Assessing patient autonomy in the context of TeamBirth, a quality improvement intervention to improve shared decision-making during labor and birth.

BACKGROUND: Respectful maternity care includes shared decision-making (SDM). However, research on SDM is lacking from the intrapartum period and instruments to measure it have only recently been developed. TeamBirth is a quality improvement initiative that uses team huddles to improve SDM during labor and birth. Team huddles are structured meetings including the patient and full care team when the patient's preferences, care plans, and expectations for when the next huddle will occur are reviewed. METHODS: We used patient survey data (n = 1253) from a prospective observational study at four U.S. hospitals to examine the relationship between TeamBirth huddles and SDM. We measured SDM using the Mother's Autonomy in Decision-Making (MADM) scale. Linear regression models were used to assess the association between any exposure to huddles and the MADM score and between the number of huddles and the MADM score. RESULTS: In our multivariable model, experiencing a huddle was significantly associated with a 3.13-point higher MADM score. When compared with receiving one huddle, experiencing 6+ huddles yielded a 3.64-point higher MADM score. DISCUSSION: Patients reporting at least one TeamBirth huddle experienced significantly higher SDM, as measured by the MADM scale. Our findings align with prior research that found actively involving the patient in their care by creating structured opportunities to discuss preferences and choices enables SDM. We also demonstrated that MADM is sensitive to hospital-based quality improvement, suggesting that future labor and birth interventions might adopt MADM as a patient-reported experience measure.

Understanding social needs in pregnancy: Prospective validation of a digital short-form screening tool and patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health significantly affect health outcomes, yet are infrequently addressed in prenatal care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve the efficiency and experience of addressing social needs in pregnancy through: (1) testing a digital short-form screening tool; and (2) characterizing pregnant people's preferences for social needs screening and management. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a digital short-form social determinants of health screening tool from PRAPARE (Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences), and a survey to query patients' preferences for addressing social needs. Instruments were administered online to peripartum participants, with equal representation of patients with public and private insurance. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the short-form tool vs PRAPARE. Quantitative responses were characterized using descriptive statistics. Free-text responses were analyzed with matrix and thematic coding. Survey data were analyzed by subgroups of historically marginalized populations. RESULTS: A total of 215 people completed the survey. Participants were predominantly White (167; 77.7%) and multiparous (145; 67.4%). Unmet social needs were prevalent with both the short-form tool (77.7%) and PRAPARE (96.7%). The sensitivity (79.3%) and specificity (71.4%) of the short-form screener were high for detecting any social need. Most participants believed that it was important for their pregnancy care team to know their social needs (material: 173, 80.5%; support: 200, 93.0%), and over half felt comfortable sharing their needs through in-person or digital modalities if assistance was or was not available (material: 117, 54.4%; support: 122, 56.7%). Free-text themes reflected considerations for integrating social needs in routine prenatal care. Acceptability of addressing social needs in pregnancy was high among all groups. CONCLUSION: A digital short-form social determinants of health screening tool performs well when compared with the gold standard. Pregnant people accept social needs as a part of routine pregnancy care. Future work is needed to operationalize efficient, effective, patient-centered approaches to addressing social needs in pregnancy.

