J. van Dillen

Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study

Objectives To test the hypothesis that low risk women at the onset of labour with planned home birth have a higher rate of severe acute maternal morbidity than women with planned hospital birth, and to compare the rate of postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta. Design Cohort study using a linked dataset. Setting Information on all cases of severe acute maternal morbidity in the Netherlands collected by the national study into ethnic determinants of maternal morbidity in the netherlands (LEMMoN study), 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006, merged with data from the Netherlands perinatal register of all births occurring during the same period. Participants 146 752 low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour. Main outcome measures Severe acute maternal morbidity (admission to an intensive care unit, eclampsia, blood transfusion of four or more packed cells, and other serious events), postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta. Results Overall, 92 333 (62.9%) women had a planned home birth and 54 419 (37.1%) a planned hospital birth. The rate of severe acute maternal morbidity among planned primary care births was 2.0 per 1000 births. For nulliparous women the rate for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 2.3 versus 3.1 per 1000 births (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06), relative risk reduction 25.7% (95% confidence interval −0.1% to 53.5%), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 43.1 versus 43.3 (0.92, 0.85 to 1.00 and 0.5%, −6.8% to 7.9%), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 29.0 versus 29.8 (0.91, 0.83 to 1.00 and 2.8%, −6.1% to 11.8%). For parous women the rate of severe acute maternal morbidity for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 1.0 versus 2.3 per 1000 births (0.43, 0.29 to 0.63 and 58.3%, 33.2% to 87.5%), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 19.6 versus 37.6 (0.50, 0.46 to 0.55 and 47.9%, 41.2% to 54.7%), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 8.5 versus 19.6 (0.41, 0.36 to 0.47 and 56.9%, 47.9% to 66.3%). Conclusions Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous women these differences were statistically significant. Absolute risks were small in both groups. There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system.

Preventing traumatic childbirth experiences: 2192 women’s perceptions and views

The purpose of this study is to explore and quantify perceptions and experiences of women with a traumatic childbirth experience in order to identify areas for prevention and to help midwives and obstetricians improve woman-centered care. A retrospective survey was conducted online among 2192 women with a self-reported traumatic childbirth experience. Women were recruited in March 2016 through social media, including specific parent support groups. They filled out a 35-item questionnaire of which the most important items were (1) self-reported attributions of the trauma and how they believe the traumatic experience could have been prevented (2) by the caregivers or (3) by themselves. The responses most frequently given were (1) Lack and/or loss of control (54.6%), Fear for baby’s health/life (49.9%), and High intensity of pain/physical discomfort (47.4%); (2) Communicate/explain (39.1%), Listen to me (more) (36.9%), and Support me (more/better) emotionally/practically (29.8%); and (3) Nothing (37.0%), Ask for (26.9%), or Refuse (16.5%) certain interventions. Primiparous participants chose High intensity of pain/physical discomfort, Long duration of delivery, and Discrepancy between expectations and reality more often and Fear for own health/life, A bad outcome, and Delivery went too fast less often than multiparous participants. Women attribute their traumatic childbirth experience primarily to lack and/or loss of control, issues of communication, and practical/emotional support. They believe that in many cases, their trauma could have been reduced or prevented by better communication and support by their caregiver or if they themselves had asked for or refused interventions.

Survey of prophylactic use of uterotonics in the third stage of labour in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE aim of this study was to investigate current knowledge and practice regarding AMTSL in midwifery practices and obstetric departments in the Netherlands. DESIGN web-based and postal questionnaire. SETTING in August and September 2011 a questionnaire was sent to all midwifery practices and all obstetric departments in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS all midwifery practices (528) and all obstetric departments (91) in the Netherlands. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS the response was 87.5%. Administering prophylactic uterotonics was seen as a component AMTSL by virtually all respondents; 96.1% of midwives and 98.8% of obstetricians. Cord clamping was found as a component of AMTSL by 87.4% of midwives and by 88.1% of obstetricians. Uterine massage was only seen as a component of AMTSL by 10% of the midwives and 20.2% of the obstetricians. Midwifery practices routinely administer oxytocin in 60.1% of births. Obstetric departments do so in 97.6% (p<0.01). Compared to 1995, the prophylactic use of oxytocin had increased in 2011 both by midwives (10-59.1%) and by obstetricians (55-96.4%) (p<0.01). KEY CONCLUSIONS prophylactic administration of uterotonics directly after childbirth is perceived as the essential part of AMTSL. The administration of uterotonics has significantly increased in the last decade, but is not standard practice in the low-risk population supervised by midwives. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE the evidence for prophylactic administration of uterotonics is convincing for women who are at high risk of PPH. Regarding the lack of evidence of AMTSL to prevent PPH in low risk (home) births, further research concerning low-risk (home) births, supervised by midwives in industrialised countries is indicated. A national guideline containing best practices concerning management of the third stage of labour supervised by midwives, should be composed and implemented.

