Maternity services in the UK during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a national survey of modifications to standard care

Objective To explore the modifications to maternity services across the UK, in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, in the context of the pandemic guidance issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and NHS England. Design National survey. Setting UK maternity services during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Population or sample Healthcare professionals working within maternity services. Methods A national electronic survey was developed to investigate local modifications to general and specialist maternity care during the COVID‐19 pandemic, in the context of the contemporaneous national pandemic guidance. After a pilot phase, the survey was distributed through professional networks by the RCOG and co‐authors. The survey results were presented descriptively in tabular and graphic formats, with proportions compared using chi‐square tests. Main outcome measures Service modifications made during the pandemic. Results A total of 81 respondent sites, 42% of the 194 obstetric units in the UK, were included. They reported substantial and heterogeneous maternity service modifications. Seventy percent of units reported a reduction in antenatal appointments and 56% reported a reduction in postnatal appointments; 89% reported using remote consultation methods. A change to screening pathways for gestational diabetes mellitus was reported by 70%, and 59% had temporarily removed the offer of births at home or in a midwife‐led unit. A reduction in emergency antenatal presentations was experienced by 86% of units. Conclusions This national survey documents the extensive impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on maternity services in the UK. More research is needed to understand the impact on maternity outcomes and experience

Measuring the quality and quantity of professional intrapartum support: Testing a computerised systematic observation tool in the clinical setting

Background: Continuous support in labour has a significant impact on a range of clinical outcomes, though whether the quality and quantity of support behaviours affects the strength of this impact has not yet been established. To identify the quality and quantity of support, a reliable means of measurement is needed. To this end, a new computerised systematic observation tool, the ‘SMILI' (Supportive Midwifery in Labour Instrument) was developed. The aim of the study was to test the validity and usability of the ‘Supportive Midwifery in Labour Instrument' (SMILI) and to test the feasibility and acceptability of the systematic observation approach in the clinical intrapartum setting. Methods: Systematic observation was combined with a postnatal questionnaire and the collection of data about clinical processes and outcomes for each observed labour. The setting for the study was four National Health Service maternity units in Scotland, UK. Participants in this study were forty five midwives and forty four women. The SMILI was used by trained midwife observers to record labour care provided by midwives. Observations were undertaken for an average of two hours and seventeen minutes during the active first stage of labour and, in 18 cases, the observation included the second stage of labour. Content validity of the instrument was tested by the observers, noting the extent to which the SMILI facilitated the recording of all key aspects of labour care and interactions. Construct validity was tested through exploration of correlations between the data recorded and women's feelings about the support they received. Feasibility and usability data were recorded following each observation by the observer. Internal reliability and construct validity were tested through statistical analysis of the data. Results: One hundred and four hours of labour care were observed and recorded using the SMILI during forty nine labour episodes. Conclusion: The SMILI was found to be a valid and reliable instrument in the intrapartum setting in which it was tested. The study identified that the SMILI could be used to test correlations between the quantity and quality of support and outcomes. The systematic observational approach was found to be an acceptable and feasible method of enquiry

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

Pain relief in labour: a qualitative study to determine how to support women to make decisions about pain relief in labour

Background Engagement in decision making is a key priority of modern healthcare. Women are encouraged to make decisions about pain relief in labour in the ante-natal period based upon their expectations of what labour pain will be like. Many women find this planning difficult. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women can be better supported in preparing for, and making, decisions during pregnancy and labour regarding pain management. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primiparous and 10 multiparous women at 36 weeks of pregnancy and again within six weeks postnatally. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently to identify key themes. Results Three main themes emerged from the data. Firstly, during pregnancy women expressed a degree of uncertainty about the level of pain they would experience in labour and the effect of different methods of pain relief. Secondly, women reflected on how decisions had been made regarding pain management in labour and the degree to which they had felt comfortable making these decisions. Finally, women discussed their perceived levels of control, both desired and experienced, over both their bodies and the decisions they were making. Conclusion This study suggests that the current approach of antenatal preparation in the NHS, of asking women to make decisions antenatally for pain relief in labour, needs reviewing. It would be more beneficial to concentrate efforts on better informing women and on engaging them in discussions around their values, expectations and preferences and how these affect each specific choice rather than expecting them to make to make firm decisions in advance of such an unpredictable event as labour

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

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

Background The 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. Aim To 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. Method A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders. Findings Both 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. Conclusion We 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

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

Abstract unavailable

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

Abstract unavailable