Missed opportunities for diabetes prevention: post-pregnancy follow-up of women with gestational diabetes mellitus in England.

BACKGROUND: Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) should be followed-up to exclude ongoing diabetes and for prevention of type 2 diabetes. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) diabetes in pregnancy guideline recommends checking fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at 6 weeks postpartum (short term), and annually thereafter (long term). AIM: To examine the reported practice regarding GDM follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nationwide postal survey in England 2008-2009. METHOD: Questionnaires were distributed to a consultant diabetologist and obstetrician in all maternity units, and to a random sample of general practices (approximately 1 in 5). RESULTS: Response rates were: 60% (915/1532) GPs, 93% (342/368) specialists; 80% of GPs and 98% of specialists reported women with GDM had short-term follow-up. More GPs (55%) than specialists (13%) used a FPG test to exclude ongoing diabetes; 26% of GPs versus 89% of specialists thought the hospital was responsible for ordering the test. Twenty per cent of GPs had difficulty in discovering women had been diagnosed with GDM in secondary care. Seventy-three per cent of specialists recommended long-term follow-up; only 39% of GPs recalled women with GDM for this. A minority of GPs and specialists had joint follow-up protocols. CONCLUSION: Follow-up of GDM in England diverged from national guidance. Despite consensus that short-term follow-up occurred, primary and secondary care doctors disagreed about the tests and responsibility for follow-up. There was lack of long-term follow-up. Agreement about the NICE guideline, its promotion and effective implementation by primary and secondary care, and the systematic recall of women with GDM for long-term follow-up is required.

Integrating preconception care for women with diabetes into primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines emphasise the need to deliver preconception care to women of childbearing age. However, uptake of the services among women with diabetes in the UK is low. Questions arising include how best to deliver preconception care and what the respective roles of primary versus secondary caregivers might be. AIM: To explore the perspective of GPs and secondary care health professionals on the role of GPs in delivering preconception care to women with diabetes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative, cross-sectional study. SETTING: A London teaching hospital and GP practices in the hospital catchment area. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with GPs and members of the preconception care team in secondary care. Thematic analysis using the framework approach. RESULTS: GPs and secondary care professionals differ in their perception of the number of women with diabetes requiring preconception care and the extent to which preconception care should be integrated into GPs' roles. Health professionals agreed that GPs have a significant role to play and that delivery of preconception care is best shared between primary and secondary care. However, the lack of clear guidelines and shared protocols detailing the GP's role presents a challenge to implementing 'shared' preconception care. CONCLUSION: GPs should be more effectively involved in providing preconception care to women with diabetes. Organisational and policy developments are required to support GPs in playing a role in preconception care. This study's findings stress the importance of providing an integrated approach to ensure continuity of care and optimal pregnancy preparation for women with diabetes.

Management of pregnancy complicated by diabetes--maternal glycaemic control during pregnancy and neonatal management.

Pre-existing diabetes is one of the commonest medical conditions complicating pregnancy in the UK, and is associated with increased perinatal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. The prevalence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes is increasing in the UK and worldwide, and management strategies to optimise health outcomes for mother and baby are of utmost importance. Since 2001, a number of United Kingdom national guidelines have been published which make clear recommendations for optimal maternal glycaemic control before and during pregnancy and for neonatal management. However, there is evidence that these recommendations are not being consistently achieved within the UK and some of the specific challenges are highlighted in this chapter.

Obesity in pregnancy: risks and management.

Maternal obesity is now considered one of the most commonly occurring risk factors seen in obstetric practice. Compared with women with a healthy pre-pregnancy weight, women with obesity are at increased risk of miscarriage, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, induced labour, caesarean section, anaesthetic complications and wound infections, and they are less likely to initiate or maintain breastfeeding. Babies of obese mothers are at increased risk of stillbirth, congenital anomalies, prematurity, macrosomia and neonatal death. Intrauterine exposure to obesity is also associated with an increased risk of developing obesity and metabolic disorders in childhood. This article reviews the prevalence of obesity in pregnancy and the associated maternal and fetal complications. Recommendations and suggestions for pre-conception, antenatal and postnatal care of women with obesity are presented, and current research in the UK and future research priorities are considered.

Perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies in babies of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: population based study.

OBJECTIVE: To provide perinatal mortality and congenital anomaly rates for babies born to women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. DESIGN: National population based pregnancy cohort. SETTING: 231 maternity units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 2359 pregnancies to women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who delivered between 1 March 2002 and 28 February 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stillbirth rates; perinatal and neonatal mortality; prevalence of congenital anomalies. RESULTS: Of 2359 women with diabetes, 652 had type 2 diabetes and 1707 had type 1 diabetes. Women with type 2 diabetes were more likely to come from a Black, Asian, or other ethnic minority group (type 2, 48.8%; type 1, 9.1%) and from a deprived area (type 2, 46.3% in most deprived fifth; type 1, 22.8%). Perinatal mortality in babies of women with diabetes was 31.8/1000 births. Perinatal mortality was comparable in babies of women with type 1 (31.7/1000 births) and type 2 diabetes (32.3/1000) and was nearly four times higher than that in the general maternity population. 141 major congenital anomalies were confirmed in 109 offspring. The prevalence of major congenital anomaly was 46/1000 births in women with diabetes (48/1000 births for type 1 diabetes; 43/1000 for type 2 diabetes), more than double that expected. This increase was driven by anomalies of the nervous system, notably neural tube defects (4.2-fold), and congenital heart disease (3.4-fold). Anomalies in 71/109 (65%) offspring were diagnosed antenatally. Congenital heart disease was diagnosed antenatally in 23/42 (54.8%) offspring; anomalies other than congenital heart disease were diagnosed antenatally in 48/67 (71.6%) offspring. CONCLUSION: Perinatal mortality and prevalence of congenital anomalies are high in the babies of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The rates do not seem to differ between the two types of diabetes.

Project 27/28: inquiry into quality of neonatal care and its effect on the survival of infants who were born at 27 and 28 weeks in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: To identify variations in standards of neonatal care in the first week of life that might have contributed to deaths in infants who were born at 27 and 28 weeks' gestation. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted of infants who were born at 27 and 28 weeks' gestation in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland during a 2-year period. Cases were neonatal deaths; control subjects were randomly selected survivors at day 28. Main outcome measures were failures of prespecified standards of care or deficiencies in care reported by regional panels assessing anonymized medical records. RESULTS: Failures of standards of care relating to ventilatory support (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97-5.49), cardiovascular support (OR: 2.37; 95% CI :1.36-4.13), and thermal care (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.21-2.43) were associated with neonatal death. Frequencies of unmet resuscitation standards (range: 3%-46%) and of delays in surfactant administration (range: 38%-40%) were similar in cases and control subjects. Panels identified significantly more deficiencies in all aspects of neonatal care in cases with the exception of the management of infection. Stratification by clinical condition of infants at birth showed a stronger association between overall standard of care and death when infants were in a good condition at birth. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an association between quality of neonatal care and neonatal deaths, most marked for early thermal care and ventilatory and cardiovascular support. Poor overall quality of care was more strongly associated with deaths when the infant was in a good condition at birth.