Developing quality indicators for assessing quality of birth centre care: a mixed- methods study.

BACKGROUND: Birth centres are described as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth in a home-like environment assisted by midwives and maternity care assistants. If complications arise or threaten, the woman is referred to a maternity unit of a hospital where an obstetrician will take over responsibility. In the last decade, a number of new birth centres have been established in the Netherlands, based on the assumption that birth centres provide better quality of care since they offer a better opportunity for more integrated care than the existing system with independent primary and secondary care providers. At present, there is no evidence for this assumption. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to present evidence-based recommendations for organization and functioning of future birth centres in the Netherlands. A necessary first step in this evaluation is the development of indicators for measuring the quality of the care delivered in birth centres in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to identify a comprehensive set of structure and process indicators to assess quality of birth centre care. METHODS: We used mixed methods to develop a set of structure and process quality indicators for evaluating birth centre care. Beginning with a literature review, we developed an exhaustive list of determinants. We then used a Delphi study to narrow this list, calling on experts to rate the determinants for relevance and feasibility. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 63 experts, directly or indirectly involved with birth centre care, was invited to participate. RESULTS: A panel of 42 experts completed two Delphi rounds rating determinants of the quality of birth centre care based on their relevance (to the setting) and feasibility (of use). A set of 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators was identified to assess the quality of birth centre care in the Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators concerning birth centre care. This set will be validated during the evaluation of birth centres in the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Typology of birth centres in the Netherlands using the Rainbow model of integrated care: results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of integrated care is to offer a continuum of care that crosses the boundaries of public health, primary, secondary, and tertiary care. Integrated care is increasingly promoted for people with complex needs and has also recently been promoted in maternity care systems to improve the quality of care. Especially when located near an obstetric unit, birth centres are considered to be ideal settings for the realization of integrated care. At present, however, we know very little about the degree of integration in these centres and we do not know if increased levels of integration improve the quality of the care delivered. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to evaluate birth centres and their contribution to the Dutch maternity care system. The aim of this particular sub-study is to classify birth centres in clusters with similar characteristics based on integration profiles, to support the evaluation of birth centre care. METHODS: This study is based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. We used a survey followed by qualitative interviews in 23 birth centres in the Netherlands to determine which integration profiles can be distinguished and to describe their discriminating characteristics. Cluster analysis was used to classify the birth centres. RESULTS: Birth centres were classified into three clusters: 1)"Mono-disciplinary-oriented birth centres" (n = 10): which are mainly owned by primary care organizations and established as physical facilities to provide an alternative birthplace for low risk births; 2) "Multi-disciplinary-oriented birth centres" (n = 6): which are mainly multi-disciplinary oriented and can be regarded as facilities to give birth, with a focus on integrated birth care; 3) "Mixed Cluster of birth centres" (n = 7): which have a range of organizational forms that differentiate them from centres in the other clusters. CONCLUSION: We identified a recognizable classification, with similar characteristics between birth centres in the clusters. The results of this study can be used to relate integration profiles of birth centres to quality of care, costs, and perinatal outcomes. This assessment makes it possible to develop recommendations with regard to the type and degree of integration of Dutch birth centres in the future.

TSH and fT4 during pregnancy: an observational study and a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Trimester-specific reference intervals for TSH are recommended to assess thyroid function during pregnancy due to changes in thyroid physiology. Laboratories should verify reference intervals for their population and assay used. No consistent upper reference limit (URL) for TSH during pregnancy is reported in literature. We investigated the use of non-pregnant reference intervals for TSH, recommended during pregnancy by current Dutch guidelines, by deriving trimester-specific reference intervals in disease-free Dutch pregnant women as these are not available. METHODS: Apparently healthy low risk pregnant women were recruited via midwifery practices. Exclusion criteria included current or past history of thyroid or other endocrine disease, multiple pregnancy, use of medication known to influence thyroid function and current pregnancy as a result of hormonal stimulation. Women who were TPO-antibody positive, miscarried, developed hyperemesis gravidarum, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, HELLP, diabetes or other disease, delivered prematurely or had a small for gestational age neonate were excluded. Blood samples were collected at 9-13 weeks (n=99), 27-29 weeks (n=96) and 36-39 weeks (n=96) of gestation and at 4-13 weeks post-partum (n=95). Sixty women had complete data during pregnancy and post-partum. All analyses were performed on a Roche Cobas e601 analyser. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to current Dutch guidelines, the 97.5th percentiles of TSH in the first (3.39 mIU/L) and second trimesters (3.38 mIU/L) are well under the non-pregnant URL of 4.0 mIU/L. The higher TSH in the third trimester (97.5th percentile 3.85 mIU/L) is close to the current non-pregnant URL of 4.0 mIU/L. Absolute intra-individual TSH is relatively stable during pregnancy and post-partum as individuals tracked within the tertile assigned in trimester 1. Even small deviations within the population reference interval may indicate subtle thyroid dysfunction.

