Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care. Results: The ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured. Conclusions: The COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care

Fraud sentencing: a systematic literature review

Literature review only

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts.MethodsWe undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care.ResultsThe ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges.Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility.During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care

The priority species indicator: measuring the trends in threatened species in the UK

We describe the development of two complementary priority species indicators (PSIs) to help the UK to report progress towards Aichi target 12 on the status of known threatened species. Based on species identified as national conservation priorities, the indicators present average changes in (i) 213 species for which trends in relative abundance are available from structured monitoring schemes, and (ii) 179 species for which trends in frequency of occurrence were modelled from data sets of unstructured biological records. Both indicators show substantial declines in priority species since 1970, of 67% and 40%, respectively, although the rate of decline in the relative abundance-based PSI may have lessened over the last five years (2007–2012). We discuss the biases and weaknesses of the indicators at present, and put forward suggestions as how these may be addressed, including through the development of a third PSI

Making maternity and neonatal care personalised in the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the Babies Born Better survey in the UK and the Netherlands

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on women’s birth experiences. To date, there are no studies that use both quantitative and qualitative data to compare women’s birth experiences before and during the pandemic, across more than one country. Aim To examine women’s birth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the experiences of women who gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) or the Netherlands (NL) either before or during the pandemic. Method This study is based on analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from the online Babies Born Better survey. Responses recorded by women giving birth in the UK and the NL between June and December 2020 have been used, encompassing women who gave birth between 2017 and 2020. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and chi-squared tests were performed to compare women who gave birth pre- versus during pandemic and separately by country. Qualitative data was analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Findings Respondents in both the UK and the NL who gave birth during the pandemic were as likely, or, if they had a self-reported above average standard of life, more likely to rate their labour and birth experience positively when compared to women who gave birth pre-pandemic. This was despite the fact that those labouring in the pandemic reported a lack of support and limits placed on freedom of choice. Two potential explanatory themes were identified in the qualitative data: respondents had lower expectations of care during the pandemic, and they appreciated the efforts of staff to give individualised care, despite the rules. Conclusion Our study implies that many women labouring during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced restrictions, but their experience was mitigated by staff actions. However, personalised care should not be maintained by the good will of care providers, but should be a priority in maternity care policy to benefit all service users equitably