Evaluation of satisfaction with care in a midwifery unit and an obstetric unit: a randomized controlled trial of low-risk women

Publisher's version, source: http://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0932-x.BACKGROUND Satisfaction with birth care is part of quality assessment of care. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in satisfaction with intrapartum care among low-risk women, randomized to a midwifery unit or to an obstetric unit within the same hospital. METHODS Randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway. A total of 485 women with no expressed preference for level of birth care, assessed to be at low-risk at onset of spontaneous labor were included. To assess the overall satisfaction with intrapartum care, the Labour and Delivery Satisfaction Index (LADSI) questionnaire, was sent to the participants 6 months after birth. To assess women’s experience with intrapartum transfer, four additional items were added. In addition, we tested the effects of the following aspects on satisfaction; obstetrician involved, intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to the obstetric unit during labor, mode of delivery and epidural analgesia. RESULTS Women randomized to the midwifery unit were significantly more satisfied with intrapartum care than those randomized to the obstetric unit (183 versus 176 of maximum 204 scoring points, mean difference 7.2, p = 0.002). No difference was found between the units for women who had an obstetrician involved during labor or delivery and who answered four additional questions on this aspect (mean item score 4.0 at the midwifery unit vs 4.3 at the obstetric unit, p = 0.3). Intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to an obstetric unit, operative delivery and epidurals influenced the level of overall satisfaction in a negative direction regardless of allocated unit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Low-risk women with no expressed preference for level of birth care were more satisfied if allocated to the midwifery unit compared to the obstetric unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial is registered at www.​clinicaltrials.​gov NCT00857129. Initially released 03/05/2009

Experiences of non-progressive and augmented labour among nulliparous women: a qualitative interview study in a Grounded Theory approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-progressive labour is the most common complication in nulliparas and is primarily treated by augmentation. Augmented labour is often terminated by instrumental delivery. Little qualitative research has addressed experiences of non-progressive and augmented deliveries. The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the experience of non-progressive and augmented labour among nulliparas and their experience of the care they received.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study was conducted using individual interviews. Data was collected and analysed according to the Grounded Theory method. The participants were a purposive sample of ten women. The interviews were conducted 4–15 weeks after delivery.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The women had contrasting experiences during the birth process. During labour there was a conflict between the expectation of having a natural delivery and actually having a medical delivery. The women experienced a feeling of separation between mind and body. Interacting with the midwife had a major influence on feelings of losing and regaining control. Reconciliation between the contrasting feelings during labour was achieved. The core category was named Dialectical Birth Process and comprised three categories: Balancing natural and medical delivery, Interacting, Losing and regaining control.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A dialectical process was identified in these women's experiences of non-progressive labour. The process is susceptible to interaction with the midwife; especially her support to the woman's feeling of being in control. Midwives should secure that the woman's recognition of the fact that the labour is non-progressive and augmentation is required is handled with respect for the dialectical process. Augmentation of labour should be managed as close to the course of natural labour and delivery as possible.</p

Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review

Background Satisfaction is the one of the most frequently reported outcome measures for quality of care. Assessment of satisfaction with maternity services is crucial, and psychometrically sound measures are needed if this is to inform health practices. This paper comparatively reviews current measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth. Methods A review of the literature was conducted. Studies were located through computerised databases and hand searching references of identified articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were that the questionnaire was a multi-item scale of satisfaction with care during labour and birth, and some form of psychometric information (either information about questionnaire construction, or reliability, or validity) had to be reported. Results Nine questionnaires of satisfaction with care during labour and birth were identified. Instruments varied in psychometric properties and dimensions. Most described questionnaire construction and tested some form of reliability and validity. Measures were generally not based on the main theoretical models of satisfaction and varied in scope and application to different types of samples (e.g. satisfaction following caesarean section). For an in-depth measure of satisfaction with intrapartum care, the Intrapartal-Specific Quality from the Patient’s Perspective questionnaire (QPP-I) is recommended. Brief measures with good reliability and validity are provided by the Six Simple Questions (SSQ) or Perceptions of Care Adjective Checklist (PCACL-R). Conclusions Despite the interest in measures of satisfaction there are only a small number of validated measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth. It is important that brief, reliable and valid measures are available for use in general and specific populations in order to assist research and inform practice

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

Births in two different delivery units in the same clinic – A prospective study of healthy primiparous women

Background: Earlier studies indicate that midwife-led birth settings are associated with modest benefits, including reduced medical interventions and increased maternal satisfaction. The generalizability of these studies to birth settings with low intervention rates, like those generally found in Norway, is not obvious. The aim of the present study was to compare intervention rates associated with labour in low-risk women who begin their labour in a midwife-led unit and a conventional care unit. Methods: Eligible participants were low-risk primiparas who met the criteria for delivery in the midwife-led ward regardless of which cohort they were allocated to. The two wards are localised at the same floor. Women in both cohorts received the same standardized public antenatal care by general medical practitioners and midwifes who were not involved in the delivery. After admission of a woman to the midwife-led ward, the next woman who met the inclusion criteria, but preferred delivery at the conventional delivery ward, was allocated to the conventional delivery ward cohort. Among the 252 women in the midwife-led ward cohort, 74 (29%) women were transferred to the conventional delivery ward during labour. Results: Emergency caesarean and instrumental delivery rates in women who were admitted to the midwife-led and conventional birth wards were statistically non-different, but more women admitted to the conventional birth ward had episiotomy. More women in the conventional delivery ward received epidural analgesia, pudental nerve block and nitrous oxide, while more women in the midwife-led ward received opiates and non-pharmacological pain relief. Conclusion: We did not find evidence that starting delivery in the midwife-led setting offers the advantage of lower operative delivery rates. However, epidural analgesia, pudental nerve block and episiotomies were less often while non-pharmacological pain relief was often used in the midwifeled ward