Impact of an educational program and decision tool on choice of maternity hospital: the delivery decisions randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing cesarean rates is a public health priority. To help pregnant people select hospitals with lower cesarean rates, numerous organizations publish publically hospital cesarean rate data. Few pregnant people use these data when deciding where to deliver. We sought to determine whether making cesarean rate data more accessible and understandable increases the likelihood of pregnant people selecting low-cesarean rate hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a 1:1 randomized controlled trial in 2019-2021 among users of a fertility and pregnancy mobile application. Eligible participants were trying to conceive for fewer than five months or were 28-104 days into their pregnancies. Of 189,456 participants approached and enrolled, 120,621 participants met entry criteria and were included in analyses. The intervention group was offered an educational program explaining the importance of hospital cesarean rates and an interactive tool presenting hospital cesarean rates as 1-to-5-star ratings. Control group users were offered an educational program about hospital choice and a hospital choice tool without cesarean rate data. The primary outcome was the star rating of the hospital selected by each patient during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were the importance of cesarean rates in choosing a hospital and delivery method (post-hoc secondary outcome). RESULTS: Of 120,621 participants (mean [SD] age, 27.8 [7.9]), 12,284 (10.2%) reported their choice of hospital during pregnancy, with similar reporting rates in the intervention and control groups. Intervention group participants selected hospitals with higher star ratings (2.52 vs 2.16; difference, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.43] p < 0.001) and were more likely to believe that the hospitals they chose would impact their chances of having cesarean deliveries (38.5% vs 33.1%, p < 0.001) but did not assign higher priority to cesarean delivery rates when choosing their hospitals (76.2% vs 74.3%, p = 0.05). There was no difference in self-reported cesarean rates between the intervention and control groups (31.4% vs 31.4%, p = 0.98). CONCLUSION: People offered an educational program and interactive tool to compare hospital cesarean rates were more likely to use cesarean data in selecting a hospital and selected hospitals with lower cesarean rates but were not less likely to have a cesarean. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered December 9, 2016 at clinicaltrials.gov, First enrollment November 2019. ID NCT02987803, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987803.

Improving communication and teamwork during labor: A feasibility, acceptability, and safety study.

BACKGROUND: TeamBirth was designed to promote best practices in shared decision making (SDM) among care teams for people giving birth. Although leading health organizations recommend SDM to address gaps in quality of care, these recommendations are not consistently implemented in labor and delivery. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods trial of TeamBirth among eligible laboring patients and all clinicians (nurses, midwives, and obstetricians) at four high-volume hospitals during April 2018 to September 2019. We used patient and clinician surveys, abstracted clinical data, and administrative claims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of TeamBirth. RESULTS: A total of 2,669 patients (approximately 28% of eligible delivery volume) and 375 clinicians (78% response rate) responded to surveys on their experiences with TeamBirth. Among patients surveyed, 89% reported experiencing at least one structured full care team conversation ("huddle") during labor and 77% reported experiencing multiple huddles. There was a significant relationship between the number of reported huddles and patient acceptability (P < 0.001), suggestive of a dose response. Among clinicians surveyed, 90% would recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. There were no significant changes in maternal and newborn safety measures. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a care process that aims to improve communication and teamwork during labor with high fidelity is feasible. The process is acceptable to patients and clinicians and shows no negative effects on patient safety. Future work should evaluate the effectiveness of TeamBirth in improving care experience and health outcomes.

Implementation strategies within a complex environment: A qualitative study of a shared decision-making intervention during childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) may improve communication, teamwork, patient experience, respectful maternity care, and safety during childbirth. Despite these benefits, SDM is not widely implemented, and strategies for implementing SDM interventions are not well described. We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of TeamBirth, an SDM solution that centers the birthing person in decision-making through simple tools that structure communication among the care team. We identified and described implementation strategies that bridge the gap between knowledge and practice. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study among four hospitals in the United States to understand the acceptability and feasibility of TeamBirth. We interviewed 103 clinicians and conducted 16 focus group discussions with 52 implementers between June 2018 and October 2019. We drew on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to understand acceptability and feasibility, and to identify and describe the underlying contextual factors that affected implementation. RESULTS: We found that clinicians and implementers valued TeamBirth for promoting clarity about care plans among the direct care team and for centering the birthing person in decision-making. Contextual factors that affected implementation included strength of leadership, physician practice models, and quality improvement culture. Effective implementation strategies included regular data feedback and adapting "flexible" components of TeamBirth to the local context. DISCUSSION: By identifying and describing TeamBirth's contextual factors and implementation strategies, our findings can help bridge the implementation gap of SDM interventions. Our in-depth analysis offers tangible lessons for other labor and delivery unit leaders as they seek to integrate SDM practices in their own settings.

