Assessment of fetal presentation: Exploring a woman-centred approach

This article explores the core midwifery skill of fetal presentation assessment from the perspective of women’s meanings and experiences, including the social and relational aspects of antenatal palpation. Brief background information is provided, explaining the clinical purpose of determining presentation antenatally, and the key debates surrounding the available interventions applied when babies present breech, eg. external cephalic version and caesarean section. In order to make the screening process transparent, women need to know the accuracy (or rather, inaccuracy) of abdominal palpation, and what her options will be if her baby is found to be presenting breech, either before or during labour. Specialist midwifery care may help meet women’s increased needs for counselling and reassurance, and provide continuity throughout the breech care pathway, which for low-risk women begins with palpation

A national cross sectional survey of heads of midwifery services of uptake, benefits and barriers to use of obstetric early warning systems (EWS) by midwives

Objective to identify the extent to which Early Warning Systems (EWS) are used by midwives in the United Kingdom (UK), the maternity settings they are used in, physiological parameters used to ‘trigger’ referral, training provision, barriers to implementation and role in preventing maternal morbidity. Design cross-sectional survey of heads of midwifery services. An email questionnaire was sent in September 2012. Setting UK NHS secondary care organisations providing maternity care. Findings heads of midwifery from 107 (68%) of 157 NHS organisations responded, with 108 questionnaires returned as two organisations had recently merged. All organisations, apart from one which only had a free-standing midwifery unit, had introduced EWS. Nearly all respondents (99%) reported EWS were used by midwives antenatally, 76% in labour and 100% on the postnatal ward. All EWS charts included body temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation although parameters for escalation varied widely. Barriers to use of EWS by midwives included overlap with the partogram in labour, and staff shortages and delays obtaining clinical review when referral was triggered. Two-thirds considered EWS prevented maternal morbidity although few could provide supporting evidence, for example, audit findings. Training for midwives in use of EWS was available in 83% of organisations. Conclusion most UK midwives are using EWS, with the highest use in obstetric units. The heterogeneity of EWS currently used potentially limits collation of evidence to inform appropriate system level responses. Research is needed to evaluate the role of EWS to prevent maternal morbidity during and after pregnancy in different maternity settings

A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of intraoperative cell salvage during caesarean section in women at risk of haemorrhage: the SALVO (cell SALVage in Obstetrics) trial

Background Caesarean section is associated with blood loss and maternal morbidity. Excessive blood loss requires transfusion of donor (allogeneic) blood, which is a finite resource. Cell salvage returns blood lost during surgery to the mother. It may avoid the need for donor blood transfusion, but reliable evidence of its effects is lacking. Objectives To determine if routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage reduces the rates of blood transfusion and postpartum maternal morbidity, and is cost-effective, in comparison with standard practice without routine salvage use. Design Individually randomised controlled, multicentre trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Treatment was not blinded. Setting A total of 26 UK obstetric units. Participants Out of 3054 women recruited between June 2013 and April 2016, we randomly assigned 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage to cell salvage or routine care. Randomisation was stratified using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. Of these, 1672 had emergency and 1356 had elective caesareans. We excluded women for whom cell salvage or donor blood transfusion was contraindicated. Interventions Cell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). In the intervention group, salvage was set up in 95.6% of the women and, of these, 50.8% had salvaged blood returned. In the control group, 3.9% had salvage deployed. Main outcome measures Primary – donor blood transfusion. Secondary – units of donor blood transfused, time to mobilisation, length of hospitalisation, mean fall in haemoglobin, fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) measured by Kleihauer–Betke test, and maternal fatigue. Analyses were adjusted for stratification factors and other factors that were believed to be prognostic a priori. Cost-effectiveness outcomes – costs of resources and service provision taking the UK NHS perspective. Results We analysed 1498 and 1492 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Overall, the transfusion rate was 2.5% in the intervention group and 3.5% in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.056]. In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 3.0% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group among emergency caesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 1.8% in the intervention group and 2.2% in the control group among elective caesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46, suggesting that the difference in effect between subgroups was not statistically significant). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for FMH, which was higher under salvage in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women with RhD-positive babies (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14; p = 0.013). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The additional cost of routine cell salvage during caesarean was estimated, on average, at £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided. Conclusions The modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on rates of donor blood transfusion was associated with increased FMH, which emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis. We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Based on the findings of this trial, cell salvage is unlikely to be considered cost-effective. Future work Research into risk of alloimmunisation among women exposed to cell salvage is needed. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66118656. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Genetic testing for gynaecological cancer

