Classification of substandard factors in perinatal care:development and multidisciplinary inter-rater agreement of the Groningen-system

Background: Perinatal audit is an established method for improving the quality of perinatal care. In audit meetings substandard factors (SSF) are identified in cases of perinatal mortality and morbidity. To our knowledge there is no classification system specifically designed for the classification of substandard factors. Such a classification may help to standardise allocation of substandard factors to categories. This will help to prioritise, guide and implement actions in quality improvement programs. Methods: A classification system of 284 substandard factors (SSF) identified in perinatal audit meetings between 2007 and 2011 was drawn up using the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety as a starting point. Discussions were held on inter-rater disagreements, inclusion of items, format and organisation and definitions of the main-and subcategories. A guideline was developed. An independent multidisciplinary group tested the classification. Independent of inter-rater agreement the allocations to categories were counted. For the counts in the subcategories one and two, we used the allocations in the main category as reference. The chance corrected agreement between classifiers was tested with Cohen's kappa statistic. Results: The classification consists of 9 main categories with one or two subcategories. The main categories are (1) Equipment and Materials, (2) Medication, (3) Additional tests/investigations, (4) Transportation, (5) Documentation, (6) Communication, (7) Medical practice, (8) Other and (9) non classifiable. Of 3663 allocations by 13 classifiers 1452 SSF's were allocated (40 %) to 'medical practice' and 1247 (34 %) to 'documentation'. 118 (3 %) times SSF's were not classifiable, mainly due to unclear phrasing of the SSF. The chance corrected agreement of 284 substandard factors in the main category was 0.68 (95 % CI 0.66-0.70) and 0.57 (95 % CI 0.54-0.59) for the CDG and the IGD respectively. Conclusions: Classifying substandard factors has given insight into problem area's in perinatal care and can give direction to medical, political and financial quality improvement measures. The Groningen-system has well defined categories and subcategories and the guidelines and examples are clear. The multidisciplinary inter-rater agreement is moderate to good. Improvement of the phrasing of the substandard factors is expected to improve inter-rater agreement

Women’s positions during the second stage of labour: views of primary care midwives

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to explore the views of midwives on women’s positions during the second stage of labour. Background. Many authors recommend encouraging women to use positions that are most comfortable to them. Others advocate encouragement of non-supine positions, because offering ‘choice’ is not enough to reverse the strong cultural norm of giving birth in the supine position. Midwives’ views on women’s positions have rarely been explored. Method. Six focus groups were conducted in 2006–2007 with a purposive sample of 31 midwives. The data were interpreted using Thachuk’s models of informed consent and informed choice. Findings. The models were useful in distinguishing between two different approaches of midwives to women’s positions during labour. When giving informed consent, midwives implicitly or explicitly ask a woman’s consent for what they themselves prefer. When offering informed choice, a woman’s preference is the starting point, but midwives will suggest other options if this is in the woman’s interest. Obstetric factors and working conditions are reasons to deviate from women’s preferences. Conclusions. To give women an informed choice about birthing positions, midwives need to give them information during pregnancy and discuss their position preferences. Women should be prepared for the unpredictability of their feelings in labour and for obstetric factors that may interfere with their choice of position. Equipment for non-supine births should be more midwife-friendly. In addition, midwives and students need to be able to gain experience in assisting births in non-supine positions.

Better perineal outcomes in sitting birthing position cannot be explained by changing from upright to supine position for performing an episiotomy

