Effectiveness of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for early-onset group B Streptococcal infection: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, up to 30% of women are exposed to intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of early-onset group B Streptococcal infection. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis aims to reduce the risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality from this infection. The intervention may adversely affect non-pathogenic bacteria which are passed to the newborn during birth and are considered important in optimising health. Since many women are offered intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, effectiveness and implications of this intervention need to be established. This review considers clinical trials and observational studies analysing the effectiveness of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: An integrative literature review was conducted. One systematic review, three clinical trials and five observational studies were identified for appraisal. FINDINGS: Randomised controlled trials found intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis effective but all retrieved randomised clinical trials had significant methodological flaws. High quality observational studies reported high rates of effectiveness but revealed less than optimal adherence to screening and administration of the prophylaxis. Scant consideration was given to short term risks, and long-term consequences were not addressed. DISCUSSION: Studies found intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to be effective. However, evidence was not robust and screening and prophylaxis have limitations. Emerging evidence links intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to adverse short and longer-term neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review found high quality evidence of the effectiveness of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis was limited. Lack of consideration of potential risks of the intervention was evident. Women should be enabled to make informed decisions about GBS management. More research needs to be done in this area.

Evaluating Maternity Units: a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units in New Zealand-clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in a freestanding primary level midwife-led maternity unit (PMU) or tertiary level obstetric-led maternity hospital (TMH) in Canterbury, Aotearoa/New Zealand. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 407 women who intended to give birth in a PMU and 285 women who intended to give birth at the TMH in 2010-2011. All of the women planning a TMH birth were 'low risk', and 29 of the PMU cohort had identified risk factors. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Mode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and neonatal unit admission. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: labour onset, analgesia, blood loss, third stage of labour management, perineal trauma, non-pharmacological pain relief, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Women who planned a PMU birth were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.9%vs62.3%, adjusted OR (AOR) 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.39), and significantly less likely to have an instrumental assisted vaginal birth (10.3%vs20.4%, AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93). The emergency and elective caesarean section rates were not significantly different (emergency: PMU 11.6% vs TMH 17.5%, AOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; elective: PMU 0.7% vs TMH 2.1%, AOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.41). There were no significant differences between the cohorts in rates of 5 min Apgar score of <7 (2.0%vs2.1%, AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.52) and neonatal unit admission (5.9%vs4.9%, AOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.96). Planning to give birth in a primary unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar odds of all measured neonatal well-being indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support freestanding midwife-led primary-level maternity units as physically safe places for well women to plan to give birth, with these women having higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births and lower rates of interventions and their associated morbidities than those who planned a tertiary hospital birth, with no differences in neonatal outcomes.

Freestanding midwifery units: Maternal and neonatal outcomes following transfer.

BACKGROUND: the viability of freestanding midwifery units in Australia is restricted, due to concerns over their safety, particularly for women and babies who, require transfer. AIM: to compare the maternal and neonatal birth outcomes of women who planned, to give birth at freestanding midwifery units and subsequently, transferred to a tertiary maternity unit to the maternal and neonatal, outcomes of a low-risk cohort of women who planned to give birth in, tertiary maternity unit. METHODS: a descriptive study compared two groups of women with low-risk singleton, pregnancies who were less than 28 weeks pregnant at booking: women who, planned to give birth at a freestanding midwifery unit (n=494) who, transferred to a tertiary maternity unit during the antenatal, intrapartum or postnatal periods (n=260) and women who planned to give, birth at a tertiary maternity unit (n=3157). Primary outcomes were mode, of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5minutes and admission to, special care nursery or neonatal intensive care. KEY FINDINGS: the proportion of women who experienced a caesarean section was lower, among the freestanding midwifery unit women who transferred during the, intrapartum/postnatal period compared to women in the tertiary maternity, unit group (16.1% versus 24.8% respectively). Other outcomes were, comparable between the cohorts. Rates of primary outcomes in relation to, stage of transfer varied when stratified by parity. DISCUSSION: these descriptive results support the provision of care in freestanding, midwifery units as an alternative to tertiary maternity units for women, with low risk pregnancies at the time of booking. A larger study, powered, to determine statistical significance of any differences in outcomes, is, required.

