A Simple Intervention to Improve Equity in Obstetric Research.

Introduction: To evaluate if a simple intervention, including formation of a Research Equity Committee and a dashboard detailing study approach and enrollment statistics by race, could improve equitable inclusion in obstetric research. Methods: Our intervention had four components: (1) research personnel submitted dashboards every 3 months to the Research Equity Committee; (2) approach and enrollment by race were compared with expected racial breakdown; (3) study teams with rates of approach and/or enrollment of black birthing people below goal met with the committee for root cause analysis (RCA) and action planning; (4) all dashboards, RCAs, and action plans were presented at 3-month intervals. We prospectively evaluated the impact of this intervention on the inclusion of self-reported black birthing people in actively enrolling obstetrical studies at an academic university from July 2021 to June 2022. Results: Seven qualifying prospective studies submitted 23 equity dashboards, which encompassed 692 patients. Six RCAs and action planning were held. Themes of developed action plans included: (1) standardizing how, when, and which patients to approach to eliminate approach bias, (2) standardized scripts for patient recruitment, and (3) study expansion to more diverse clinics. All four studies that underwent an RCA demonstrated improvements after the intervention; however, only one study demonstrated a statistically significant increase in approach (p=0.002) and enrollment (p=0.02) of black birthing people across the study period. Discussion and Health Equity Implications: A simple intervention can improve approach and enrollment of black birthing people in obstetric research.

An innovative sequential mixed-methods approach to evaluating clinician acceptability during implementation of a standardized labor induction protocol.

BACKGROUND: Implementation outcomes, including acceptability, are of critical importance in both implementation research and practice. The gold standard measure of acceptability, Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), skews positively with a limited range. In an ongoing hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial, we aimed to evaluate clinician acceptability of induction standardization. Here, we describe an innovative mixed-methods approach to maximize the interpretability of the AIM using a case study in maternal health. METHODS: In this explanatory sequential mixed methods study, we distributed the validated, 4-question AIM (total 4-20) to labor and delivery clinicians 6 months post-implementation at 2 sites (Site 1: 3/2021; Site 2: 6/2021). Respondents were grouped by total score into tertiles. The top ("High" Acceptability) and bottom ("Low" Acceptability) tertiles were invited to participate in a 30-minute semi-structured qualitative interview from 6/2021 to 10/2021 until thematic saturation was reached in each acceptability group. Participants were purposively sampled by role and site. Interviews were coded using an integrated approach, incorporating a priori attributes (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs) into a modified content analysis approach. RESULTS: 104 clinicians completed the initial survey; 24 were interviewed (12 "High" and 12 "Low" Acceptability). Median total AIM scores were 20/20 IQR[20-20] in the High and 12.5/20 IQR[11-14] in the Low Acceptability groups. In both groups, clinicians were enthusiastic about efforts to standardize labor induction, believing it reduces inter-clinician variability and improves equitable, evidence-based care. In the Low Acceptability group, clinicians stated the need for flexibility and consideration for patient uniqueness. Rarely, clinicians felt labor induction could not or should not be standardized, citing discomfort with medicalization of labor, and concerns with "bulldozing" the patient with interventions. Suggested strategies for overcoming negative sentiment included comprehensive clinician education, as well as involving patients as active participants in the protocol prenatally. CONCLUSIONS: This study utilized AIM in an innovative sequential mixed-methods approach to characterize clinician acceptability, which may be generalizable across implementation endeavors. By performing this work during a hybrid trial, implementation strategies to improve acceptability emerged (clinician education focusing on respect for flexibility; involving patients as active participants prenatally) for year 2, which will inform future multi-site work.

