Women's characteristics and care outcomes of caseload midwifery care in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The maternity care system in the Netherlands is well known for its support of community-based midwifery. However, regular midwifery practices typically do not offer caseload midwifery care - one-to-one continuity of care throughout pregnancy and birth. Because we know very little about the outcomes for women receiving caseload care in the Netherlands, we compared caseload care with regular midwife-led care, looking at maternal and perinatal outcomes, including antenatal and intrapartum referrals to secondary (i.e., obstetrician-led) care. METHODS: We selected 657 women in caseload care and 1954 matched controls (women in regular midwife-led care) from all women registered in the Dutch Perinatal Registry (Perined) who gave birth in 2015. To be eligible for selection the women had to be in midwife-led antenatal care beyond 28 gestational weeks. Each woman in caseload care was matched with three women in regular midwife-led care, using parity, maternal age, background (Dutch or non-Dutch) and region. These two cohorts were compared for referral rates, mode of birth, and other maternal and perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: In caseload midwifery care, 46.9% of women were referred to obstetrician-led care (24.2% antenatally and 22.8% in the intrapartum period). In the matched cohort, 65.7% were referred (37.4% antenatally and 28.3% in the intrapartum period). In caseload care, 84.0% experienced a spontaneous vaginal birth versus 77.0% in regular midwife-led care. These patterns were observed for both nulliparous and multiparous women. Women in caseload care had fewer inductions of labour (13.2% vs 21.0%), more homebirths (39.4% vs 16.1%) and less perineal damage (intact perineum: 41.3% vs 28.2%). The incidence of perinatal mortality and a low Apgar score was low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found that when compared to regular midwife-led care, caseload midwifery care in the Netherlands is associated with a lower referral rate to obstetrician-led care - both antenatally and in the intrapartum period - and a higher spontaneous vaginal birth rate, with similar perinatal safety. The challenge is to include this model as part of the current effort to improve the quality of Dutch maternity care, making caseload care available and affordable for more women.

Change in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands in 2000­2008: A descriptive study of caesarean sections and other interventions among 807,437 low-risk births.

OBJECTIVE: to study whether an increase in intrapartum referrals in primary midwife-led care births in the Netherlands is accompanied by an increase in caesarean sections. DESIGN: nationwide descriptive study. SETTING: The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. PARTICIPANTS: 807,437 births of nine year cohorts of women with low risk pregnancies in primary midwife-led care at the onset of labour between 2000 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS: primary outcome is the caesarean section rate. Vaginal instrumental childbirth, augmentation with oxytocin, and pharmacological pain relief are secondary outcomes. Trends in outcomes are described. We used logistic regression to explore whether changes in the planned place of birth and other maternal characteristics were associated with the caesarean section rate. FINDINGS: the caesarean section rate increased from 6.2 to 8.3 per cent for nulliparous and from 0.8 to 1.1 per cent for multiparous women. After controlling for maternal characteristics the year by year increase in the caesarean section rate was still significant for nulliparous women (adj OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02­1.03). The vaginal instrumental birth declined from 18.2 to 17.4 per cent for nulliparous women (multiparous women: 1.7­1.5 per cent). Augmentation of labour and/or pharmacological pain relief increased from 23.1 to 38.1 per cent for nulliparous women and from 5.4 to 9.6 per cent for multiparous women. CONCLUSION: the rise in augmentation of labour, pharmacological pain relief and electronic fetal monitoring in the period 2000­2008 among women in primary midwife-led care was accompanied by an increase in caesarean section rate for nulliparous women. The vaginal instrumental deliveries declined for both nulliparous and multiparous women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: primary care midwives should evaluate whether they can strengthen the opportunities for nulliparous women to achieve a physiological birth, without augmentation or pharmacological pain relief. If such interventions are considered necessary to achieve a spontaneous vaginal birth, the current disadvantage of discontinuity of care should be reduced. In a more integrated care system, women could receive continuous care and support from their own primary care midwife, as long as only supportive interventions are needed.

Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman's chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth). METHODS: We performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008-2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined. RESULTS: The intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety.

