Decrease in foetal and neonatal mortality in the Netherlands; comparison with other Euro-Peristat countries in 2004, 2010 and 2015

OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in foetal, neonatal and perinatal mortality in the Netherlands in 2015, relative to 2004 and 2010, with changes in other European countries and regions. DESIGN: Descriptive population-wide study. METHOD: Data from 32 European countries and regions within the Euro-Peristat registration area were analysed. These countries and regions were grouped into: the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Western Europe and Eastern Europe. International differences in registration and policies were taken into account by using rates from 28 weeks gestation for foetal mortality and for 24 weeks gestation and beyond for neonatal mortality. Ranking was based on individual countries and regions. RESULTS: Foetal mortality decreased by 24% in the Netherlands, from 2.9 per 1,000 births in 2010 to 2.2 per 1,000 births in 2015; neonatal mortality decreased by 9%, from 2.2 to 2.0 per 1,000 live births. Perinatal mortality (the sum of foetal mortality and neonatal mortality) decreased by 18% from 5.1 to 4.2 per 1,000 births. The Netherlands moved from the 18th place in the European ranking in 2004 to the 10th place in 2015. CONCLUSION: Foetal, neonatal and perinatal mortality in the Netherlands decreased in 2015 when compared with 2004 and 2010. The country's position in the European ranking also improved. Explanations for this decrease are related to changes in the areas of organisation of care, population and risk factors. When mortality rates in other European countries and regions - particularly Scandinavia - are considered there is room for further improvement

Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study

Contains fulltext : 154413.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman's chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth). METHODS: We performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008-2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined. RESULTS: The intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety