Parents' views on accepting, declining, and expanding newborn bloodspot screening.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is the early detection of treatable disorders in newborns to offer early intervention. Worldwide, the number of conditions screened for is expanding, which might affect public acceptance. In the Netherlands, participation is high (>99%), but little is known about how parents perceive NBS. This study assessed parents' views on accepting, declining and expanding NBS. METHODS: A total of 804 of 6051 (13%) invited parents who participated in NBS in the Netherlands during the last two weeks of December 2019, and 48 of 1162 (4%) invited parents who declined participation in NBS in 2019 and 2020, completed a questionnaire. RESULTS: The most important reason for parents to participate in NBS was to prevent health complaints, whereas the most important reason to decline NBS was parents' viewpoint on life and the belief that the heel prick would be painful for the child. Compared to NBS participants, respondents who declined NBS were more actively religious, considered alternative medicine or lifestyle more important, were less inclined to vaccinate their child for infectious diseases, and reported more doubt about NBS participation (all differences p < .001). Informed choice was lower among respondents who declined NBS (44%) compared to participants in NBS (83%, p < .001), mostly due to insufficient knowledge. Of the NBS participants, 95% were positive about NBS expansion. Most NBS participants agreed to include conditions that could unintentionally reveal a diagnosis in the mother instead of the child (86%) or a condition that may not cause symptoms until later in the child's life (84%). CONCLUSION: Most participants made an informed decision to participate in NBS and are positive about screening for more conditions. Insights into parents' views on (non-)participation and expansion of NBS can help to ensure that NBS suits the population needs while safeguarding ethical principles for screening.

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.

Are midwives in the Netherlands satisfied with their jobs? A systematic examination of satisfaction levels among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Job satisfaction is generally considered to be an important element of work quality and workplace relations. Little is known about levels of job satisfaction among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. Proposed changes to the maternity care system in the Netherlands should consider how the working conditions of midwives affect their job satisfaction. AIM: We aimed to measure and compare job satisfaction among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. METHODS: Online survey of all practising midwives in the Netherlands using a validated measure of job satisfaction (the Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire) to analyze the attitudes of hospital and primary-care midwives about their work. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to assess differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Approximately one in six of all practising midwives in the Netherlands responded to our survey (hospital midwives n = 103, primary-care midwives n = 405). All midwives in our survey were satisfied with their work (n = 508). However, significant differences emerged between hospital and primary-care midwives in terms of what was most important to them in relation to their job satisfaction. For hospital midwives, the most significant domains were: working hours per week, workplace agreements, and total years of experience. For primary-care midwives, social support at work, work demands, job autonomy, and the influence of work on their private life were most significant. CONCLUSION: Although midwives were generally satisfied, differences emerged in the key predictors of job satisfaction between hospital and primary-care midwives. These differences could be of importance when planning workforce needs and should be taken into consideration by policymakers in the Netherlands and elsewhere when planning new models of care.

Women-centered care: Implementation of CenteringPregnancy® in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: In response to a relatively high perinatal mortality rate in The Netherlands, the Dutch Health Ministry recommended changes to maternity care, opening a pathway toward more integrated woman-centered services. Because of its potential to positively influence risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes, CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal care was implemented. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study (n = 2318) and survey on women's experiences (n = 222) in eight primary care midwifery practices to investigate outcome differences between CP and traditional individual prenatal care. Data from the period 2011-2013 were analyzed. RESULTS: Primiparous and multiparous CP women attended more prenatal care visits compared with women who received individual care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.23 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.29] and 1.29 [1.21-1.36]). Fewer primiparous CP women used pain relief during labor (0.56 [0.43-0.73]), and they initiated breastfeeding more often (1.74 [1.15-2.62]). Women participating in CP were more likely to feel that their wishes with respect to medication use (69.1% vs 54.4%, P = 0.039), physical activities (72.8% vs 52.5%, P = 0.008), and relaxation exercises (67.9% vs 35.6%, P ≤ 0.001) were listened to by care providers. They also felt more supported to actively participate in their care (89.6% vs 68.5%, P = 0.001) and felt more able to voice opinions about care (92.7% vs 73.9%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The CP model is a good approach aligning with Dutch policy calling for women-centered care and responding to the needs of pregnant women. This study supports CP scale-up in The Netherlands and adds to the pool of international knowledge about CP implementation.