The design of "TeamBirth": A care process to improve communication and teamwork during labor.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that communication and teamwork are critical to patient safety, few care processes have been intentionally designed for this purpose in labor and delivery. The purpose of this project was to design an intrapartum care process that aims to improve communication and teamwork between clinicians and patients. METHODS: We followed the "Double-Diamond" design method with four sequential steps: Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver. In Discover, we searched professional guidelines and peer-reviewed literature to delineate the challenges to quality of intrapartum care and to uncover options for solutions. In Define, we convened an interdisciplinary group of experts to focus the problem scope and prioritize solution features. In Develop, we created initial prototype solutions. In Deliver, we engaged clinicians and patients in rapid cycle testing to iteratively produce a care process called "TeamBirth" that aims to improve team communication. RESULTS: We designed TeamBirth, an intrapartum care process composed of brief team meetings ("huddles") between clinicians and patients. Huddles are navigated by a shared planning board placed in the labor and delivery room in view of the patient and their care team. The board promotes transparent and reliable communication and contains four areas to be acknowledged or discussed: (a) the names of the team members, starting with the patient; (b) the patient's preferences; (c) the care plan for the patient, baby, and labor progress; and (d) when the next team huddle is anticipated. DISCUSSION: We identified an opportunity to improve the safety and dignity of childbirth care through an intrapartum care process that promotes reliable and structured communication and teamwork. Future work should evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of implementation and potential impact on safety and experience of care.

Does comparing cesarean delivery rates influence women's choice of obstetric hospital?

OBJECTIVES: Despite public reporting of wide variation in hospital cesarean delivery rates, few women access this information when deciding where to deliver. We hypothesized that making cesarean delivery rate data more easily accessible and understandable would increase the likelihood of women selecting a hospital with a low cesarean delivery rate. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 18,293 users of the Ovia Health mobile apps in 2016-2017. All enrollees were given an explanation of cesarean delivery rate data, and those randomized to the intervention group were also given an interactive tool that presented those data for the 10 closest hospitals with obstetric services. Our outcome measures were enrollees' self-reported delivery hospital and views on cesarean delivery rates. METHODS: Intent-to-treat analysis using 2-sided Pearson's χ2 tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference across the experimental groups in the proportion of women who selected hospitals with low cesarean delivery rates (7.0% control vs 6.8% intervention; P = .54). Women in the intervention group were more likely to believe that hospitals in their community had differing cesarean delivery rates (66.9% vs 55.9%; P <.001) and to report that they looked at cesarean delivery rates when choosing their hospital (44.5% vs 33.9%; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing women with an interactive tool to compare cesarean delivery rates across hospitals in their community improved women's familiarity with variation in cesarean delivery rates but did not increase their likelihood of selecting hospitals with lower rates.

An Exploratory Study of the Relationship between Facility Design and the Provision of Childbirth Care.

INTRODUCTION: Across health care, facility design has been shown to significantly affect quality of care; however, in maternity care, the mechanisms of how facility design affects provision of care are understudied. We aim to identify and illustrate key mechanisms that may explain how facility design helps or hinders clinicians in providing childbirth care. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to select design elements for inclusion. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, we engaged an interdisciplinary advisory board to prioritize these elements with regard to potential effect on care provision. The advisory board proposed mechanisms that may explain how the prioritized facility design elements help or hinder care, which the study team organized into themes. We then explored these themes using semistructured interviews with managers at 12 diverse birth centers and hospital-based labor and delivery units from across the United States. RESULTS: The design of childbirth facilities may help or hinder the provision of care through at least 3 distinct mechanisms: 1) flexibility and adaptability of spaces to changes in volume or acuity; 2) physical and cognitive anchoring that can create default workflows or mental models of care; and 3) facilitation of sharing knowledge and workload across clinicians. DISCUSSION: Facility designs may intentionally or unintentionally influence the workflows, expectations, and cultures of childbirth care.