Contains fulltext : 170805.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: women who give birth in supine position are more likely to have an episiotomy than women who give birth in sitting position. A confounding effect may be that women in upright positions in second stage of labour are asked to lie down if a professional needs to perform an episiotomy. This prospective cohort study aimed to determine whether this factor can explain the lower rate of episiotomy in sitting compared to supine position. METHODS: data from 1196 women who had a spontaneous, vaginal birth were analysed. Positions during second stage and at birth were carefully recorded. Three groups of birthing positions were compared in multivariable analyses: 1) horizontal during second stage and supine at birth (horizontal/supine), 2) horizontal and upright during second stage and supine at birth (various/supine), 3) sitting at birth regardless of the position in second stage. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for known risk factors for perineal damage. FINDINGS: women in sitting position at birth compared to those in the horizontal/supine group had a lower episiotomy rate (adjusted OR 0.28;95%-CI 0.14-0.56) and a non-significant higher intact perineum rate (adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.96-2.04). Women in the various/supine group compared to the horizontal/supine group had a similar episiotomy rate (adjusted OR 1.12;95%-CI 0.69-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: we did not confirm our hypothesis that more women in supine compared to sitting position have an episiotomy because women in upright position are asked to lie down if an episiotomy is necessary

The LENTE Study:The Effectiveness of Prophylactic Intramuscular Oxytocin in the Third Stage of Labor Among Low-Risk Women in Primary Care Midwifery Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE: To test third stage management of labor for low-risk women comparing routine prophylactic intramuscular oxytocin management versus modified expectant management. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled multicenter trial in primary care midwifery practice. MAJOR FINDINGS: 32.4% of women in the prophylactic intramuscular oxytocin management group had blood loss of 500 mL or more versus 44.2% in the modified expectant management group, relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.50, 0.74]. The percentage of women experiencing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) defined as more than 1,000 mL blood loss was 6.3% in the prophylactic intramuscular oxytocin management group versus 11.9% in the modified expectant management group (RR 0.50, 95% CI [0.36, 0.71]). The type of management showed no significant differences between the two groups in clinically relevant indicators of women's short-term health such as the number of referrals, treatment given, hemoglobin level 36 hours postpartum, and breastfeeding rates after 1 week. Medium-term health such as hemoglobin level at 6 weeks postpartum, women's perceptions of tiredness, and breastfeeding rates at 3 months after birth also showed no differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Third stage management by means of routine prophylactic intramuscular oxytocin reduced the risk of postpartum hemorrhage in a group of childbearing women at low risk of complications in primary midwifery care compared to modified expectant third stage management, but there was no evidence this was associated with a reduction in clinically relevant adverse health outcomes

The implementation of unit-based perinatal mortality audit in perinatal cooperation units in the northern region of the Netherlands

Background: Perinatal (mortality) audit can be considered to be a way to improve the careprocess for all pregnant women and their newborns by creating an opportunity to learn from unwanted events in the care process. In unit-based perinatal audit, the caregivers involved in cases that result in mortality are usually part of the audit group. This makes such an audit a delicate matter. Methods: The purpose of this study was to implement unit-based perinatal mortality audit in all 15 perinatal cooperation units in the northern region of the Netherlands between September 2007 and March 2010. These units consist of hospital-based and independent community-based perinatal caregivers. The implementation strategy encompassed an information plan, an organization plan, and a training plan. The main outcomes are the number of participating perinatal cooperation units at the end of the project, the identified substandard factors (SSF), the actions to improve care, and the opinions of the participants. Results: The perinatal mortality audit was implemented in all 15 perinatal cooperation units. 677 different caregivers analyzed 112 cases of perinatal mortality and identified 163 substandard factors. In 31% of cases the guidelines were not followed and in 23% care was not according to normal practice. In 28% of cases, the documentation was not in order, while in 13% of cases the communication between caregivers was insufficient. 442 actions to improve care were reported for 'external cooperation' (15%), 'internal cooperation' (17%), 'practice organization' (26%), 'training and education' (10%), and 'medical performance' (27%). Valued aspects of the audit meetings were: the multidisciplinary character (13%), the collective and non-judgmental search for substandard factors (21%), the perception of safety (13%), the motivation to reflect on one's own professional performance (5%), and the inherent postgraduate education (10%). Conclusion: Following our implementation strategy, the perinatal mortality audit has been successfully implemented in all 15 perinatal cooperation units. An important feature was our emphasis on the delicate character of the caregivers evaluating the care they provided. However, the actual implementation of the proposed actions for improving care is still a point of concern