The Dutch Birth Centre Study: study design of a programmatic evaluation of the effect of birth centre care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Birth centres are regarded as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth, assisted by a midwife and a maternity care assistant. In case of (threatening) complications referral to a maternity unit of a hospital is necessary. In the last decade up to 20 different birth centres have been instituted in the Netherlands. This increase in birth centres is attributed to various reasons such as a safe and easy accessible place of birth, organizational efficiency in integration of care and direct access to obstetric hospital care if needed, and better use of maternity care assistance. Birth centres are assumed to offer increased integration and quality of care and thus to contribute to better perinatal and maternal outcomes. So far there is no evidence for this assumption as no previous studies of birth centres have been carried out in the Netherlands. DESIGN: The aims are 1) Identification of birth centres and measuring integration of organization and care 2) Measuring the quality of birth centre care 3) Effects of introducing a birth centre on regional quality and provision of care 4) Cost-effectiveness analysis 5) In depth longitudinal analysis of the organization and processes in birth centres. Different qualitative and quantitative methods will be used in the different sub studies. The design is a multi-centre, multi-method study, including surveys, interviews, observations, and analysis of registration data and documents. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will enable users of maternity care, professionals, policy makers and health care financers to make an informed choice about the kind of birth location that is appropriate for their needs and wishes.

An approach to assessing the quality of birth centres results of the Dutch birth centre study.

OBJECTIVE: to determine the usability of a recently developed set of 30 structure and process birth centre quality indicators. DESIGN: an explorative study using mixed-methods including literature, a survey, interviews and observations. The study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study. We first determined the measurability of birth centre quality indicators by describing them in detail. Next, we assessed the birth centres in the Netherlands according to these indicators using data derived from the Dutch Birth Centre General Questionnaire, the Dutch Birth Centre Integration Questionnaire, interviews, and policy documents. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: representatives of 23 birth centres in the Netherlands. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: 28 of the 30 quality indicators could be used to assess birth centres in the Netherlands, one had no optimal value defined, another could not be scored because the information was not available. Each quality indicator could be scored 0 or 1. Differences between birth centres were shown: the scores ranged from 7 to 22. Some of the quality indicators can be combined or made more specific so that they are easier to assess. Some quality indicators need adaptation because they are only applicable for some birth centres (e.g. only for freestanding or alongside birth centres). KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: 28 of the 30 quality indicators are usable to assess structure and process quality of birth centres. With the findings of this study the set of structure and process quality indicators for birth centres in the Netherlands can be reduced to 22 indicators. This set of quality indicators can contribute to the development of a quality system for birth centres. Further research is necessary to formulate standards or minimum quality requirements for birth centres and to improve the set of birth centre quality indicators.

Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres: A case study from a process perspective.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Handovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements. METHODS: This case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study. RESULTS: Solutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face-to-face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring quality during handovers requires a case-specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter-organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well.

An Approach to measuring Integrated Care within a Maternity Care System: Experiences from the Maternity Care Network Study and the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated care is considered to be a means to reduce costs, improve the quality of care and generate better patient outcomes. At present, little is known about integrated care in maternity care systems. We developed questionnaires to examine integrated care in two different settings, using the taxonomy of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of these questionnaires. METHODS: We used data collected between 2013 and 2015 from two studies: the Maternity Care Network Study (634 respondents) and the Dutch Birth Centre Study (56 respondents). We assessed the feasibility, discriminative validity, and reliability of the questionnaires. RESULTS: Both questionnaires showed good feasibility (overall missing rate < 20%) and reliability (Cronbach's Alpha coefficient > 0.70). Between-subgroups post-hoc comparisons showed statistically significant differences on integration profiles between regional networks (on all items, dimensions of integration and total integration score) and birth centres (on 50% of the items and dimensions of integration). DISCUSSION: Both questionnaires are feasible and can discriminate between sites with different integration profiles in The Netherlands. They offer an opportunity to better understand integrated care as one step in understanding the complexity of the concept.