Assessing the Feasibility of Measuring Variation in Facility Design Among American Childbirth Facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of quantifying variation in childbirth facility design and explore the implications for childbirth service delivery across the United States. BACKGROUND: Design has been shown to impact quality of care in childbirth. However, most prior studies use qualitative data to examine associations between the design of patient rooms and patient experience. There has been limited exploration of measures of unit design and its impact on care provision. METHOD: We recruited 12 childbirth facilities that were diverse with regard to facility type, location, delivery volume, cesarean delivery rate, and practice model. Each facility provided annotated floor plans and participated in a site visit or telephone interview to provide information on their design and clinical practices. These data were analyzed with self-reported primary cesarean delivery rates to assess associations between design and care delivery. RESULTS: We observed wide variation in childbirth unit design. Deliveries per labor room per year ranged from 75 to 479. The ratio of operating rooms to labor rooms ranged from 1:1 to 1:9. The average distance between labor rooms and workstations ranged from 23 to 114 ft, and the maximum distance between labor rooms ranged from 9 to 242 ft. More deliveries per room, fewer labor rooms per operating room, and longer distances between spaces were all associated with higher primary cesarean delivery rates. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant differences in design can be feasibly measured across diverse childbirth facilities. The design of these facilities may not be optimally matched to service delivery needs.

Common challenges managing bed and staff availability on labor and delivery units in the United States: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Managers of labor and delivery units need to ensure that their limited supply of beds and nursing staff are adequately available, despite uncertainty with respect to patient needs. The ability to address this challenge has been associated with patient outcomes; however, best practices have not been defined. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 96 interviews with nurse and physician managers from 48 labor and delivery units across the United States. Included units represented a diverse range of characteristics, but skewed toward higher volume teaching hospitals. The prior study scored management practice based on their proactiveness (ability to mitigate challenges before they occur). Based on emerging themes, we identified common challenges in managing bed and staff availability and performed an analysis of positive deviants to identify an additional criterion for effective management performance. RESULTS: We identified four key challenges common to all labor and delivery units, (1) scheduling planned cases, (2) tracking patient flow, (3) monitoring bed and staff availability in the moment, and (4) adjusting bed and staff availability in the moment. We also identified "systematicness" (ability to address challenges in a consistent and reliable manner) as an emerging criterion for effective management. We observed that being proactive and systematic represented distinct characteristics, and units with both proactive and systematic practices appeared best positioned to effectively manage limited beds and staffing. DISCUSSION: Labor and delivery unit managers should distinctly assess both the proactiveness and systematicness of their existing management practices and consider how their practices could be modified to improve care.

Association of Previous Cesarean Delivery With Surgical Complications After a Hysterectomy Later in Life.

IMPORTANCE: In recent decades, the global rates of cesarean delivery have rapidly increased. Nonetheless, the influence of cesarean deliveries on surgical complications later in life has been understudied. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether previous cesarean delivery increases the risk of reoperation, perioperative and postoperative complications, and blood transfusion when undergoing a hysterectomy later in life. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This registry-based cohort study used data from Danish nationwide registers on all women who gave birth for the first time between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 2012, and underwent a benign, nongravid hysterectomy between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2012. The dates of this analysis were February 1 to June 30, 2016. EXPOSURE: Cesarean delivery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reoperation, perioperative and postoperative complications, and blood transfusion within 30 days of a hysterectomy. RESULTS: Of the 7685 women (mean [SD] age, 40.0 [5.3] years) who met the inclusion criteria, 5267 (68.5%) had no previous cesarean delivery, 1694 (22.0%) had 1 cesarean delivery, and 724 (9.4%) had 2 or more cesarean deliveries. Among the 7685 included women, 3714 (48.3%) had an abdominal hysterectomy, 2513 (32.7%) had a vaginal hysterectomy, and 1458 (19.0%) had a laparoscopic hysterectomy. In total, 388 women (5.0%) had a reoperation within 30 days after a hysterectomy. Compared with women having vaginal deliveries, fully adjusted multivariable analysis showed that the adjusted odds ratio of reoperation for women having 1 previous cesarean delivery was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.03-1.68), and the adjusted odds ratio was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.96-1.91) for women having 2 or more cesarean deliveries. Perioperative and postoperative complications were reported in 934 women (12.2%) and were more frequent in women with previous cesarean deliveries, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.16 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for 1 cesarean delivery and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.02-1.65) for 2 or more cesarean deliveries. Blood transfusion was administered to 195 women (2.5%). Women having 2 or more cesarean deliveries had an adjusted odds ratio for receiving blood transfusion of 1.93 (95% CI, 1.21-3.07) compared with women having no previous cesarean delivery. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women with at least 1 previous cesarean delivery face an increased risk of complications when undergoing a hysterectomy later in life. The results support policies and clinical efforts to prevent cesarean deliveries that are not medically indicated.

