Patients' and professionals' barriers and facilitators to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term, a qualitative analysis in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: external cephalic version (ECV) is a relatively simple and safe manoeuvre and a proven effective approach in the reduction of breech presentation at term. There is professional consensus that ECV should be offered to all women with a fetus in breech presentation, but only up to 70% of women eligible for ECV undergo an ECV attempt. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and facilitators for ECV among professionals and women with a breech presentation at term. DESIGN: qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Dutch hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: pregnant women with a breech presentation who had decided on ECV, and midwives and gynaecologists treating women with a breech presentation. MEASUREMENTS: on the basis of national guidelines and expert opinions, we developed topic lists to guide the interviews and discuss barriers and facilitators in order to decide on ECV (pregnant women) or advice on ECV (midwives and gynaecologists). FINDINGS: among pregnant women the main barriers were fear, the preference to have a planned caesarean section (CS), incomplete information and having witnessed birth complications within the family or among friends. The main facilitators were the wish for a home birth, the wish for a vaginal delivery and confidence of the safety of ECV. Among professionals the main barriers were a lack of knowledge to fully inform and counsel patients on ECV, and the inability to counsel women who preferred a primary CS. The main facilitator was an unambiguous policy on (counselling for) ECV within the region. CONCLUSION: we identified several barriers and facilitators possibly explaining the suboptimal implementation of ECV for breech presentation in the Netherlands. This knowledge should be taken into account in designing implementation strategies for ECV to improve the uptake of ECV by professionals and patients.

[The Dutch Child Health Care guideline 'early detection of congenital heart disease in the age group 0-19 years']. / De standaard 'Vroegtijdige opsporing van aangeboren hartafwijkingen 0-19 jaar' van de jeugdgezondheidszorg.

The Dutch Child Health Care guideline on the early detection of congenital heart disease was developed according to the principles for evidence-based guideline development and contains recommendations for the conduct of the examination during routine check-ups and for referral criteria. Most congenital heart diseases can be detected in the first year of life if physicians and nurses work according to this guideline. Important early times for screening are the home visit to infants at the age of two weeks by the child health nurse and the routine check-up of infants at the age of four weeks by the child health care physician. A routine cardiac screening is carried out in every child by the nurse and the physician at times specified in the basic list of professional responsibilities. A more extensive examination is carried out when indicated. Routine cardiac check-ups are recommended until the age of four, after which they should be done only when indicated on medical grounds. A feasibility study showed that physicians and nurses can apply the guideline effectively, provided that they take part in prior specific training.

[Cause for referral by family physicians and obstetricians in Amsterdam in (threatened) miscarriage as reflected in the guideline '(Threatened) abortion' of the Dutch Society for Family Physicians]. / Verwijsredenen van huisartsen en verloskundigen in Amsterdam bij (dreigende) miskraam gespiegeld aan de standaard '(Dreigende) miskraam' van het Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons general practitioners (GPs) and midwives have for referring patients with symptoms of imminent miscarriage to hospital and the management in hospital. DESIGN: Prospective and descriptive. SETTING: Research Centre Primary/Secondary Health Care, University Hospital Free University, the "Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis' hospital, both in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. METHOD: During the period August 1994-February 1995 anamnesis, diagnostics, diagnosis and further management were recorded for all patients who visited the "Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis' hospital with blood loss and/or pain in the first 16 weeks of gestation. Patients revealed their wishes concerning referral by filling in questionnaires. Their GPs/midwives were asked about the referral motives in a telephone interview. RESULTS: In the hospital 105 patients were recorded; 34% came on their own initiative. In hospital none of the patients with the diagnosis "imminent miscarriage' was referred back to the GP/midwife. Only 59% of the GPs/midwives performed the physical examinations the (imminent) miscarriage guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners advises. In 56% of the 32 patients referred there was no reason for referral according to the (imminent) miscarriage guideline. CONCLUSION: The (imminent) miscarriage guideline issued by the Dutch College of General Practitioners was not always followed because patients went to the hospital on their own account, GPs/midwives did not agree with the guideline, patients wanted another policy and obstetricians kept patients in their own care.

[Does the '(Imminent) miscarriage standard of the Dutch College of Family Physicians correspond to the management by gynecologists?]. / Sluit de standaard '(Dreigende) miskraam' van het Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap aan bij het beleid van gynaecologen?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the '(Imminent) miscarriage' standard issued by the Dutch College of General Practitioners corresponds to the management by obstetricians. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SETTING: Research Centre Primary/Secondary Health Care, Free University Hospital Amsterdam. METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent in 1994 to all partnerships of obstetricians (n = 122) in the Netherlands about their management in case of an imminent miscarriage. RESULTS: The response rate was 86% (n = 105). Nearly all partnerships (94%) had an agreement about their management in case of an imminent miscarriage, but the individual protocols varied. In case of a miscarriage or an imminent miscarriage 10% and 28% respectively of all partnerships said they would refer the woman to the GP or midwife. Furthermore, 21% of all partnerships said that the GP or midwife could not have an ultrasound scan made themselves, i.e. without referring to the obstetrician. Many respondent knowing the GP standard (64%) did not agree with the guidelines restricting ultrasound scans (39%) or advising expectative management (24%). They thought that an ultrasound scan was essential to diagnosis and that an expectative management would increase the risk of severe blood loss. On the other hand 15% agreed to all the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The management of obstetricians with respect to (imminent) miscarriage is diverse and does not correspond to the guidelines of the '(Imminent) miscarriage' GP standard, notably with respect to the advised expectative management.