Maternal and neonatal outcomes among spontaneous vaginal births occurring in or out of water following intrapartum water immersion: The POOL cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth. DESIGN: Cohort study with non-inferiority design. SETTING: Twenty-six UK NHS maternity services. SAMPLE: A total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, using intrapartum water immersion, between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022. The analysis excluded 12 827 (17.5%) women who received obstetric or anaesthetic interventions before birth. METHODS: Non-inferiority analysis of retrospective and prospective data captured in NHS maternity and neonatal information systems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal primary outcome: obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) by parity; neonatal composite primary outcome: fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth. RESULTS: Rates of the primary outcomes were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water: rates of OASI among nulliparous women (waterbirth: 730/15 176 [4.8%] versus births out of water: 641/12 210 [5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.97, one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 1.08); rates of OASI among parous women (waterbirth: 269/24 451 [1.1%] versus births out of water 144/8565 [1.7%]; aOR 0.64, one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 0.78) and rates of the composite adverse outcome among babies (waterbirth 263/9868 [2.7%] versus births out of water 224/5078 [4.4%]; aOR 0.65, one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 0.79). CONCLUSION: Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes.

Family group conferencing for children and families: Evaluation of implementation, context and effectiveness (Family VOICE). Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Family group conferences (FGCs) in child welfare bring immediate and wider family members together to decide on the best way to meet a child's needs. Unlike professionally led meetings, the aim is for decisions to be made by or with family members. Qualitative and mixed-method research with FGC participants tends to show positive experiences: most participants feel their voices are heard; FGCs facilitate family-driven solutions and closer relationships-within families and with social workers. Although there is existing literature on FGCs, there is a paucity of robust comparative UK evaluations, i.e., randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. Comparative studies internationally have focused on a narrow range of outcomes, not recognised the importance of context, and paid little attention to the quality of delivery. Some qualitative studies have considered process and context but there is scant measurement of these. The aims of this study are, firstly, to establish how FGCs improve outcomes for families and what factors vary their quality, and, secondly, to assess longer-term outcomes in terms of service use and associated costs. METHODS: Given the importance of process and context, evaluation informed by realist and complex systems approaches is needed. This multi-method evaluation includes a survey of FGC services in all UK local authorities (n = 212) to map service provision; co-design of programme theory and evaluation measures with family members who have experienced an FGC (n = 16-24) and practitioners (n = 16-24) in two sites; a prospective single-arm study of FGC variability and outcomes after six months; and comparison of service use and costs in FGC participants (n≥300 families) and a control group (n≥1000) after two years using a quasi-experiment. DISCUSSION: This is a pragmatic evaluation of an existing intervention, to identify what mechanisms and contexts influence effective process and longer-term outcomes. The study is registered with Research Registry (ref. 7432).

Satisfaction with remote consultations in primary care during COVID-19: a population survey of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: Mode of access to primary care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; remote consultations became more widespread. With remote consultations likely to continue in UK primary care, it is important to understand people's perceptions of remote consultations and identify potential resulting inequalities. AIM: To assess satisfaction with remote GP consultations in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify demographic variation in satisfaction levels. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey from the second phase of a large UK-based study, which was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: In total, 1426 adults who self-reported having sought help from their doctor in the past 6 months completed an online questionnaire (February to March 2021). Items included satisfaction with remote consultations and demographic variables. Associations were analysed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A novel six-item scale of satisfaction with remote GP consultations had good psychometric properties. Participants with higher levels of education had significantly greater satisfaction with remote consultations than participants with mid-level qualifications (B = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.41 to -0.23) or those with low or no qualifications (B = -1.65, 95% CI = -2.29 to -1.02). People living in Wales reported significantly higher satisfaction compared with those living in Scotland (B = -1.94, 95% CI = -3.11 to -0.78), although caution is warranted due to small group numbers. CONCLUSION: These findings can inform the use and adaptation of remote consultations in primary care. Adults with lower educational levels may need additional support to improve their experience and ensure equitable care via remote consultations.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

The practicalities of adapting UK maternity clinical information systems for observational research: Experiences of the POOL study.

Background: Using routinely collected clinical data for observational research is an increasingly important method for data collection, especially when rare outcomes are being explored. The POOL study was commissioned to evaluate the safety of waterbirth in the UK using routine maternity and neonatal clinical data. This paper describes the design, rationale, set-up and pilot for this data linkage study using bespoke methods. Methods: Clinical maternity information systems hold many data items of value for research purposes, but often lack specific data items required for individual studies. This study used the novel method of amending an existing clinical maternity database for the purpose of collecting additional research data fields. In combination with the extraction of existing data fields, this maximised the potential use of existing routinely collected clinical data for research purposes, whilst reducing NHS staff data collection burden.Wellbeing Software®, provider of the Euroking® Maternity Information System, added new study specific data fields to their information system, extracted data from participating NHS sites and transferred data for matching with the National Neonatal Research Database to ascertain outcomes for babies admitted to neonatal units. Study set-up processes were put in place for all sites. The data extraction, linkage and cleaning processes were piloted with one pre-selected NHS site. Results: Twenty-six NHS sites were set-up over 27 months (January 2019 - April 2021). Twenty-four thousand maternity records were extracted from the one NHS site, pertaining to the period January 2015 to March 2019. Data field completeness for maternal and neonatal primary outcomes were mostly acceptable. Neonatal identifiers flowed to the National Neonatal Research Database for successful matching and linkage between maternity and neonatal unit records. Discussion: Piloting the data extraction and linkage highlighted the need for additional governance arrangements, training at NHS sites and new processes for the study team to ensure data quality and confidentiality are upheld during the study. Amending existing NHS electronic information systems and accessing clinical data at scale, is possible, but continues to be a time consuming and a technically challenging exercise.