Variation in intrapartum referral rates in primary midwifery care in the Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: in midwife-led care models of maternity care, midwives are responsible for intrapartum referrals to the obstetrician or obstetric unit, in order to give their clients access to secondary obstetric care. This study explores the influence of risk perception, policy on routine labour management, and other midwife related factors on intrapartum referral decisions of Dutch midwives. DESIGN: a questionnaire was used, in which a referral decision was asked in 14 early labour scenarios (Discrete Choice Experiment or DCE). The scenarios varied in woman characteristics (BMI, gestational age, the preferred birth location, adequate support by a partner, language problems and coping) and in clinical labour characteristics (cervical dilatation, estimated head-to-cervix pressure, and descent of the head). SETTING: primary care midwives in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: a systematic random selection of 243 practicing primary care midwives. The response rate was 48 per cent (117/243). MEASUREMENTS: the Impact Factor of the characteristics in the DCE was calculated using a conjoint analysis. The number of intrapartum referrals to secondary obstetric care in the 14 scenarios of the DCE was calculated as the individual referral score. Risk perception was assessed by respondents׳ estimates of the probability of eight birth outcomes. The associations between midwives׳ policy on management of physiological labour, personal characteristics, workload in the practice, number of midwives in the practice, and referral score were explored. FINDINGS: the estimated head-to-cervix pressure and descent of the head had the largest impact on referral decisions in the DCE. The median referral score was five (range 0-14). Estimates of probability on birth outcomes were predominantly overestimating actual risks. Factors significantly associated with a high referral score were: a low estimated probability of a spontaneous vaginal birth (p=0.007), adhering to the active management policy Proactive Support of Labour (PSOL) (p=0.047), and a practice situated in a rural area or small city (p=0.016). KEY CONCLUSIONS: there is considerable variation in referral decisions among midwives that cannot be explained by woman characteristics or clinical factors in early labour. A realistic perception of the possibility of a spontaneous vaginal birth and adhering to expectant management can contribute to the prevention of unwarranted medicalisation of physiological childbirth. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: awareness of variation in referrals and the associated midwife-related factors can stimulate midwives to reflect on their referral behavior. To diminish unwarranted variation, high quality research on the optimal management of a physiological first stage of labour should be performed.

Persisting rise in referrals during labor in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the Dutch maternity care system, characterized by a strict role division between primary and secondary care. The objective of this study was to describe trends in referrals and in perinatal outcomes among labors that started in primary midwife-led care. METHODS: We performed a descriptive study of all 789,795 labors that started in primary midwife-led care during 2000 to 2008 in The Netherlands. Referrals to obstetrician-led care or pediatrician were classified as urgent or nonurgent. Perinatal safety was described by perinatal mortality (intrapartum or neonatal 0-7 days), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 0-7 days, and Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes. RESULTS: The proportion of referrals during labor or after birth declined from 52.6 to 42.6 percent for nulliparous women and from 83.2 to 76.7 percent for multiparous women. Especially nonurgent referrals during the first stage increased, for nulliparous women from 28.7 to 40.7 percent and for multiparous women from 10.5 to 16.5 percent. Referrals were less frequent in planned home births. Perinatal mortality was 0.9 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 0.6 per thousand for multiparous women. A low Apgar score was registered in 8.6 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 4.1 per thousand for multiparous women. CONCLUSIONS: There was a considerable rise in nonurgent referrals to obstetrician-led care in primary midwife-led care during labor. Perinatal safety did not improve significantly over time. The persisting rise in referrals challenges the sustainability of the current strict role division between primary and secondary maternity care in The Netherlands.

Guidelines on anaemia: effect on primary-care midwives in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adherence and perceived barriers for implementation of a clinical-practice guideline on anaemia, which was the first national guideline for primary-care midwifery in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Primary-care midwifery in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 160 midwives (60% response rate). MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaire on the knowledge of, and attitudes and self-reported adherence to, 14 key recommendations in the guideline; attitudes to guidelines in general; and perceived barriers to implementation. FINDINGS: The number of midwives agreeing with and adhering to specific recommendations varied between 29 and 90%. Most midwives had a positive attitude to the guidelines. The most relevant general barriers were related to the behaviour of general practitioners and obstetricians (32% of the midwives reported this). Larger numbers of midwives mentioned barriers to specific aspects of the guideline, particularly alternative iron supplementation or dietary supplements (59%), and not prescribing iron supplementation if haemoglobin was low but mean corpuscular volume was normal (49%). KEY CONCLUSIONS: The guideline on anaemia was well received by primary-care midwives in The Netherlands, but implementation of specific recommendations needs further attention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The study provides evidence for the national organisation of midwives to continue with the development and implementation of clinical guidelines.