Relationship Between Labor and Delivery Unit Management Practices and Maternal Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To define, measure, and characterize key competencies of managing labor and delivery units in the United States and assess the associations between unit management and maternal outcomes. METHODS: We developed and administered a management measurement instrument using structured telephone interviews with both the primary nurse and physician managers at 53 diverse hospitals across the United States. A trained interviewer scored the managers' interview responses based on management practices that ranged from most reactive (lowest scores) to most proactive (highest scores). We established instrument validity by conducting site visits among a subsample of 11 hospitals and established reliability using interrater comparison. Using a factor analysis, we identified three themes of management competencies: management of unit culture, patient flow, and nursing. We constructed patient-level regressions to assess the independent association between these management themes and maternal outcomes. RESULTS: Proactive management of unit culture and nursing was associated with a significantly higher risk of primary cesarean delivery in low-risk patients (relative risk [RR] 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.66 and RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.92, respectively). Proactive management of unit culture was also associated with a significantly higher risk of prolonged length of stay (RR 4.13, 95% CI 1.98-8.64), postpartum hemorrhage (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.58-4.18), and blood transfusion (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.12-3.13). Proactive management of patient flow and nursing was associated with a significantly lower risk of prolonged length of stay (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.12-0.46 and RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.62, respectively). CONCLUSION: Labor and delivery unit management varies dramatically across and within hospitals in the United States. Some proactive management practices may be associated with increased risk of primary cesarean delivery and maternal morbidity. Other proactive management practices may be associated with decreased risk of prolonged length of stay, indicating a potential opportunity to safely improve labor and delivery unit efficiency.

How do pregnant women use quality measures when choosing their obstetric provider?

BACKGROUND: Given increased public reporting of the wide variation in hospital obstetric quality, we sought to understand how women incorporate quality measures into their selection of an obstetric hospital. METHODS: We surveyed 6141 women through Ovia Pregnancy, an application used by women to track their pregnancy. We used t tests and chi-square tests to compare response patterns by age, parity, and risk status. RESULTS: Most respondents (73.2%) emphasized their choice of obstetrician/midwife over their choice of hospital. Over half of respondents (55.1%) did not believe that their choice of hospital would affect their likelihood of having a cesarean delivery. While most respondents (74.9%) understood that quality of care varied across hospitals, few prioritized reported hospital quality metrics. Younger women and nulliparous women were more likely to be unfamiliar with quality metrics. When offered a choice, only 43.6% of respondents reported that they would be willing to travel 20 additional miles farther from their home to deliver at a hospital with a 20 percentage point lower cesarean delivery rate. DISCUSSION: Women's lack of interest in available quality metrics is driven by differences in how women and clinicians/researchers conceptualize obstetric quality. Quality metrics are reported at the hospital level, but women care more about their choice of obstetrician and the quality of their outpatient prenatal care. Additionally, many women do not believe that a hospital's quality score influences the care they will receive. Presentations of hospital quality data should more clearly convey how hospital-level characteristics can affect women's experiences, including the fact that their chosen obstetrician/midwife may not deliver their baby.