Abortion Providers and the New Regulatory Regime: The Impact of Extreme Reproductive Governance on Abortion Care in the United States

This article discusses the impact of the recent wave of abortion restrictions on abortion provision in the United States, a phenomenon that has led to the closing of numerous clinics. The article offers some context of the political forces that led to this expansion of restrictions, and describes two of the most consequential ones: Ambulatory Surgi-Center (ASC) requirements, which dictate that clinics conform to the physical specifications of small hospitals; and hospital-admitting privileges ones, which mandate that doctors providing abortions obtain privileges at local hospitals. I draw on research I have conducted with abortion providers in nine “red” or conservative states that have imposed new restrictions or intensified the monitoring of existing ones. I show how responding to this new regulatory environment, which includes a greatly intensified schedule of surprise inspections, has consequences for the daily operations of the clinic, for the morale of both staff and patients, and for senior staff’s ability to sustain and transmit to junior staff their original vision of woman-centered care. I conclude by suggesting that the current regulatory regime governing abortion care in many states represents an extreme example of “reproductive governance,” a recent concept in the social science literature on reproduction.Cet article explore comment la récente vague de restrictions législatives en matière d’avortement a conduit à la fermeture de nombreuses cliniques. L’article examine comment contexte politique a favorisé l’essor de ce type de mesures. Il se penche également sur l’exemple de deux de ces mesures dont l’impact a été conséquent : la première requiert que les cliniques pratiquant des avortements se conforment aux normes demandées pour un centre de chirurgie ambulatoire (ambulatory surgical center), la seconde exige que les médecins pratiquant des avortements soient autorisés à admettre leurs patients dans un hôpital proche (admitting privileges).Il s’appuie sur des recherches menées auprès de cliniques qui pratiquent des avortements dans neuf états « rouges », autrement dit conservateurs, ayant imposé de nouvelles restrictions ou ayant intensifié l’application des mesures déjà existantes. Il démontre que s’adapter à ce climat de régulation, qui a eu pour effet d’intensifier le rythme des inspections surprises, a des conséquences certaines sur le quotidien d’une clinique, sur le moral du personnel et des patients, sur la capacité des médecins expérimentés à fournir une qualité de soin axée sur les patientes tout en transmettant ce modèle à leurs jeunes collègues. Il suggère en conclusion que le système actuel de régulation qui régit la prise en charge des avortements dans de nombreux États est un exemple, poussé à l’extrême, de « contrôle reproductif », concept émergent en recherche en science sociale sur la reproduction

Training Genetic Counsellors to Deliver an Innovative Therapeutic Intervention: their views and experience of facilitating multi-family discussion groups

Innovations in clinical genetics have increased diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of inherited genetic conditions (IGCs). This has led to an increased number of families seeking genetic testing and / or genetic counselling and increased the clinical load for genetic counsellors (GCs). Keeping pace with biomedical discoveries, interventions are required to support families to understand, communicate and cope with their Inherited Genetic Condition. The Socio-Psychological Research in Genomics (SPRinG) collaborative have developed a new intervention, based on multi-family discussion groups (MFDGs), to support families affected by IGCs and train GCs in its delivery. A potential challenge to implementing the intervention was whether GCs were willing and able to undergo the training to deliver the MFDG. In analysing three multi-perspective interviews with GCs, this paper evaluates the training received. Findings suggests that MFDGs are a potential valuable resource in supporting families to communicate genetic risk information and can enhance family function and emotional well-being. Furthermore, we demonstrate that it is feasible to train GCs in the delivery of the intervention and that it has the potential to be integrated into clinical practice. Its longer term implementation into routine clinical practice however relies on changes in both organisation of clinical genetics services and genetic counsellors' professional development

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Normalizing the exceptional: incorporating the "abortion pill" into mainstream medicine

Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, and in the US known as "the French abortion pill", finally received FDA approval in the United States in September 2000. This paper discusses the steps now in process to integrate this drug into mainstream healthcare and the sociological implications of those efforts. Each of the steps that is normally taken to introduce a newly approved medication in the US context is rendered highly complex in the case of mifepristone--because of the unique circumstances of abortion in both American culture generally, and medical culture specifically. The story of RU-486/mifepristone, as it is currently unfolding, can be understood as one of attempting to "normalize the exceptional". After offering a brief historical overview of the protracted struggle for FDA approval of mifepristone in the US, this paper discusses the typical processes for integration of a newly approved medication into mainstream medicine and contrasts this process with the special challenges posed by a drug that is associated with abortion. We outline the challenges to implementation, including both external and internal obstacles. We compare the traditional role of a pharmaceutical company in drug diffusion and the circumstances of the company that produces mifepristone in the US. We discuss such external obstacles as the conflict between the FDA-approved regime and an evidence-based alternative; the necessity for physicians to order and dispense this drug; the ambiguity over the need for ultrasonography; and insurance reimbursement, malpractice, and other legal issues. Internal issues addressed include "turf issues" between medical specialties and between physicians and advanced practice clinicians as well as concerns over "cowboy medicine", and patient compliance. This paper concludes with an exploration of the sociological implications of this effort to "normalize the exceptional".Abortion Mifepristone Technological diffusion United States

Greasing the wheels: The impact of COVID-19 on US physician attitudes and practices regarding medication abortion.

ObjectiveTo explore US provider perspectives about self-sourced medication abortion and how their attitudes and clinic practices changed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Study designWe conducted a multi-method study of survey and interview data. We performed 40 baseline interviews and surveys in spring 2019 and 36 follow-up surveys and ten interviews one year later. We compared pre- and post-Likert scale responses of provider views on the importance of different aspects of standard medication abortion assessment and evaluation (e.g., related to ultrasounds and blood-typing). We performed content analysis of the follow-up interviews using deductive-inductive analysis.ResultsSurvey results revealed that clinics substantially changed their medication abortion protocols in response to COVID-19, with more than half increasing their gestational age limits and introducing telemedicine for follow-up of a medication abortion. Interview analysis suggested that physicians were more supportive of self-sourced medication abortion in response to changing clinic protocols that decreased in-clinic assessment and evaluation for medication abortion, and as a result of physicians' altered assessments of risk in the context of COVID-19. Having evidence already in place that supported these practice changes made the implementation of new protocols more efficient, while working in a state with restrictive abortion policies thwarted the flexibility of clinics to adapt to changes in standards of care.ConclusionThis exploratory study reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical assessment of risk and has shifted practice towards a less medicalized model. Further work to facilitate person-centered abortion information and care can build on initial modifications in response to the pandemic.ImplicationsCOVID-19 has shifted clinician perception of risk and has catalyzed a change in clinical protocols for medication abortion. However, state laws and policies that regulate medication abortion limit physician ability to respond to changes in risk assessment

Greasing the wheels: The impact of COVID-19 on US physician attitudes and practices regarding medication abortion.

ObjectiveTo explore US provider perspectives about self-sourced medication abortion and how their attitudes and clinic practices changed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Study designWe conducted a multi-method study of survey and interview data. We performed 40 baseline interviews and surveys in spring 2019 and 36 follow-up surveys and ten interviews one year later. We compared pre- and post-Likert scale responses of provider views on the importance of different aspects of standard medication abortion assessment and evaluation (e.g., related to ultrasounds and blood-typing). We performed content analysis of the follow-up interviews using deductive-inductive analysis.ResultsSurvey results revealed that clinics substantially changed their medication abortion protocols in response to COVID-19, with more than half increasing their gestational age limits and introducing telemedicine for follow-up of a medication abortion. Interview analysis suggested that physicians were more supportive of self-sourced medication abortion in response to changing clinic protocols that decreased in-clinic assessment and evaluation for medication abortion, and as a result of physicians' altered assessments of risk in the context of COVID-19. Having evidence already in place that supported these practice changes made the implementation of new protocols more efficient, while working in a state with restrictive abortion policies thwarted the flexibility of clinics to adapt to changes in standards of care.ConclusionThis exploratory study reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical assessment of risk and has shifted practice towards a less medicalized model. Further work to facilitate person-centered abortion information and care can build on initial modifications in response to the pandemic.ImplicationsCOVID-19 has shifted clinician perception of risk and has catalyzed a change in clinical protocols for medication abortion. However, state laws and policies that regulate medication abortion limit physician ability to respond to changes in risk assessment