Assessing the impact of telehealth implementation on postpartum outcomes for Black birthing people.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid uptake of telemedicine services, which have been shown to be potentially cost-saving and of comparable quality to in-person care for certain populations. However, there are some concerns regarding the feasibility of implementation for marginalized populations, and the impact of widespread implementation of these services on health disparities has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of telehealth implementation on postpartum care during the COVID-19 pandemic on racial disparities in visit attendance and completion of postpartum care goals. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care center, differences in outcomes between all Black and non-Black patients who had scheduled postpartum visits before and after telehealth implementation for postpartum care were compared. The primary outcome was postpartum visit attendance. The secondary outcomes included postpartum depression screening, contraception selection, breastfeeding status, completion of postpartum 2-hour glucose tolerance test, and cardiology follow-up for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In multivariable analysis, interaction terms were used to evaluate the differential impact of telehealth implementation by race. RESULTS: Of 1579 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (780 in the preimplementation group and 799 in the postimplementation group), 995 (63%) self-identified as Black. In the preimplementation period, Black patients were less likely to attend a postpartum visit than non-Black patients (63.9% in Black patients vs 88.7% in non-Black patients; adjusted odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.79). In the postimplementation period, there was no difference in postpartum visit attendance by race (79.1% in Black patients vs 88.6% in non-Black patients; adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.21). In addition, significant differences across races in postpartum depression screening during the preimplementation period became nonsignificant in the postimplementation period. Telehealth implementation for postpartum care significantly reduced racial disparities in postpartum visit attendance (interaction P=.005). CONCLUSION: Telehealth implementation for postpartum care during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with decreased racial disparities in postpartum visit attendance.

Implementation and outcomes of a system-wide women's health 'team goal' to reduce maternal morbidity for black women: a prospective quality improvement study.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the unacceptable racial disparities in US obstetric outcomes, our health system established a formal goal to reduce maternal morbidity for black women. Here, we describe our process for meeting this equity-focused goal in the context of diverse implementation climates at 5 inpatient sites. STUDY DESIGN: To meet the system goal, we established a collaborative of multidisciplinary, site-based teams. The validated 18-question Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) was distributed to site clinicians at baseline. Sites focused on haemorrhage, performing case reviews of black women meeting morbidity criteria. Comparing cases by site, site-specific areas for improvement in haemorrhage risk assessment, prevention and management emerged. Evidence-based practices (EBPs) were then selected, tailored and implemented by site. Monthly system-wide team meetings included (1) metric tracking and (2) site presentations with discussions around barriers/facilitators to EBP implementation. Maternal morbidity rates among black women were compared the year before goal development (1 July 2019-30 June 2020) to the year after (1 July 2020-30 June 2021). RESULTS: Mean ICS scores for inpatient obstetric units differed by site (p=0.005), with climates more supportive of implementation at urban/academic hospitals. In response to case reviews, sites reported implementing 2 to 8 EBPs to meet the goal. Despite different ICS scores, this process was associated with significant reductions in maternal morbidity for black women from pregoal to postgoal development overall and at sites 1, 2 and 3, with non-statistically significant reductions at sites 4 and 5 (overall: -29.4% reduction, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A health system goal of reducing maternal morbidity for black women led to a data-driven, collaborative model for implementing site-tailored interventions. If health systems prioritise equity-focused goals, sites can be supported in implementing EBPs that improve care.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Quality metric for timely postpartum follow-up after severe hypertension.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Because postpartum exacerbation of severe hypertension is common, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that patients with severe hypertension during the childbirth hospitalization be seen within 72 hours after discharge. In this statement, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine proposes a uniform metric reflecting the rate of timely postpartum follow-up of patients with severe hypertension. The metric is designed to be measured using automated calculations based on billing codes derived from claims data. The metric can be used in quality improvement projects to increase the rate of timely follow-up in patients with severe hypertension during the childbirth hospitalization. Suggested steps for implementing such a project are outlined.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Quality metrics for optimal timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Antenatal corticosteroid administration before preterm birth reduces the risks of perinatal death, respiratory morbidity, necrotizing enterocolitis, and intraventricular hemorrhage and reduces the costs of perinatal care. Antenatal corticosteroids are optimally effective when administered within 7 days before preterm birth. However, only 20% to 40% of early preterm infants receive antenatal corticosteroids within 7 days before birth, in part because it is difficult to predict the precise timing of preterm birth. Until 2020, The Joint Commission had a Perinatal Care quality metric measuring the rate of antenatal corticosteroid administration at any time before early preterm birth. This metric incentivized providers to use antenatal corticosteroids liberally. The Joint Commission retired the metric in 2020 after the rate reached more than 97% in The Joint Commission-accredited hospitals. However, the metric did not evaluate whether the timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration was optimal, that is, within 7 days of birth. A 2016 multistakeholder Cooperative Workshop recommended the development of a new quality metric to assess the rate of optimally timed antenatal corticosteroids among early preterm births. In this statement, we outline proposed specifications for such a metric and discuss potential uses, advantages, limitations, and barriers. Furthermore, we propose a balancing metric that tracks the percentage of patients treated with antenatal corticosteroids who ultimately give birth at term. We suggest that the use of these new metrics may incentivize more conservative antenatal corticosteroid timing, which could, in turn, lead to meaningfully improved outcomes for preterm neonates.