Opinions of maternity care professionals and other stakeholders about integration of maternity care: a qualitative study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to give insight into the opinions of maternity care professionals and other stakeholders on the integration of midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care and on the facilitating and inhibiting factors for integrating maternity care. METHODS: Qualitative study using interviews and focus groups from November 2012 to February 2013 in the Netherlands. Seventeen purposively selected stakeholder representatives participated in individual semi-structured interviews and 21 in focus groups. One face-to-face focus group included a combined group of midwives, obstetricians and a paediatrician involved in maternity care. Two online focus groups included a group of primary care midwives and a group of clinical midwives respectively. Thematic analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. Two researchers independently coded the interview and focus group transcripts by means of a mind map and themes and relations between them were described. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified with regard to integrating maternity care: client-centred care, continuity of care and task shifting between professionals. Opinions differed regarding the optimal maternity care organisation model. Participants considered the current payment structure an inhibiting factor, whereas a new modified payment structure based on the actual amount of work performed was seen as a facilitating factor. Both midwives and obstetricians indicated that they were afraid to loose autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated maternity care system may improve client-centred care, provide continuity of care for women during labour and birth and include a shift of responsibilities between health care providers. However, differences of opinion among professionals and other stakeholders with regard to the optimal maternity care organisation model may complicate the implementation of integrated care. Important factors for a successful implementation of integrated maternity care are an appropriate payment structure and maintenance of the autonomy of professionals.

Opinions of professionals about integrating midwife- and obstetrician-led care in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: the current division between midwife-led and obstetrician-led care creates fragmentation in maternity care in the Netherlands. This study aims to gain insight into the level of consensus among maternity care professionals about facilitators and barriers related to integration of midwife-led and obstetrician-led care. Integration could result in more personal continuity of care for women who are referred during labour. This may lead to better birth experiences, fewer interventions and better outcomes for both mother and infant. DESIGN: a descriptive study using a questionnaire survey of 300 primary care midwives, 100 clinical midwives and 942 obstetricians. SETTING: the Netherlands in 2013. PARTICIPANTS: 131 (response 44%) primary care midwives, 51 (response 51%) clinical midwives and 242 (response 25%) obstetricians completed the questionnaire. FINDINGS: there was consensus about the clinical midwife caring for labouring women at moderate risk of complications. Although primary care midwives themselves were willing to expand their tasks there was no consensus among respondents on the tasks and responsibilities of the primary care midwife. Professionals agreed on the importance of good collaboration between professionals who should work together as a team. Respondents also agreed that there are conflicting interests related to the payment structure, which are a potential barrier for integrating maternity care. KEY CONCLUSIONS: this study shows that professionals are positive regarding an integrated maternity care system but primary care midwives, clinical midwives and obstetricians have different opinions about the specifications and implementation of this system. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: our findings are in accordance with earlier research, showing that it is too early to design a blueprint for an integrated maternity care model in the Netherlands. To bring about change in the maternity care system, an implementation strategy should be chosen that accounts for differences in interests and opinions between professionals.

Intrapartum referral from primary to secondary care in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study on management of labor and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In the Dutch maternity care system, primary care midwives provide care to low-risk women and refer to obstetricians if risks or complications occur. We examined reasons for referral, management of labor, and maternal and neonatal outcomes among women who were referred during labor. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, descriptive analyses were performed on data obtained from patient records. Six purposively chosen hospitals in The Netherlands participated in the study from June 2011 to February 2012. The study population included 600 pregnant women who were referred during labor from primary to secondary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons for referral, interventions after referral, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: Of women who were referred during labor, three out of four women were referred for moderate risk indications: request for pain relief (30.5%), meconium-stained liquor (25.3%), failure to progress during first stage of labor (14.0%), and prolonged ruptured membranes without contractions (12.5%). Of all women, 65.7 percent had a spontaneous vaginal delivery and 59.7 percent received some kind of pain relief. Acute referral, meaning fetal distress, occurred in 5.5 percent. Of the newborns, 2.7 percent had an Apgar score of 7 or less after 5 minutes and 1.2 percent had an umbilical cord pH < 7.05. Postpartum complications occurred among 11.0 percent of women. CONCLUSION: Women who are referred during labor have a high probability of spontaneous vaginal delivery. To improve continuity of care and satisfaction for this group of women, management of labor could be continued by trained primary care midwives.