Differences in optimality index between planned place of birth in a birth centre and alternative planned places of birth, a nationwide prospective cohort study in The Netherlands: results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Optimality Index of planned birth in a birth centre with planned birth in a hospital and planned home birth for low-risk term pregnant women who start labour under the responsibility of a community midwife. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Low-risk pregnant women under care of a community midwife and living in a region with one of the 21 participating Dutch birth centres or in a region with the possibility for midwife-led hospital birth. Home birth was commonly available in all regions included in the study. PARTICIPANTS: 3455 low-risk term pregnant women (1686 nulliparous and 1769 multiparous) who gave birth between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2013: 1668 planned birth centre births, 701 planned midwife-led hospital births and 1086 planned home births. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Optimality IndexNL-2015, a tool to measure 'maximum outcome with minimal intervention', was assessed by planned place of birth being a birth centre, a hospital setting or at home. Also, a composite maternal and perinatal adverse outcome score was calculated for the different planned places of birth. RESULTS: There were no differences in Optimality Index NL-2015 for pregnant women who planned to give birth in a birth centre compared with women who planned to give birth in a hospital. Although effect sizes were small, women who planned to give birth at home had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015 than women who planned to give birth in a birth centre. The differences were larger for multiparous than for nulliparous women. CONCLUSION: The Optimality Index NL-2015 for women with planned birth centre births was comparable with planned midwife-led hospital births. Women with planned home births had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015, that is, a higher sum score of evidence-based items with an optimal value than women with planned birth centre births.

Experiences of women who planned birth in a birth centre compared to alternative planned places of birth. Results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the experiences with maternity care of women who planned birth in a birth centre and to compare them to alternative planned places of birth, by using the responsiveness concept of the World Health Organization. DESIGN: this study is a cross-sectional study using the ReproQ questionnaire filled out eight to ten weeks after birth. The primary outcome was responsiveness of birth care. Secondary outcomes included overall grades for birth care and experiences with the birth centre services. Regression analyses were performed to compare experiences among the planned places of birth. The study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study. SETTING: the women were recruited by 82 midwifery practices in the Netherlands, within the study period 1 August 2013 and 31 December 2013. PARTICIPANTS: a total of 2162 women gave written consent to receive the questionnaire and 1181 (54.6%) women completed the questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: women who planned to give birth at a birth centre: (1) had similar experiences as the women who planned to give birth in a hospital receiving care of a community midwife. (2) had significantly less favourable experiences than the women who planned to give birth at home. Differences during birth were seen on the domains dignity (OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.09-2.27) and autonomy (OR=1.77, 95% CI=1.25-2.51), during the postpartum period on the domains social considerations (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.06-2.25) and choice and continuity (OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.00-2.03). (3) had significantly better experiences than the women who planned to give birth in a hospital under supervision of an obstetrician. Differences during birth were seen on the domains dignity (OR=0.51, 95% CI=0.31-0.81), autonomy (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.35-1.00), confidentiality (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.36-0.92) and social considerations (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.28-0.79). During the postpartum period differences were seen on the domains dignity (OR=0.61, 95% CI=0.38-0.98), autonomy (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.31-0.85) and basic amenities (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.30-0.88). More than 80% of the women who received care in a birth centre rated the facilities, the moment of arrival/departure and the continuity in the birth centre as good. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: in the last decades, many birth centres have been established in different countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden and the Netherlands. For women who do not want to give birth at home a birth centre is a good choice: it leads to similar experiences as a planned hospital birth. Emphasis should be placed on ways to improve autonomy and prompt attention for women who plan to give birth in a birth centre as well as on the improvement of care in case of a referral.

Comparison of induction of labour and expectant management in postterm pregnancy: a matched cohort study.

Randomized clinical trials have shown that induction of labour does not result in higher caesarean delivery rates in women who are postterm. Despite this evidence, the policy of inducing women who are postterm is not generally applied in the Netherlands. This provides us with the opportunity to assess whether the findings from randomized studies can also be observed in nonrandomized studies and to validate these findings in the Dutch obstetric population. We performed a retrospective matched cohort study (1:1 ratios for both age and parity) in women with uncomplicated pregnancies of 42 weeks' duration and compared induction of labour with a policy of serial antenatal monitoring. Analyses were made by the intention to treat principle. We studied 674 women. Among the 337 women in the expectant management group, 42 (12.5%) underwent caesarean delivery, compared to 46 (13.6%) of the 337 women in the induction group (relative risk [RR], 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.4). However, the incidence of shoulder dystocia (RR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-15) and meconium-stained amniotic fluid (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3) were higher in the expectant management group. Induction of labour does not result in an increased risk of caesarean delivery in women who are postterm. Because epidemiologic studies suggest an increased risk of perinatal death and birth injury beyond 42 weeks' gestation, induction of labour should be offered to all women who are postterm.