Women's experiences of transfer from primary maternity unit to tertiary hospital in New Zealand: part of the prospective cohort Evaluating Maternity Units study.

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide debate regarding the appropriateness and safety of different birthplaces for well women. The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study's primary objective was to compare clinical outcomes for well women intending to give birth in either a tertiary level maternity hospital or a freestanding primary level maternity unit. Little is known about how women experience having to change their birthplace plans during the antenatal period or before admission to a primary unit, or transfer following admission. This paper describes and explores women's experience of these changes-a secondary aim of the EMU study. METHODS: This paper utilised the six week postpartum survey data, from the 174 women from the primary unit cohort affected by birthplace plan change or transfer (response rate 73%). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The study was undertaken in Christchurch, New Zealand, which has an obstetric-led tertiary maternity hospital and four freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units (2010-2012). The 702 study participants were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these facilities, all of whom received continuity of midwifery care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: Of the women who had to change their planned place of birth or transfer the greatest proportion of women rated themselves on a Likert scale as unbothered by the move (38.6%); 8.8% were 'very unhappy' and 7.6% 'very happy' (quantitative analysis). Four themes were identified, using thematic analysis, from the open ended survey responses of those who experienced transfer: 'not to plan', control, communication and 'my midwife'. An interplay between the themes created a cumulatively positive or negative effect on their experience. Women's experience of transfer in labour was generally positive, and none expressed stress or trauma with transfer. CONCLUSIONS: The women knew of the potential for change or transfer, although it was not wanted or planned. When they maintained a sense control, experienced effective communication with caregivers, and support and information from their midwife, the transfer did not appear to be experienced negatively. The model of continuity of midwifery care in New Zealand appeared to mitigate the negative aspects of women's experience of transfer and facilitate positive birth experiences.

Transfer from primary maternity unit to tertiary hospital in New Zealand - timing, frequency, reasons, urgency and outcomes: Part of the Evaluating Maternity Units study.

OBJECTIVES: to examine the transfers from primary maternity units to a tertiary hospital in New Zealand by describing the frequency, timing, reasons and outcomes of those who had antenatal or pre-admission birthplace plan changes, and transfers in labour or postnatally. DESIGN: mixed methods prospective (concurrent) cohort study, which analysed transfer and clinical outcome data (407 primary unit cohort, 285 tertiary hospital cohort), and data from the six week postpartum survey (571 respondents). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: well, pregnant women booked to give birth in a tertiary maternity hospital or primary maternity unit in one region in New Zealand (2010-2012). All women received midwifery continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: fewer than half of the women who planned a primary unit birth gave birth there (191 or 46.9%). A change of plan may have been made either antenatally or before admission in labour; and transfers were made after admission to the primary unit in labour or during the postnatal stay (about 48 hours). Of the 117 (28.5%) planning a primary unit birth who changed their planned birthplace type antenatally 73 (62.4%) were due to a clinical indication. Earthquakes accounted for 28.1% of birthplace change (during the research period major earthquakes occurred in the study region). Most (73.8%) labour changes occurred before admission in labour to the primary unit. For the 76 women who changed plan at this stage the most common reasons to do so were a rapid labour (25.0%) or prolonged rupture of membranes (23.7%). Transfers in labour from primary unit to tertiary hospital occurred for 27 women (12.6%) of whom 26 (96.3%) were having their first baby. "Slow progress" of labour accounted for 21 (77.8%) of these and 17 (62.9%) were classified as 'non-emergency'. The average transfer time for 'emergency' transfers was 58 minutes. The average time for all labour transfers from specialist consultation to birth was 4.5 hours. Nine postnatal transfers (maternal or neonatal) from a primary unit occurred (4.7%), making a total post-admission transfer rate of 17.3% for the primary unit cohort. KEY CONCLUSIONS: birthplace changes were not uncommon, with many women changing their birthplace plan antenatally or prior to admission in labour and some transferring between facilities during or soon after birth. Most changes were due to the development of complications or 'risk factors'. Most transfers were not urgent and took approximately one hour from the decision to arrival at the tertiary hospital. Despite the transfers the neonatal clinical outcomes were comparable between both primary and tertiary cohorts, and there was higher maternal morbidity in the tertiary cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: although the study size is relatively small, its comprehensive documentation of transfers has the potential to inform future research and the birthplace decision-making of childbearing women and midwives.

