of postnatal stay (baby) and cost. The authors of this trial acknowledge that it is underpowered for their primary outcome of caesarean section. The authors of the trial and of this review note that the CIs demonstrate a wide range, therefore making it inappropriate to draw definite conclusions. Authors’ conclusions There is limited evidence to inform implications for practice. The available data are not of high quality and lack power to detect possible important differences in either benefit or harm. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for women with gestational diabetes compared with an expectant approach