Measuring the quantity and quality of midwifery support of women during labour and childbirth: The development and testing of the 'Supportive Midwifery in Labour Instrument'

The thesis describes the development and testing of a new computer based systematic observation instrument designed to facilitate the recording and measurement of the quantity and quality of midwifery intrapartum support. The content of the systematic observation instrument, the ‘SMILI’ (Supportive Midwifery in Labour Instrument), was based on a comprehensive review of the literature. The instrument was found to be valid and reliable in a series of studies. The feasibility and usability of the SMILI was extensively tested in the clinical setting in four maternity units in Scotland, UK. One hundred and five hours of direct observation of forty nine labour episodes were undertaken by four trained midwife observers. The clinical study demonstrated that the study and the instrument were feasible, usable and successful in measuring the quantity and quality of midwifery intrapartum support. The data collected has provided significant new information about the support given by midwives in the National Health Service of Scotland, UK. Continuous one to one support was the norm, with 92% of the observed midwives in the room for more than 80% of the observation period. Emotional support, including rapport building, encouragement and praise, was the most frequently recorded category of support

Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of multi-component antenatal care interventions on service delivery and outcomes in many countries since the 1980s. Some have applied entirely new schemes, while others have modified existing care delivery approaches. Systematic reviews (SRs) indicate that some specific antenatal interventions are more effective than others; however the causal mechanisms leading to better outcomes are poorly understood, limiting implementation and future research. As a first step in identifying what might be making the difference we conducted a scoping review of interventions tested in RCTs in order to establish a taxonomy of antenatal care models. METHODS: A protocol-driven systematic search was undertaken of databases for RCTs and SRs reporting antenatal care interventions. Results were unrestricted by time or locality, but limited to English language. Key characteristics of both experimental and control interventions in the included trials were mapped using SPIO (Study design; Population; Intervention; Outcomes) criteria and the intervention and principal outcome measures were described. Commonalities and differences between the components that were being tested in each study were identified by consensus, resulting in a comprehensive description of emergent models for antenatal care interventions. RESULTS: Of 13,050 articles retrieved, we identified 153 eligible articles including 130 RCTs in 34 countries. The interventions tested in these trials varied from the number of visits to the location of care provision, and from the content of care to the professional/lay group providing that care. In most studies neither intervention nor control arm was well described. Our analysis of the identified trials of antenatal care interventions produced the following taxonomy: Universal provision model (for all women irrespective of health state or complications); Restricted 'lower-risk'-based provision model (midwifery-led or reduced/flexible visit approach for healthy women); Augmented provision model (antenatal care as in Universal provision above but augmented by clinical, educational or behavioural intervention); Targeted 'higher-risk'-based provision model (for woman with defined clinical or socio-demographic risk factors). The first category was most commonly tested in low-income countries (i.e. resource-poor settings), particularly in Asia. The other categories were tested around the world. The trials included a range of care providers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and lay workers. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions can be defined and described in many ways. The intended antenatal care population group proved the simplest and most clinically relevant way of distinguishing trials which might otherwise be categorised together. Since our review excluded non-trial interventions, the taxonomy does not represent antenatal care provision worldwide. It offers a stable and reproducible approach to describing the purpose and content of models of antenatal care which have been tested in a trial. It highlights a lack of reported detail of trial interventions and usual care processes. It provides a baseline for future work to examine and test the salient characteristics of the most effective models, and could also help decision-makers and service planners in planning implementation

Sustaining quality midwifery care in a pandemic and beyond

The rapid development of COVID-19 has altered the context of healthcare and services around the world. In maternal and newborn services, restrictive practices have been introduced in many settings that limit women’s decisions and the rights of women and newborn infants. In many countries the immediate response of the maternity services resulted in restrictions on the place of birth, continuity of care, and mother-baby contact. The UK provides an examples of a country in which an evidence-informed approach is now developing in which essential elements of quality can be maintained. To keep women, newborn infants, families, and staff safe in all countries, balance is needed between the restrictions required to control the spread of infection and maintaining evidence-informed, effective, equitable, respectful, kind and compassionate care. A set of key principles is proposed in this paper, to inform care and service provision in this current crisis and beyond. The public health and human rights agendas should be aligned. Covid-relevant, evidence-informed, rights-respecting, effective, compassionate, and sustainable public health and clinical policy, guidance, and practice should be developed. A pro-active strategy to inform longer-term planning for life during and after the pandemic should be grounded in evidence and co-created with women, families, and staff

Can promoting awareness of fetal movements and focussing interventions reduce fetal mortality? - A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (AFFIRM)

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the stillbirth rate in the UK was 4.2 per 1000 live births, ranking 24th out of 49 high-income countries, with an annual rate of reduction of only 1.4% per year. The majority of stillbirths occur in normally formed infants, with (retrospective) evidence of placental insufficiency the most common clinical finding. Maternal perception of reduced fetal movements (RFM) is associated with placental insufficiency and increased risk of subsequent stillbirth.This study will test the hypothesis that the introduction of a package of care to increase women's awareness of the need for prompt reporting of RFM and standardised management to identify fetal compromise with timely delivery in confirmed cases, will reduce the rate of stillbirth. Following the introduction of a similar intervention in Norway the odds of stillbirth fell by 30%, but the efficacy of this intervention (and possible adverse effects and implications for service delivery) has not been tested in a randomised trial. METHODS: We describe a stepped-wedge cluster trial design, in which participating hospitals in the UK and Ireland will be randomised to the timing of introduction of the care package. Outcomes (including the primary outcome of stillbirth) will be derived from detailed routinely collected maternity data, allowing us to robustly test our hypothesis. The degree of implementation of the intervention will be assessed in each site. A nested qualitative study will examine the acceptability of the intervention to women and healthcare providers and identify process issues including barriers to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 13/SS/0001) and from Research and Development offices in participating maternity units. The study started in February 2014 and delivery of the intervention completed in December 2016. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to local investigating sites to inform education and care of women presenting with RFM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01777022. VERSION: Protocol Version 4.2, 3 February 2017.</p

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.

BACKGROUND: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models' characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria. RESULTS: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0-32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised

‘Never waste a crisis’: a commentary on the COVID‐19 pandemic as a driver for innovation in maternity care

Abstract unavailable

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study

BackgroundThe national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises.AimTo compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations.MethodA multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders.FindingsBoth countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised.ConclusionWe recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events