S Fumagalli

Intrapartum care quality indicators: a literature review

INTRODUCTION Quality of care is increasingly recognized as a critical aspect of the maternal and newborn health, mainly with respect to care around labor and delivery and in the immediate postnatal period. The aim of this review was to identify the recommended intrapartum care indicators in order to measure the quality of midwifery care. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A structured literature search was conducted in August 2017 incorporating English and Italian language studies from 1993 and onwards to identify published articles on quality standards of intrapartum care. Research was performed into the area of enquiry in electronic database (Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Trip) and in relevant midwifery websites. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We identified 369 quality indicators to measure the intrapartum care. Following a systematic process that allows to classify all indicators in domains and categories, we analyzed 268 outcome and process indicators specifically designated to monitor the intrapartum care in a low risk population. Through the identification of further exclusion criteria and semantic analogies we obtained 80 final quality indicators (39 outcome indicators and 41 process indicators). CONCLUSIONS We identified 80 indicators that should be used to measure the quality of low risk intrapartum care. Although the majority of indicators we could monitor through hospital databases and the Italian Birth Register-CeDAP are outcome indicators, it is important to give attention also to process indicators that measure the activities performed and whether or not they are evidence-based. For a low risk population they could measure adherence with guidelines that promote and support the normality of the process.

Prenatal diagnosis tests and women’s risk perception: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Objective: To investigate women’s decision to undergo non-invasive and/or invasive tests for prenatal diagnosis depending on the procedure-related risk and the risk of carrying a foetus with Down syndrome (DS). Both risks are rated in terms of numerical relevance and acceptability. Method: A sample of 448 consecutive women with low-risk pregnancies were interviewed to collect social and clinical variables and to determine their perceptions of the risks of invasive procedure-related miscarriage and carrying a foetus with DS. The risks were scored numerically in terms of their relevance and acceptability using a 10-point rating scale. Results: The factors related to the use of non-invasive tests were age ≥35 years, not being treated at a public service, rating the risk of carrying a foetus with DS as having high numerical relevance and low acceptability, and rating the risk of miscarriage as having high acceptability. These relationships were still present when the use of invasive tests was considered, except in terms of the numerical relevance of the risk of carrying a foetus with DS. Conclusion: Perceived acceptability affects the interpretation of a given risk more than the numerical relevance of the risk.