Pitfalls in the use of register‐based data for comparing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in different birth settings

Routinely collected registration data are an efficient source for conducting research. In particular, they are useful for studies with rare outcomes, as these require large sample sizes, which are difficult to obtain through targeted data collection. Registration data are often used to compare severe, adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in different birth settings. However, registration data are primarily recorded for purposes other than research, such as supporting care processes. Subsequently, if these data are used for scientific studies, the analyses are, by definition, ‘secondary’ and therefore are likely to have more limitations compared to prospectively and purposely collected research data. We want to show how some of these limitations can lead to erroneous conclusions, using the Dutch perinatal register as an example. This may help researchers to avoid some of the pitfalls of using register based data and help service users, professionals and policy makers to recognise these limitations when interpreting study findings. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Improving shared decision-making in a clinical obstetric ward by using the three questions intervention, a pilot study

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is an important aspect of modern health care. Many studies evaluated different interventions to improve SDM, however, none in an inpatient clinical setting. A tool that has been proven effective in an outpatient department is the three questions intervention. These questions are created for patients to get optimal information from their medical team and to make an informed medical decision. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of this simple intervention on SDM in the obstetric inpatient department of a university hospital in the Netherlands.MethodThis is a clinical pilot before and after study, using mixed methods with quantitative and qualitative data collection. The three questions were stated on a card; (i.e. 1) What are my options; 2) What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3) How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?). The study period lasted 6 weeks in which all patients admitted to the obstetric ward were asked to participate in the study. In the first 3 weeks patients did not receive the three questions intervention (pre-intervention group). In the final 3 weeks all patients included received the intervention (intervention group). The main quantitative outcome measure was the level of SDM measured using the SDM-Q9 questionnaire at discharge (range 0–100). In addition, interviews with four patients of the intervention group were conducted and qualitatively analyzed.ResultsThirty-three patients were included in the pre-intervention group, 29 patients in the intervention group. The mean score of the SDM-Q9 in the pre-intervention group was 65.5 (SD 22.83) and in the intervention group 63.2 (SD 20.21), a not statistically significant difference. In the interviews, patients reported the three questions to be very useful. They used the questions mainly as a prompt and encouragement to ask more specific questions.DiscussionNo difference in SDM was found between the two groups, possibly because of a small sample size. Yet the intervention appeared to be feasible and simple to use in an inpatient department. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of implementation of these three questions on a larger scale.

Multidisciplinary consensus on screening for, diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction in the Netherlands

BackgroundScreening for, diagnosis and management of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is often performed in multidisciplinary collaboration. However, variation in screening methods, diagnosis and management of IUGR may lead to confusion. In the Netherlands two monodisciplinary guidelines on IUGR do not fully align. To facilitate effective collaboration between different professionals in perinatal care, we undertook a Delphi study with uniform recommendations as our primary result, focusing on issues that are not aligned or for which specifications are lacking in the current guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi study in three rounds. A purposively sampled selection of 56 panellists participated: 27 representing midwife-led care and 29 obstetrician-led care. Consensus was defined as agreement between the professional groups on the same answer and among at least 70% of the panellists within groups.ResultsPer round 51 or 52 (91% - 93%) panellists responded. This has led to consensus on 27 issues, leading to four consensus based recommendations on screening for IUGR in midwife-led care and eight consensus based recommendations on diagnosis and eight on management in obstetrician-led care. The multidisciplinary project group decided on four additional recommendations as no consensus was reached by the panel. No recommendations could be made about induction of labour versus expectant monitoring, nor about the choice for a primary caesarean section.ConclusionsWe reached consensus on recommendations for care for IUGR within a multidisciplinary panel. These will be implemented in a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound for monitoring fetal growth. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of implementation of these recommendations on perinatal outcomes.Trial registrationNTR4367.