Institution of a Comprehensive Postpartum Hemorrhage Bundle at a Large Academic Center does not Immediately Reduce Maternal Morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: Obstetric hemorrhage is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. We sought to assess whether institution of a postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) bundle could improve maternal morbidity in our population. STUDY DESIGN: Preintervention data (PRE) was collected on all deliveries at Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between October 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. A two-pronged, multidisciplinary educational and procedural intervention related to PPH was instituted from March 2015 to June 2015. Postintervention data (POST) was collected on all deliveries from October 20, 2015 to December 20, 2015. RESULTS: Note that 592 of 626 (95%) PRE and 583 of 613 (95%) POST deliveries were included. The rates of PPH by estimated blood loss (EBL) ≥ 1,000 mL and by 3 g hemoglobin drop were not significantly different from PRE to POST (9.0% versus 12.2%, p = 0.07 and 10.5% versus 13.5%, p = 0.10, respectively). There was no significant change in transfusion rate (3.4% versus 5.1%, p = 0.13). Use of uterotonics was reduced from 9.8 to 6.3% from PRE to POST (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: While institution of a PPH bundle is designed to improve the morbidity of PPH, our data demonstrate that it cannot be expected to do so within 6 months of implementation. Further studies will need to assess the long-term effects of such a resource-intensive protocol, including perceptions of improved safety by all providers, nurses, and staff.

Assessing reVITALize: Should the Definition of Postpartum Hemorrhage Differ by Mode of Delivery?

Background Obstetrical hemorrhage is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, yet is inconsistently defined. In 2014, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) reVITALize program redefined postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) as greater than 1,000 mL blood loss regardless of the mode of delivery (MOD). Objective We sought to assess the reVITALize definition's validity by understanding whether the definition of PPH should, as proposed by ACOG, be one value regardless of MOD. Study Design This is a retrospective study of all women who delivered at the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from October 15, 2013 through December 15, 2013. Results A total of 592 of the 626 (95%) women were included. The average reported estimated blood loss (EBL) for vaginal delivery (VD) was significantly lower than for cesarean delivery (CD) ([350 ±170 mL) and [880 ± 360 mL]; p < 0.001). The average hemoglobin (Hb) drop was only slightly lower for VD compared with CD ([1.4 ± 1.0 g/dL {11.5% drop}] and [1.9 ± 1.2 g/dL {16.2% drop}], respectively, p < 0.001). The association between EBL and observed Hb drop differed in accuracy by MOD. Conclusion Likely based on historic perceptions, obstetric providers estimate blood loss for VD as less than half that of CD. However, using objective measures, blood loss is more similar than perceived between VD and CD, supporting the ACOG reVITALize single definition of PPH regardless of MOD.