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd The traditional family-history approach to genetic testing involves taking a detailed three generation family-history from both sides of the family, ethnicity, type of cancer, age of onset and death. Testing for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations is offered at a ≥10% combined BRCA1/BRCA2 probability. Risk models such as the Manchester scoring system, BOADICEA and BRCAPRO can be used to calculate BRCA1/BRCA2 probability. High-risk women identified should be referred to a regional genetics service for genetic counselling and testing. The Amsterdam-Criteria-2 have been traditionally used to identify Lynch syndrome (caused by a mismatch repair gene (MLH1/MSH2/MSH6/PMS2) mutation). Molecular (immunohistochemistry and Microsatellite instability) analysis of tumour tissue is now established as an initial step, with genetic testing undertaken for protein deficient or MSI unstable tumours. This is offered for those fulfilling Bethesda criteria and recently for all colorectal cancer cases < 60 years. BRCA1/BRCA2 testing is recommended for all non-mucinous invasive epithelial ovarian cancers irrespective of family-history (10–20% have a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation). This is being undertaken by non-genetics clinicians. A population-based approach to genetic testing identifies 50% more carriers at risk. It has been extensively investigated in the Ashkenazi-Jewish population and found to be extremely cost-effective in this community. This is expected to lead to change in guidelines in the future

Maternal and perinatal outcomes in women planning vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) at home in England:secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study

Objective To compare vaginal birth rates in women planning vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) at home versus in an obstetric unit (OU) and explore transfer rates in women planning home VBAC. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting OUs and planned home births in England. Population 1436 women planning VBAC in the Birthplace cohort, including 209 planning home VBAC. Methods We used Poisson regression to calculate relative risks adjusted for maternal characteristics. Main outcome measures Main outcomes: (i) vaginal birth and (ii) transfer from planned home birth to OU during labour or immediately after birth. Secondary outcomes: (i) composite of maternal blood transfusion or admission to higher level care, (ii) stillbirth or Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, (iii) neonatal unit admission. Results Planned VBAC at home was associated with a statistically significant increase in the chances of having a vaginal birth compared with planned VBAC in an OU (adjusted relative risk 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.06–1.24). The risk of an adverse maternal outcome was around 2–3% in both settings, with a similar risk of an adverse neonatal outcome. Transfer rates were high (37%) and varied markedly by parity (para 1, 56.7% versus para 2+, 24.6%). Conclusion Women in the cohort who planned VBAC at home had an increased chance of a vaginal birth compared with those planning VBAC in an OU, but transfer rates were high, particularly for women with only one previous birth, and the risk of an adverse maternal or perinatal outcome was around 2–3%. No change in guidance can be recommended. Tweetable abstract Higher vaginal birth rates in planned VBAC at home versus in OU but 2–3% adverse outcomes and high transfer rate

Birth after caesarean study – planned vaginal birth or planned elective repeat caesarean for women at term with a single previous caesarean birth: protocol for a patient preference study and randomised trial

Background: For women who have a caesarean section in their preceding pregnancy, two care policies for birth are considered standard: planned vaginal birth and planned elective repeat caesarean. Currently available information about the benefits and harms of both forms of care are derived from retrospective and prospective cohort studies. There have been no randomised trials, and recognising the deficiencies in the literature, there have been calls for methodologically rigorous studies to assess maternal and infant health outcomes associated with both care policies. The aims of our study are to assess in women with a previous caesarean birth, who are eligible in the subsequent pregnancy for a vaginal birth, whether a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean compared with a policy of planned repeat caesarean affects the risk of serious complications for the woman and her infant. Methods/Design Design: Multicentred patient preference study and a randomised clinical trial. Inclusion Criteria: Women with a single prior caesarean presenting in their next pregnancy with a single, live fetus in cephalic presentation, who have reached 37 weeks gestation, and who do not have a contraindication to a planned VBAC. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible women will be given an information sheet during pregnancy, and will be recruited to the study from 37 weeks gestation after an obstetrician has confirmed eligibility for a planned vaginal birth. Written informed consent will be obtained. Women who consent to the patient preference study will be allocated their preference for either planned VBAC or planned, elective repeat caesarean. Women who consent to the randomised trial will be randomly allocated to either the planned vaginal birth after caesarean or planned elective repeat caesarean group. Treatment Groups: Women in the planned vaginal birth group will await spontaneous onset of labour whilst appropriate. Women in the elective repeat caesarean group will have this scheduled for between 38 and 40 weeks. Primary Study Outcome: Serious adverse infant outcome (death or serious morbidity). Sample Size: 2314 women in the patient preference study to show a difference in adverse neonatal outcome from 1.6% to 3.6% (p = 0.05, 80% power).Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Janet E Hiller, Ross R Haslam and Jeffrey S Robinso

Public health and wellbeing: A matter for the midwife?

This paper will provide a critical narrative review of public health interventions in pregnancy and the role of the midwife in public health. The historical and political context of public health and midwifery will be examined to give a background to the current midwifery public health agenda. The article will identify specific public health interventions used in pregnancy by midwives and assess how midwives perceive their role in implementing them. Midwives are important public health practitioners, who alongside other agencies can make a long-term, positive contribution to the life course of women and their families