Giving birth in two maternity hospitals in Lithuania.

BACKGROUND: In many hospitals in former Soviet countries, traditional Soviet perinatal policies remain in place, although in others reforms have been introduced. This study explores women's experiences during labor and birth in two Lithuanian maternity hospitals. The hospitals differed in that one (S) followed traditional Soviet era maternity practices whereas the other (P) had been exposed to World Health Organization-Euro practices and policies with respect to more up-to-date evidence-based and family-centered care. METHODS: Consecutive women giving birth in the two maternity hospitals were asked to participate in a survey. Completed responses were obtained from 416 women in one hospital (P) and 304 in the other hospital (S) representing 92.4 and 67.5 percent response rates, respectively. RESULTS: Rates of interventions in both hospitals were similarly high with, however, P hospital being more likely to be sensitive to women's psychosocial needs, such as being allowed to eat and drink more often during labor, and to have their husband or partner with them for labor and birth. CONCLUSION: It appears that in Lithuania, as in many parts of the world, introducing changes to the clinical care of birth takes time, and psychosocial changes may be easier to introduce than alterations in clinical practice.

Use of a participatory quality assessment and improvement tool for maternal and neonatal hospital care. Part 2: Review of the results of quality cycles and of factors influencing change.

BACKGROUND: Information about the use of the findings of quality assessments in maternal and neonatal (MN) care is lacking and the development of tools capable to effectively address quality gaps is a key priority. Furthermore, little is known about factors that act as barriers or facilitators to change at facility level. Based on the extensive experience made with the WHO Quality Assessment and Improvement MN (QA/QI MN) tool, an overview is provided of the improvements in quality of care (QoC) which were obtained over time and of the factors influencing change. METHODS: All documented reports on the implementation of the WHO QA/QI MN tool were searched and screened for inclusion. Reports were considered if bringing evidence from both the baseline assessment and the reassessment. Changes were considered in four domains: maternal care, neonatal care, infrastructure and policies, with reference made to WHO maternal and neonatal care standards. The observed improvements were categorized according to intensity and extent across the sample of health facilities. Factors influencing change were categorized into internal and external and further classified as barriers or facilitators. RESULTS: Changes were documented after an average period of 1.2 years from first assessment in 27 facilities belonging to 9 different countries in Central and Eastern Europe (3), Central Asia (3), sub-Saharan Africa (2) and Latin America (1). Improvements were observed in all areas of care but were greater and more frequently observed in areas related to appropriate case management and respectful care for both mothers and newborns. Although widespread across most facilities and countries, the observed improvements were not covering all the quality gaps observed at the baseline assessment nor were always sufficient to achieve standard care. Factors facilitating change as well as barriers were mainly related to the capacity of the managers and head of units to involve and motivate their staff members. CONCLUSIONS: The use of WHO QA/QI MN tool proved effective in promoting significant changes in quality of care. The review of observed improvements and of factors influencing change at facility level shows that participatory assessment tools that promote a constructive dialogue with hospital managers and staff and support them in acquiring capacity in this role are crucial to implement effective quality cycles.

Use of a participatory quality assessment and improvement tool for maternal and neonatal hospital care. Part 1: Review of implementation features and observed quality gaps in 25 countries.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity is attributable to gaps in quality of care. A systematic, standard-based tool for quality assessment and improvement for maternal and neonatal hospital care (QA/QI MN tool) was developed in 2009 by the World Health Organization (WHO). The tool guides the assessment process along the whole continuum from admission to discharge, collects the views of the recipients of care and engages hospital mangers and staff in identifying gaps and drafting an action plan. METHODS: Publications describing use of the WHO QA/QI MN tool from 2009 to 2017 and reports retrievable from WHO or other development partners' websites were searched and considered for inclusion in the review. Only assessments of hospitals were considered. Quality gaps were classified as regarding case management in maternal care, case management in neonatal care, hospital infrastructure, hospital policies and according to severity and frequency. Quotations from women regarding key issues in effective communication, respect and dignity, emotional support and costs incurred were selected. RESULTS: In the period 2009-2017, use of the WHO QA/QI MN tool was documented in 25 countries, belonging to Central and Eastern Europe (8), Central Asia (4), Sub-Saharan Africa (11), Latin America (1) and Middle East (1). Overall, 133 hospitals were assessed. The tool allowed to identify in great detail serious quality gaps including: insufficient or incomplete adherence to recommended evidence-based procedures for normal childbirth and maternal and neonatal complications; excess of inappropriate or unnecessary interventions; insufficient infection control; failure to provide respectful care, adequate communication and emotional support to mothers and babies; poor use of information generated locally to analyse processes and outcomes. These gaps were observed in all countries. Significant differences were observed among facilities belonging to the same health systems, ie, with very similar staffing, infrastructure and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: The experience made, the largest of this kind, provides comprehensive and detailed insight into the existing quality gaps in a wide variety of settings. QI cycles at facility level should be primarily based on assessments made by multidisciplinary teams of professionals to identify the parts of the care pathways which require improvement through a participatory approach involving managers, staff and patients.