Optimal outcomes and women's positive pregnancy experience: a comparison between the World Health Organization guideline and recommendations in European national antenatal care guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on antenatal care in 2016 introduced the perspective of women as a necessary component of clinical guidelines in maternity care. WHO highlights the crucial role played by evidence-based recommendations in promoting and supporting normal birth processes and a positive experience of pregnancy. This paper aims to explore and critically appraise recommendations of national antenatal care guidelines across European countries in comparison with the WHO guideline. METHODS: We collected guidelines from country partners of the EU COST Action IS1405. Components of the documents structure and main recommendations within and between them were compared and contrasted with the WHO guideline on antenatal care with a particular interest in exploring whether and how women's experience was included in the recommendations. RESULTS: Eight out of eleven countries had a single national guideline on antenatal care while three countries did not. National guidelines mostly focused on care of healthy women with a straightforward pregnancy. The level of concordance between the national and the WHO recommendations varied along a continuum from almost total concordance to almost total dissonance. Women's views and experiences were accounted for in some guidelines, but mostly not placed at the same level of importance as clinical items. CONCLUSIONS: Findings outline convergences and divergences with the WHO recommendations. They highlight the need for considering women's views more in the development of evidence-based recommendations and in practice for positive impacts on perinatal health at a global level, and on the experiences of each family

Nonsuturing or Skin Adhesives versus Suturing of the Perineal Skin After Childbirth: A Systematic Review

Suturing of perineal trauma after childbirth can cause problems such as pain, discomfort because of tight sutures, the need for suture removal, and dyspareunia. It is unclear whether leaving the perineal skin unsutured or using skin adhesives might prevent these problems. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and prospective trial registers until January 2013 were searched for (quasi-)randomized controlled trials comparing nonsuturing of the perineal skin or skin adhesives versus suturing of the skin when repairing a second-degree perineal tear or episiotomy. Primary outcome measure was short-term and long-term pain and need for analgesic medication. Four randomized and two quasi-randomized controlled trials (involving 2,922 women) with heterogeneity in contexts, designs, and methodological quality were included. Nonsuturing of the skin leads to less short-term and long-term pain compared to suturing and an increased rate of skin separation. Skin adhesives lead to less short-term pain without an increased rate of skin separation. Nonsuturing or skin adhesives lead to less complaints and there are no other adverse effects. Nonsuturing of the skin or the use of skin adhesives appears preferable in terms of pain. Nonsuturing could lead to more short-term skin separation when no adhesives are used, but there is no evidence for the clinical importance of skin separation. There is a need for studies with a follow-up of at least 6 months, in which pain is measured homogeneously and for studies comparing the use of skin adhesives with nonsuturing of the skin with the focus on long-term cosmetic result

(Un)warranted variation in local hospital protocols for neonatal referral to the pediatrician: An explorative study in the Netherlands

Background Studies indicate unwarranted variation in a wide range of neonatal care practices, contributing to preventable morbidity and mortality. Unwarranted variation is the result of complex interactions and multiple determinants. One of the determinants contributing to unwarranted variation in care may be variation in local hospital protocols. The purpose of this study was to examine variation in the content of obstetric and neonatal protocols for six common indications for neonatal referral to the pediatrician: large for gestational age/macrosomia, small for gestational age/fetal growth restriction, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, vacuum extraction, forceps extraction, and cesarean birth. Methods We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study examining protocols for neonatal referral to the pediatrician in the obstetric and neonatal departments of all Dutch hospitals. Variation in protocols was analyzed between regions, between neonatal and obstetrics departments located in the same hospital, and within neonatal and obstetrics departments. Results There was considerable variation in protocols between regions, between neonatal and obstetrics departments, and within neonatal and obstetrics departments. The results of this study showed considerable variation in recommendations for type of referral, admission, screening/diagnostic tests, treatment, and discharge. Furthermore, results generally showed lower referral thresholds in neonatal departments compared with obstetric departments, and higher referral thresholds in the eastern region of the Netherlands. We also found variation in local hospital protocols, which could not be explained by population characteristics but which may be explained by varying recommendations in existing national and international guidelines and/or lack of adherence to these guidelines. Conclusions To reduce unwarranted variation in local protocols, evidence-based, multidisciplinary guidelines should be developed in the Netherlands. Further research addressing knowledge gaps is needed to inform these guidelines. Attention should be paid to the implementation of evidence, and only where evidence is lacking or inconclusive should agreements be based on multidisciplinary consensus. Where protocols deviate from evidence-based guidelines because of specific local circumstances, clearer, more transparent justifications should be made. Uniformity in guidance will offer clear standards for care evaluation and provide opportunities to reduce inappropriate care

Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study

Abstract Background Although interventions in childbirth are important in order to prevent neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, non-indicated use may cause avoidable harm. Regional variations in intervention rates, which cannot be explained by maternal characteristics, may indicate over- and underuse. The aim of this study is to explore regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands and their associations with interventions and adverse outcomes, controlled for maternal characteristics. Methods Childbirth intervention rates were compared between twelve Dutch regions, using data from the national perinatal birth register for 2010–2013. All single childbirths from 37 weeks’ gestation onwards were included. Primary outcomes were induction and augmentation of labour, pain medication, instrumental birth, caesarean section (prelabour, intrapartum) and paediatric involvement. Secondary outcomes were adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for maternal characteristics. Associations were expressed in Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. Results Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement. Epidural analgesia rates varied from between 12 and 38% (nulliparous) and from between 5 and 14% (multiparous women). These rates were negatively correlated with rates of other pharmacological pain relief, which varied from between 15 and 43% (nulliparous) and from between 10 and 27% (multiparous). Rates of paediatric involvement varied from between 37 and 60% (nulliparous) and from between 26 and 43% (multiparous). For instrumental vaginal births, rates varied from between 16 and 19% (nulliparous) and from between 3 and 4% (multiparous). For intrapartum caesarean section, the variation was 13–15% and 5–6%, respectively. A positive correlation was found between intervention rates in midwife-led and obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour within the same region. Adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes were not lower in regions with higher intervention rates. Higher augmentation of labour rates correlated with higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhage. Conclusions Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement, and least for instrumental vaginal births and intrapartum caesarean sections. Care providers and policy makers should critically audit remarkable variations, since these may be unwarranted. Limited variation for some interventions may indicate consensus for their use. Further research should focus on variations in evidence-based interventions and indications for the use of interventions in childbirth

Additional file 1: of Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study

Tables with correlations within and between interventions and obstetric outcomes tested with Spearman’s rho: Table S5. Correlations within interventions among women in midwife-led and interventions among women in obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour; Table S6. Correlations between interventions in subgroups of women in midwife- or obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour; Table S7. Correlations between interventions; Table S8. Correlations between interventions and obstetric outcomes (DOCX 22 kb

Additional file 2: of Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study

A table with multivariable logistic regression of intervention rates by region, in the following subgroups: all women; women in midwife-led care at the onset labour; women in obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour. Table S4: Crude and adjusted* ORs of childbirth interventions by region, compared to the weighted mean, with 99% CIs (DOCX 59 kb