A national cross sectional survey of heads of midwifery services of uptake, benefits and barriers to use of obstetric early warning systems (EWS) by midwives.

OBJECTIVE: to identify the extent to which Early Warning Systems (EWS) are used by midwives in the United Kingdom (UK), the maternity settings they are used in, physiological parameters used to 'trigger' referral, training provision, barriers to implementation and role in preventing maternal morbidity. DESIGN: cross-sectional survey of heads of midwifery services. An email questionnaire was sent in September 2012. SETTING: UK NHS secondary care organisations providing maternity care. FINDINGS: heads of midwifery from 107 (68%) of 157 NHS organisations responded, with 108 questionnaires returned as two organisations had recently merged. All organisations, apart from one which only had a free-standing midwifery unit, had introduced EWS. Nearly all respondents (99%) reported EWS were used by midwives antenatally, 76% in labour and 100% on the postnatal ward. All EWS charts included body temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation although parameters for escalation varied widely. Barriers to use of EWS by midwives included overlap with the partogram in labour, and staff shortages and delays obtaining clinical review when referral was triggered. Two-thirds considered EWS prevented maternal morbidity although few could provide supporting evidence, for example, audit findings. Training for midwives in use of EWS was available in 83% of organisations. CONCLUSION: most UK midwives are using EWS, with the highest use in obstetric units. The heterogeneity of EWS currently used potentially limits collation of evidence to inform appropriate system level responses. Research is needed to evaluate the role of EWS to prevent maternal morbidity during and after pregnancy in different maternity settings.

How good are we at implementing evidence to support the management of birth related perineal trauma? A UK wide survey of midwifery practice.

BACKGROUND: The accurate assessment and appropriate repair of birth related perineal trauma require high levels of skill and competency, with evidence based guideline recommendations available to inform UK midwifery practice. Implementation of guideline recommendations could reduce maternal morbidity associated with perineal trauma, which is commonly reported and persistent, with potential to deter women from a future vaginal birth. Despite evidence, limited attention is paid to this important aspect of midwifery practice. We wished to identify how midwives in the UK assessed and repaired perineal trauma and the extent to which practice reflected evidence based guidance. Findings would be used to inform the content of a large intervention study. METHODS: A descriptive cross sectional study was completed. One thousand randomly selected midwives were accessed via the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and sent a questionnaire. Study inclusion criteria included that the midwives were in clinical practice and undertook perineal assessment and management within their current role. Quantitative and qualitative data were collated. Associations between midwife characteristics and implementation of evidence based recommendations for perineal assessment and management were examined using chi-square tests of association. RESULTS: 405 midwives (40.5%) returned a questionnaire, 338 (83.5%) of whom met inclusion criteria. The majority worked in a consultant led unit (235, 69.5%) and over a third had been qualified for 20 years or longer (129, 38.2%). Compliance with evidence was poor. Few (6%) midwives used evidence based suturing methods to repair all layers of perineal trauma and only 58 (17.3%) performed rectal examination as part of routine perineal trauma assessment. Over half (192, 58.0%) did not suture all second degree tears. Feeling confident to assess perineal trauma all of the time was only reported by 116 (34.3%) midwives, with even fewer (73, 21.6%) feeling confident to perform perineal repair all of the time. Two thirds of midwives (63.5%) felt confident to perform an episiotomy. Midwives qualified for 20 years or longer and those on more senior clinical grades were most likely to implement evidence based recommendations and feel confident about perineal management. CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable gaps with implementation of evidence to support management of perineal trauma.

Improving inpatient postnatal services: midwives views and perspectives of engagement in a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Despite major policy initiatives in the United Kingdom to enhance women's experiences of maternity care, improving in-patient postnatal care remains a low priority, although it is an aspect of care consistently rated as poor by women. As part of a systems and process approach to improving care at one maternity unit in the South of England, the views and perspectives of midwives responsible for implementing change were sought. METHODS: A Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) approach was adopted to support a systems and process change to in-patient care and care on transfer home in a large district general hospital with around 6000 births a year. The CQI approach included an initial assessment to identify where revisions to routine systems and processes were required, developing, implementing and evaluating revisions to the content and documentation of care in hospital and on transfer home, and training workshops for midwives and other maternity staff responsible for implementing changes. To assess midwifery views of the quality improvement process and their engagement with this, questionnaires were sent to those who had participated at the outset. RESULTS: Questionnaires were received from 68 (46%) of the estimated 149 midwives eligible to complete the questionnaire. All midwives were aware of the revisions introduced, and two-thirds felt these were more appropriate to meet the women's physical and emotional health, information and support needs. Some midwives considered that the introduction of new maternal postnatal records increased their workload, mainly as a consequence of colleagues not completing documentation as required. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first UK study to undertake a review of in-patient postnatal services. Involvement of midwives at the outset was essential to the success of the initiative. Midwives play a lead role in the planning and organisation of in-patient postnatal care and it was important to obtain their feedback on whether revisions were pragmatic and achieved anticipated improvements in care quality. Their initial involvement ensured priority areas for change were identified and implemented. Their subsequent feedback highlighted further important areas to address as part of CQI to ensure best quality care continues to be implemented. Our findings could support other maternity service organisations to optimise in-patient postnatal services.

