The development and application of a new tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care

Abstract Background: Current measures of antenatal care use are limited to initiation of care and number of visits. This study aimed to describe the development and application of a tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care. Methods: The Content and Timing of care in Pregnancy (CTP) tool was developed based on clinical relevance for ongoing antenatal care and recommendations in national and international guidelines. The tool reflects minimal care recommended in every pregnancy, regardless of parity or risk status. CTP measures timing of initiation of care, content of care (number of blood pressure readings, blood tests and ultrasound scans) and whether the interventions were received at an appropriate time. Antenatal care trajectories for 333 pregnant women were then described using a standard tool (the APNCU index), that measures the quantity of care only, and the new CTP tool. Both tools categorise care into 4 categories, from ‘Inadequate’ (both tools) to ‘Adequate plus’ (APNCU) or ‘Appropriate’ (CTP). Participants recorded the timing and content of their antenatal care prospectively using diaries. Analysis included an examination of similarities and differences in categorisation of care episodes between the tools. Results: According to the CTP tool, the care trajectory of 10,2% of the women was classified as inadequate, 8,4% as intermediate, 36% as sufficient and 45,3% as appropriate. The assessment of quality of care differed significantly between the two tools. Seventeen care trajectories classified as ‘Adequate’ or ‘Adequate plus’ by the APNCU were deemed ‘Inadequate’ by the CTP. This suggests that, despite a high number of visits, these women did not receive the minimal recommended content and timing of care. Conclusions: The CTP tool provides a more detailed assessment of the adequacy of antenatal care than the current standard index. However, guidelines for the content of antenatal care vary, and the tool does not at the moment grade over-use of interventions as ‘Inappropriate’. Further work needs to be done to refine the content items prior to larger scale testing of the impact of the new measure

The Charlie Gard case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions

On June 8, 2017, the Supreme Court in the UK rejected a legal appeal in the high-profile case of Charlie Gard, a British infant with a severe genetic disorder whose parents had disagreed with medical professionals and were requesting treatment that the doctors believed was futile. The case is the latest in a series of UK legal cases where courts have authorized withdrawal of treatment against the wishes of parents. In such disputes, British judges have, with rare exception, sided with health professionals. In contrast, in North America when disputes have reached the court, the courts have invariably sided in favour of life-sustaining medical treatment requested by a loving family. In the UK and US such disagreements are generally resolved in discussions between the family and the doctors with, if necessary, the assistance of a hospital ethics committee. If the conflict proves intractable, one of the parties might seek a court order in support of its position