Opinions of maternity care professionals about integration of care during labor for "moderate risk" indications: a Delphi study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The percentage of referrals during labor from primary midwife-led care to obstetrician-led care has increased over the past years in The Netherlands. Most women are referred for indications with a moderate increase in risk and are looked after by clinical midwives. This study aims to provide insight into the opinions of maternity care professionals about integration of care and involvement of primary care midwives in the intrapartum care of women with "moderate risk" factors. METHODS: A Delphi study consisting of three rounds was conducted. A purposively selected heterogenic panel of 50 professionals, including obstetricians, primary care midwives, clinical midwives, and obstetric nurses, answered questions anonymously. RESULTS: Although primary care midwives would like to expand their responsibilities and tasks with respect to "moderate risk" indications, consensus among panel members was only reached concerning prolonged rupture of membranes for which the primary care midwife could remain the caregiver. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most participants support more integration of care during labor. The lack of consensus among Dutch maternity care professionals with regard to the distribution of responsibilities and tasks for "moderate risk" indications is a challenge. Further studies should explore how to deal with differences in opinions among professionals when integrating maternity care systems.

Attitudes of general practitioners and midwives towards ethnicity-based haemoglobinopathy-carrier screening.

Haemoglobinopathies (HbP) are severe autosomal recessive disorders with high prevalence among certain ethnic groups. World Health Organisation (WHO) advises implementing screening programmes for risk groups. Research in the Netherlands has shown that general practitioners and midwives do not perceive ethnicity as a risk factor for HbP. Moreover, registration of ethnicity is a controversial societal issue, which may complicate the introduction of a national preconception or antenatal carrier screening programme. This study investigates attitudes, intention and behaviour of general practitioners and midwives towards ethnicity-based HbP-carrier screening in general. A structured questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour was sent by mail to a random selection of 2100 general practitioners and 1800 primary care midwives. Response was 35% (midwives 44.2%; GPs 27.6%). Although 45% of respondents thought that offering a carrier test on the basis of ethnicity alone should become national policy, it is currently not carried out. The main factor explaining lack of intention towards ethnicity-based HbP-carrier screening was subjective norm, the perception that their peers do not think they should offer screening (52.2% variance explained). If ethnicity-based HbP-carrier screening would become national policy, most professionals report that they would carry this out. Most respondents favoured ethnicity registration for health purposes. As most practitioners look for role models among peers, debate among general practitioners and midwives should be encouraged when new policy is to be developed, articulating the voices of colleagues who already actively offer HbP-carrier screening. Moreover, primary care professionals and professional organisations need support of policy at national level.

[Revised practice guideline 'Anaemia in midwifery practice']. / Herziene beroepsstandaard 'Anemie in de verloskundige praktijk'.

The practice guideline of the Royal Dutch Organization of Midwives 'Anaemia in primary care midwifery practice' published in 2000, has recently been revised. The revised guideline takes physiological haemodilution during pregnancy into consideration and provides gestation specific reference values for haemoglobin levels. The guideline advises to start iron supplementation only in demonstrated iron deficiency based on low levels of haemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume (MCV). This results in less prescription of iron medications and prescription of lower dosages, which will result in fewer adverse effects and better therapy adherence. New chapters are added concerning anaemia during preconception and the puerperium. More attention is given to women with an increased risk of anaemia in pregnancy and the influence of a positive carrier status for haemoglobinopathy. In order to achieve good continuity of care, collaboration between obstetricians and general practitioners is important.