Postpartum haemorrhage occurring in UK midwifery units: A national population-based case-control study to investigate incidence, risk factors and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of, and investigate risk factors for, postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) requiring transfer to obstetric care following birth in midwifery units (MU) in the UK; to describe outcomes for women who experience PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care. METHODS: We conducted a national population-based case-control study in all MUs in the UK using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS). Between September 2019 and February 2020, 1501 women with PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care following birth in an MU, and 1475 control women were identified. We used multivariable logistic regression, generating adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to investigate risk factors for PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care. RESULTS: The incidence of PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care following birth in an MU was 3.7% (95% CI 3.6%-3.9%). Factors independently associated with PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care were smoking during pregnancy (aOR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.94), nulliparity (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.66-2.30), previous PPH (aOR = 2.67; 95% CI 1.67-4.25), complications in a previous pregnancy other than PPH (aOR = 2.40; 95% CI 1.25-4.60), gestational age ≥41 weeks (aOR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.10-1.69), instrumental birth (aOR = 2.69; 95% CI 1.53-4.72), third stage of labour ≥60 minutes (aOR = 5.56; 95% CI 3.93-7.88), perineal trauma (aOR = 4.67; 95% CI 3.16-6.90), and birthweight 3500-3999g (aOR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.42-2.07) or ≥4000g (aOR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.78-3.00). One in ten (10.6%) cases received a blood transfusion and one in five (21.0%) were admitted to higher level care. CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors identified in this study align with those identified in previous research and with current guidelines for women planning birth in an MU in the UK. Maternal outcomes after PPH were broadly reassuring and indicative of appropriate management. NHS organisations should ensure that robust guidelines are in place to support management of PPH in MUs.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on midwifery-led service provision in the United Kingdom in 2020-21: Findings of three national surveys.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required all healthcare systems to adapt quickly. There is some evidence about the impact of the pandemic on United Kingdom maternity services overall, but little is known about the impact on midwifery-led services, including midwifery units and home birth services. OBJECTIVE: To describe changes to midwifery-led service provision in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Three national surveys were circulated using the United Kingdom Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) Heads and Directors of Midwifery Network. The UKMidSS surveys took place in wave 1 (April to June 2020) and in wave 2 (February to March 2021). The RCM survey was conducted in April 2020. FINDINGS: The response rate to the UKMidSS surveys was 84% in wave 1 and 70% in wave 2, while 48% of Heads and Directors of Midwifery responded to the RCM survey. Around 60% of midwifery units reported being open as usual in wave 1, with the remainder affected by closures. Fewer unit closures (15%) were reported in the wave 2 survey. Around 40% of services reported some reduction in home birth services in wave 1, compared with 15% in wave 2. The apparent impact of the pandemic varied widely across the four nations of the United Kingdom and within the English regions. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic led to increased centralisation of maternity care and the disruption of midwifery-led services, especially in the first wave. Further research should focus on the reasons behind closures, the regional variation and the impact on maternity care experience and outcomes.

Using vignettes to explore judgements of patients about safety and quality of care: the role of outcome and relationship with the care provider.

BACKGROUND There is a growing body of evidence that safe outcomes and quality care are important to patients. For the patient, evaluations of safety and quality are made on the basis of the interpersonal interactions that they have with health professionals as well as the technical aspects of their care. OBJECTIVE In this study, we investigated the extent to which outcome of care (harm or not) and relationship (good or bad) with the care provider impact on the judgements of responsibility and blame as well as decisions about likelihood of making a complaint. METHOD Ninety-eight mothers made seven ratings of responsibility, blame and action in response to four hypothetical vignettes in a questionnaire. The vignettes described poor quality ante-natal care in which outcome and relationship with the health-care provider were systematically manipulated across different versions of the questionnaire. RESULTS Multivariate analyses showed that participants made significantly more negative ratings in response to vignettes describing a bad outcome and those that described a poor relationship with the health professional. However, whilst ratings of seriousness and likelihood of making a complaint were most influenced by the manipulation of outcome in the vignettes, judgements of blame and responsibility were most effected by the depiction of relationship with the health professional as good or bad. Moreover, for three of the four vignettes, relationship rather than outcome most strongly influenced overall ratings of care. DISCUSSION These findings are discussed in the context of theory and policy developments.