Evaluating Midwifery Units (EMU): a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwifery units in New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units and two tertiary-level maternity units in New South Wales, Australia. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 494 women who intended to give birth at freestanding midwifery units and 3157 women who intended to give birth at tertiary-level maternity units. Participants had low risk, singleton pregnancies and were at less than 28(+0) weeks gestation at the time of booking. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were mode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery. Secondary outcomes were onset of labour, analgesia, blood loss, management of third stage of labour, perineal trauma, transfer, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Women who planned to give birth at a freestanding midwifery unit were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (AOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06) and significantly less likely to have a caesarean section (AOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.88). There was no significant difference in the AOR of 5 min Apgar scores, however, babies from the freestanding midwifery unit group were significantly less likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care or special care nursery (AOR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). Analysis of secondary outcomes indicated that planning to give birth in a freestanding midwifery unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar or improved odds of indicators of neonatal well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the provision of care in freestanding midwifery units as an alternative to tertiary-level maternity units for women with low risk pregnancies at the time of booking.

Australian primary maternity units: past, present and future.

Primary maternity units are commonly those run by midwives who provide care to women with low-risk pregnancies with no obstetric, anaesthetic, laboratory or paediatric support available on-site. In some other countries, primary level maternity units play an important role in offering equitable and accessible maternity care to women with low-risk pregnancies, particularly in rural and remote areas. However there are very few primary maternity units in Australia, largely due to the fact that over the past 200 years, the concept of safety has become inherently linked with the immediate on-site availability of specialist medical support. The purpose if this paper is to explore the various drivers and barriers to the sustainability of primary maternity units in Australia. It firstly looks at the historical antecedents that shaped primary level maternity services in Australia, from the time of colonisation to now. During this period the space and management of childbirth moved from home and midwifery-led settings to obstetric-led hospitals. Following on from this an analysis of recent political events shows how Australian government policy both supports and undermines the potential of primary maternity units. It is important that researchers, clinicians and policy makers understand the past in order to manage the challenges facing the development and maintenance of midwifery-led maternity services, in particular primary maternity units, in Australia today.

Evaluating midwifery units (EMU): lessons from the pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: this paper describes the pilot study that was undertaken to test the feasibility of the recruitment plan designed to recruit women who booked to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units in NSW, Australia. The pilot preceded the full prospective cohort study, Evaluating Midwifery Units (EMU), which aimed to examine the antenatal, birth and postnatal outcomes of women planning to give birth in freestanding midwifery units compared to those booked to give birth in tertiary level maternity units in Australia and New Zealand. DESIGN: a prospective cohort study with two mutually-exclusive cohorts. SETTING: two freestanding midwifery units in NSW and their corresponding tertiary referral hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: a total of 146 women with few identified risk factors recruited between 13 September 2009 and 31 March 2010 whose planned place of birth was either a freestanding midwifery unit or tertiary maternity unit. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: the pilot study identified the feasibility of relying on the booking midwife to recruit eligible women from several antenatal booking clinics to the study. Low rates of eligible women were invited resulting in a lower than expected consent rate. In addition, although mostly only low-risk women were invited to participate, some women requiring medical consultation at the time of booking were inadvertently recruited into the study. The results of this pilot study led us to revise the study protocol to find ways of including the outcomes of all women without identified risk factors who booked at either the freestanding midwifery units or the tertiary referral hospital in that area. This paper describes the revisions that were made to the study plan. KEY CONCLUSIONS: five lessons were learned from the pilot study. We found that recruitment protocols employed for the cohort study were too complicated and required simplification to maximise the potential of the study. The study protocol needed to be changed for the main study to ensure a larger sample size and to ensure the risk profile of each cohort was as similar as possible. Sources of data needed to be expanded to produce a complete data set. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: pilot studies are extremely useful tools in testing methods to inform research protocols. We found that the first months spent undertaking a pilot study ensured a stronger design with the potential to show more meaningful results.