PErineal Assessment and Repair Longitudinal Study (PEARLS): protocol for a matched pair cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: The Perineal Assessment and Repair Longitudinal Study (PEARLS) is a national clinical quality improvement initiative designed to improve the assessment and management of perineal trauma. Perineal trauma affects around 85% of women who have a vaginal birth in the UK each year and millions more world-wide. Continuous suturing techniques compared with traditional interrupted methods are more effective in reducing pain and postnatal morbidity, however they are not widely used by clinicians despite recommendations of evidence based national clinical guidelines. Perineal suturing skills and postnatal management of trauma remain highly variable within and between maternity units in the UK as well as worldwide. Implementation of a standardised training package to support effective perineal management practices could reduce perineal pain and other related postnatal morbidity for a substantial number of women. METHODS/DESIGN: PEARLS is a matched pair cluster trial, which is being conducted in maternity units across the UK. Units within a matched pair will be randomised to implement the study intervention either early or late in the study period. The intervention will include the cascading of a multi-professional training package to enhance midwifery and obstetric skills in the assessment, repair and postnatal management of perineal trauma. Women who have had an episiotomy or second degree perineal tear will be eligible for recruitment. Prior to developing the intervention and deciding on study outcomes, a Delphi survey and a consensus conference were held to identify what women, who previously suffered perineal trauma during childbirth, considered to be important outcomes for them. Findings from this preliminary work (which will be reported elsewhere) and other outcomes including women's experiences of perineal pain and pain on activity, breastfeeding uptake and duration and psychological well-being as assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) will be assessed at 10 days and three months post-birth. DISCUSSION: Implementation of evidence-based perineal assessment and management practices, could lead to significantly improved physical and psychological health outcomes for women in the UK and world-wide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PEARLS is registered with the Current Controlled Trials Registry (no: ISRCTN28960026). NIHR UKCRN portfolio no: 4785.

A case study evaluation of implementation of a care pathway to support normal birth in one English birth centre: anticipated benefits and unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: The policy drive for the UK National Health Service (NHS) has focused on the need for high quality services informed by evidence of best practice. The introduction of care pathways and protocols to standardise care and support implementation of evidence into practice has taken place across the NHS with limited evaluation of their impact. A multi-site case study evaluation was undertaken to assess the impact of use of care pathways and protocols on clinicians, service users and service delivery. One of the five sites was a midwifery-led Birth Centre, where an adapted version of the All Wales Clinical Pathway for Normal Birth had been implemented. METHODS: The overarching framework was realistic evaluation. A case study design enabled the capture of data on use of the pathway in the clinical setting, use of multiple methods of data collection and opportunity to study and understand the experiences of clinicians and service users whose care was informed by the pathway. Women attending the Birth Centre were recruited at their 36 week antenatal visit. Episodes of care during labour were observed, following which the woman and the midwife who cared for her were interviewed about use of the pathway. Interviews were also held with other key stakeholders from the study site. Qualitative data were content analysed. RESULTS: Observations were undertaken of four women during labour. Eighteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and women, including the women whose care was observed and the midwives who cared for them, senior midwifery managers and obstetricians. The implementation of the pathway resulted in a number of anticipated benefits, including increased midwifery confidence in skills to support normal birth and promotion of team working. There were also unintended consequences, including concerns about a lack of documentation of labour care and negative impact on working relationships with obstetric and other midwifery colleagues. Women were unaware their care was informed by a care pathway. CONCLUSION: Care pathways are complex interventions which generate a number of consequences for practice. Those considering introduction of pathways need to ensure all relevant stakeholders are engaged with this and develop robust evaluation strategies to accompany implementation.