An exploration of influences on women’s birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the Evaluating Maternity Units study

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide debate surrounding the safety and appropriateness of different birthplaces for well women. One of the primary objectives of the Evaluating Maternity Units prospective cohort study was to compare the clinical outcomes for well women, intending to give birth in either an obstetric-led tertiary hospital or a free-standing midwifery-led primary maternity unit. This paper addresses a secondary aim of the study – to describe and explore the influences on women’s birthplace decision-making in New Zealand, which has a publicly funded, midwifery-led continuity of care maternity system. METHODS: This mixed method study utilised data from the six week postpartum survey and focus groups undertaken in the Christchurch area in New Zealand (2010–2012). Christchurch has a tertiary hospital and four primary maternity units. The survey was completed by 82% of the 702 study participants, who were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these places. All women received midwifery-led continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: Almost all the respondents perceived themselves as the main birthplace decision-makers. Accessing a ‘specialist facility’ was the most important factor for the tertiary hospital group. The primary unit group identified several factors, including ‘closeness to home’, ‘ease of access’, the ‘atmosphere’ of the unit and avoidance of ‘unnecessary intervention’ as important. Both groups believed their chosen birthplace was the right and ‘safe’ place for them. The concept of ‘safety’ was integral and based on the participants’ differing perception of safety in childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: Birthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women’s experience of childbirth. This is the first published study reporting New Zealand women’s perspectives on their birthplace decision-making. The groups’ responses expressed different ideologies about childbirth. The tertiary hospital group identified with the ‘medical model’ of birth, and the primary unit group identified with the ‘midwifery model’ of birth. Research evidence affirming the ‘clinical safety’ of primary units addresses only one aspect of the beliefs influencing women’s birthplace decision-making. In order for more women to give birth at a primary unit other aspects of women’s beliefs need addressing, and much wider socio-political change is required

Childbirth experience questionnaire: validating its use in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) was developed in Sweden in 2010 and validated in 920 primiparous women. It has not been validated in the United Kingdom (UK). Measuring the impact of an intervention on a woman's childbirth experience is arguably as important as measuring its impact on outcomes such as caesarean delivery and perinatal morbidity or mortality and yet surprisingly it is rarely done. The lack of a robust validated tool for evaluating labour experience in the UK is a topical issue in the UK at present. Indeed NICE say 'A standardised method to measure and quantify women's psychological and emotional wellbeing and their birth experiences is urgently required to support any study investigating the effectiveness of interventions, techniques or strategies during birth.' METHODS: The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire and part of the Care Quality Commission Maternity Survey (2010) was sent to 350 women at one month postnatal. The CEQ was sent again two weeks later. The CEQ was tested for face validity among 25 postnatal mothers. Demographic data and delivery data was used to establish construct validity of the CEQ using the method of known-groups validation. The results of the scored CEQ sent out twice were used to measure test-retest reliability of the CEQ by calculating the quadratic weighted index of agreement between the two scores. Criterion validity was measured by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient for the CEQ and Maternity Survey scores. RESULTS: Face validity of the CEQ in a UK population was demonstrated with all respondents stating it was easy to understand and complete. A statistically significantly higher CEQ score for subgroups of women known to report a better birth outcome demonstrated construct validity of the CEQ. A weighted kappa of 0.68 demonstrated test-retest reliability of the CEQ. A Pearson correlation co-efficient of 0.73 demonstrated a strong correlation between the results of the CEQ and the results of the 'gold standard' assessment of childbirth experience in the UK: the Maternity Survey and hence criterion validity of the CEQ. CONCLUSIONS: The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of childbirth experience in the UK population

A failed RCT to determine if antibiotics prevent mastitis: Cracked nipples colonized with Staphylococcus aureus: A randomized treatment trial [ISRCTN65289389]

BACKGROUND: A small, non-blinded, RCT (randomised controlled trial) had reported that oral antibiotics reduced the incidence of mastitis in lactating women with Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus)- colonized cracked nipples. We aimed to replicate the study with a more rigorous design and adequate sample size. METHODS: Our intention was to conduct a double-blind placebo-controlled trial to determine if an antibiotic (flucloxacillin) could prevent mastitis in lactating women with S. aureus-colonized cracked nipples. We planned to recruit two groups of 133 women with S. aureus-colonized cracked nipples. RESULTS: We spent over twelve months submitting applications to five hospital ethics committees and seven funding bodies, before commencing the trial. Recruitment to the trial was very slow and only ten women were randomized to the trial after twelve months, and therefore the trial was stopped early. CONCLUSIONS: In retrospect we should have conducted a feasibility study, which would have revealed the low number of women in these Melbourne hospitals (maternity wards and breastfeeding clinics) with damaged nipples. The appropriate use of antibiotics for breastfeeding women with cracked nipples still needs to be tested