Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 10(5): e0126266, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25961723

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that it is possible to select a group of low risk women who can start labour in midwife-led care without having increased rates of severe adverse maternal outcomes compared to women who start labour in secondary care. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands, using data from 223 739 women with a singleton pregnancy between 37 and 42 weeks gestation without a previous caesarean section, with spontaneous onset of labour and a child in cephalic presentation. Information on all cases of severe acute maternal morbidity collected by the national study into ethnic determinants of maternal morbidity in the Netherlands (LEMMoN study), 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006, was merged with data from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry of all births occurring during the same period. Our primary outcome was severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM, i.e. admission to an intensive care unit, uterine rupture, eclampsia or severe HELLP, major obstetric haemorrhage, and other serious events). Secondary outcomes were postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta. RESULTS: Nulliparous and parous women who started labour in midwife-led care had lower rates of SAMM, postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta compared to women who started labour in secondary care. For SAMM the adjusted odds ratio's and 95% confidence intervals were for nulliparous women: 0.57 (0.45 to 0.71) and for parous women 0.47 (0.36 to 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it is possible to identify a group of women at low risk of obstetric complications who may benefit from midwife-led care. Women can be reassured that we found no evidence that midwife-led care at the onset of labour is unsafe for women in a maternity care system with a well developed risk selection and referral system.


Subject(s)
Delivery, Obstetric/statistics & numerical data , Labor, Obstetric , Midwifery/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Cohort Studies , Female , Gestational Age , Home Childbirth/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Netherlands , Odds Ratio , Pregnancy , Young Adult
2.
BMJ ; 346: f3263, 2013 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23766482

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that low risk women at the onset of labour with planned home birth have a higher rate of severe acute maternal morbidity than women with planned hospital birth, and to compare the rate of postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta. DESIGN: Cohort study using a linked dataset. SETTING: Information on all cases of severe acute maternal morbidity in the Netherlands collected by the national study into ethnic determinants of maternal morbidity in the netherlands (LEMMoN study), 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006, merged with data from the Netherlands perinatal register of all births occurring during the same period. PARTICIPANTS: 146 752 low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severe acute maternal morbidity (admission to an intensive care unit, eclampsia, blood transfusion of four or more packed cells, and other serious events), postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta. RESULTS: Overall, 92 333 (62.9%) women had a planned home birth and 54 419 (37.1%) a planned hospital birth. The rate of severe acute maternal morbidity among planned primary care births was 2.0 per 1000 births. For nulliparous women the rate for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 2.3 versus 3.1 per 1000 births (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06), relative risk reduction 25.7% (95% confidence interval -0.1% to 53.5%), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 43.1 versus 43.3 (0.92, 0.85 to 1.00 and 0.5%, -6.8% to 7.9%), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 29.0 versus 29.8 (0.91, 0.83 to 1.00 and 2.8%, -6.1% to 11.8%). For parous women the rate of severe acute maternal morbidity for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 1.0 versus 2.3 per 1000 births (0.43, 0.29 to 0.63 and 58.3%, 33.2% to 87.5%), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 19.6 versus 37.6 (0.50, 0.46 to 0.55 and 47.9%, 41.2% to 54.7%), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 8.5 versus 19.6 (0.41, 0.36 to 0.47 and 56.9%, 47.9% to 66.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous women these differences were statistically significant. Absolute risks were small in both groups. There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system.


Subject(s)
Delivery, Obstetric/adverse effects , Home Childbirth/adverse effects , Hospitalization , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Netherlands , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index
3.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd ; 155: A2541, 2011.
Article in Dutch | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21291578

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the audit of severe acute maternal morbidity in the Netherlands, indicating the audit procedure and possible points for improvement. DESIGN: Descriptive audit investigation. METHODS: Eight audit meetings were held concerning cases of severe acute maternal morbidity selected from a prospective, population-based, cohort investigation at all 98 obstetric departments in the Netherlands. Before the start of each meeting, details of the cases were sent to panel members for individual analysis. During the plenary meeting the findings were discussed, and more detailed information was available if required from the patient dossier. Substandard care was identified on the basis of the opinion of the majority of panel members. RESULTS: Substandard care was identified in almost 80% of the SAMM cases discussed. Specific recommendations were formulated concerning the procedure of audit and also concerning local and national implementation of guidelines. CONCLUSION: Audit merits an important place both nationally and locally in Dutch obstetric practice. Quality improvement is generally possible without large changes to the system, specifically by optimising existing guidelines and putting them into practice.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/standards , Obstetrics/standards , Quality of Health Care , Female , Humans , Medical Audit , Netherlands , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications , Prenatal Care/standards , Prospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL