Training in aspiration abortion care: An observational cohort study of achieving procedural competence.

BACKGROUND: Studies in multiple countries have found that the provision of aspiration abortion care by trained nurses, midwives, and other front-line health care workers is safe and acceptable to women. In the United States, most state abortion laws restrict the provision of abortion to physicians; nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants, can legally perform medication abortion in only twelve states and aspiration abortion in five. Expansion of abortion care by these providers, consistent with their scopes of practice, could help alleviate the increasing difficulty of accessing abortion care in many states. OBJECTIVES: This study used a competency-based training model to teach advanced practice clinicians to perform vacuum aspiration for the abortion care. Previous research reporting on the training of providers other than physicians primarily focused on numbers of procedures performed, without assessment of skill competency or clinician confidence. DESIGN: In this prospective, observational cohort study, advanced practice clinician trainees were recruited from 23 clinical sites across six partner organizations. Trainees participated in a standardized, competency-based didactic and clinical training program in uterine aspiration for first-trimester abortion. SETTINGS: Trainee clinicians needed to be employed by one of the six partner organizations and have an intention to remain in clinical practice following training. PARTICIPANTS: California-licensed advanced practice clinicians were eligible to participate in the training if they had at least 12 months of clinical experience, including at least three months of medication abortion provision, and certification in Basic Life Support. METHODS: A standardized, competency-based training program consisting of both didactic and clinical training in uterine aspiration for first-trimester abortion was completed by 46 advanced practice clinician participants. Outcomes related to procedural safety and to the learning process were measured between August 2007 and December 2013, and compared to those of resident physician trainees. RESULTS: Essentially identical odds of complications occurring from advanced practice clinician-performed procedures were not significantly different than the odds of complications occurring from resident-performed procedures (OR: 0.99; CI: 0.46-2.02; p > 0.05) after controlling for patient sociodemographic and medical history. The number of training days to foundational competence ranged from six to 10, and the number of procedures to competence for those who completed training ranged from 40 to 56 (median = 42.5). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized, competency-based trainingprogram can prepare advanced practice clinicians to safely provide first-trimester aspiration abortions. Access to safe abortion care can be enhanced by increasing the number of providers from cadres of clinicians other than physicians.

Expanding the Abortion Provider Workforce: A Qualitative Study of Organizations Implementing a New California Policy.

CONTEXT: Access to abortion care in the United States varies according to multiple factors, including location, state regulation and provider availability. In 2013, California enacted a law that authorized nurse practitioners (NPs), certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) and physician assistants (PAs) to provide first-trimester aspiration abortions; little is known about organizations' experiences in implementing this policy change. METHODS: Beginning 10 and 24 months after implementation of the new law, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 administrators whose five organizations trained and employed NPs, CNMs and PAs as providers of aspiration abortions. Interview data on the organizations' experiences were analyzed thematically, and facilitators of and barriers to implementation were identified. RESULTS: Administrators were committed to the provision of aspiration abortions by NPs, CNMs and PAs, and nearly all identified improved access to care and complication management as clear benefits of the policy change. However, integration of the new providers was uneven and depended on a variety of circumstances. Organizational disincentives included financial and logistical costs incurred in trying to deploy and integrate the different types of providers. Some administrators found that increased costs were outweighed by improved patient care, whereas others did not. In general, having a strong administrative champion within the organization made a critical difference. CONCLUSIONS: California's expansion of the abortion-providing workforce had a positive impact on patient care in the sampled organizations. However, various organizational obstacles must be addressed to more fully realize the benefits of having NPs, CNMs and PAs provide aspiration abortions.

The effect of facility characteristics on patient safety, patient experience, and service availability for procedures in non-hospital-affiliated outpatient settings: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over recent decades, numerous medical procedures have migrated out of hospitals and into freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and physician offices, with possible implications for patient outcomes. In response, states have passed regulations for office-based surgeries, private organizations have established standards for facility accreditation, and professional associations have developed clinical guidelines. While abortions have been performed in office setting for decades, states have also enacted laws requiring that facilities that perform abortions meet specific requirements. The extent to which facility requirements have an impact on patient outcomes-for any procedure-is unclear. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review to examine the effect of outpatient facility type (ASC vs. office) and specific facility characteristics (e.g., facility accreditation, emergency response protocols, clinician qualifications, physical plant characteristics, other policies) on patient safety, patient experience and service availability in non-hospital-affiliated outpatient settings. To identify relevant research, we searched databases of the published academic literature (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and websites of governmental and non-governmental organizations. Two investigators reviewed 3049 abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion/exclusion criteria and assessed the quality of 22 identified articles. Most studies were hampered by methodological challenges, with 12 of 22 not meeting minimum quality criteria. Of 10 studies included in the review, most (6) examined the effect of facility type on patient safety. Existing research appears to indicate no difference in patient safety for outpatient procedures performed in ASCs vs. physician offices. Research about specific facility characteristics is insufficient to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: More and higher quality research is needed to determine if there is a public health problem to be addressed through facility regulation and, if so, which facility characteristics may result in consistent improvements to patient safety while not adversely affecting patient experience or service availability.

Religious hospital policies on reproductive care: what do patients want to know?

BACKGROUND: Religious hospitals are a large and growing part of the American healthcare system. Patients who receive obstetric and other reproductive care in religious hospitals may face religiously-based restrictions on the treatment their doctor can provide. Little is known about patients' knowledge or preferences regarding religiously restricted reproductive healthcare. OBJECTIVE(S): We aimed to assess women's preferences for knowing a hospital's religion and religiously based restrictions before deciding where to seek care and the acceptability of a hospital denying miscarriage treatment options for religious reasons, with and without informing the patient that other options may be available. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a national survey of women aged 18-45 years. The sample was recruited from AmeriSpeak, a probability-based research panel of civilian noninstitutionalized adults. Of 2857 women invited to participate, 1430 completed surveys online or over the phone, for a survey response rate of 50.1%. All analyses adjusted for the complex sampling design and were weighted to generate estimates representative of the population of US adult reproductive-age women. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations. RESULTS: One third of women aged 18-45 years (34.5%) believe it is somewhat or very important to know a hospital's religion when deciding where to get care, but 80.7% feel it is somewhat or very important to know about a hospital's religious restrictions on care. Being Catholic or attending religious services more frequently does not make one more or less likely to want this information. Compared with Protestant women who do not identify as born-again, women of other religious backgrounds are more likely to consider it important to know a hospital's religious affiliation. These include religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-4.27), those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-4.34), and born-again Protestants (adjusted odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.28). Religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-5.51) and those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-7.04) were more likely to want to know a hospital's restrictions on care. More than two thirds of women find it unacceptable for the hospital to restrict information and treatment options during miscarriage based on religion. Women who attended weekly religious services were significantly more likely to accept such restrictions (adjusted odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.70-5.76) and to consider transfer to another site an acceptable solution (adjusted odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-6.12). The question, "When should a religious hospital be allowed to restrict care based on religion?" was asked, and 52.3% responded never; 16.6%, always; and 31.1%,"under some conditions. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of adult American women of reproductive age want information about a hospital's religious restrictions on care when deciding where to go for obstetrics/gynecology care. Growth in the US Catholic health care sector suggests an increasing need for transparency about these restrictions so that women can make informed decisions and, when needed, seek alternative providers.

Standardizing the classification of abortion incidents: the Procedural Abortion Incident Reporting and Surveillance (PAIRS) Framework.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate standardized criteria for assessing abortion-related incidents (adverse events, morbidities, near misses) for first-trimester aspiration abortion procedures and to demonstrate the utility of a standardized framework [the Procedural Abortion Incident Reporting & Surveillance (PAIRS) Framework] for estimating serious abortion-related adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: As part of a California-based study of early aspiration abortion provision conducted between 2007 and 2013, we developed and validated a standardized framework for defining and monitoring first-trimester (≤14weeks) aspiration abortion morbidity and adverse events using multiple methods: a literature review, framework criteria testing with empirical data, repeated expert reviews and data-based revisions to the framework. RESULTS: The final framework distinguishes incidents resulting from procedural abortion care (adverse events) from morbidity related to pregnancy, the abortion process and other nonabortion related conditions. It further classifies incidents by diagnosis (confirmatory data, etiology, risk factors), management (treatment type and location), timing (immediate or delayed), seriousness (minor or major) and outcome. Empirical validation of the framework using data from 19,673 women receiving aspiration abortions revealed almost an equal proportion of total adverse events (n=205, 1.04%) and total abortion- or pregnancy-related morbidity (n=194, 0.99%). The majority of adverse events were due to retained products of conception (0.37%), failed attempted abortion (0.15%) and postabortion infection (0.17%). Serious or major adverse events were rare (n=11, 0.06%). CONCLUSIONS: Distinguishing morbidity diagnoses from adverse events using a standardized, empirically tested framework confirms the very low frequency of serious adverse events related to clinic-based abortion care. IMPLICATIONS: The PAIRS Framework provides a useful set of tools to systematically classify and monitor abortion-related incidents for first-trimester aspiration abortion procedures. Standardization will assist healthcare providers, researchers and policymakers to anticipate morbidity and prevent abortion adverse events, improve care metrics and enhance abortion quality.

Radical or routine? Nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants as abortion providers.

In 2013 California passed legislation that expanded the pool of eligible aspiration abortion providers to include advanced practice nurses, nurse-midwives, and physician-assistants. This law, enacted in 2014, is based on evidence generated by the Health Workforce Pilot Project #171, which examined the safety and effectiveness of aspiration abortion care provided by these clinicians as well as patient acceptability and satisfaction. This evidence and the resulting policy change build on international research and established workforce strategies used to expand access to safe abortion services for women worldwide, representing a radical departure from the legislative trend of constricting access in the United States.

Safety of aspiration abortion performed by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants under a California legal waiver.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact on patient safety if nurse practitioners (NPs), certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and physician assistants (PAs) were permitted to provide aspiration abortions in California. METHODS: In a prospective, observational study, we evaluated the outcomes of 11 487 early aspiration abortions completed by physicians (n = 5812) and newly trained NPs, CNMs, and PAs (n = 5675) from 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates and Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, by using a noninferiority design with a predetermined acceptable risk difference of 2%. All complications up to 4 weeks after the abortion were included. RESULTS: Of the 11 487 aspiration abortions analyzed, 1.3% (n = 152) resulted in a complication: 1.8% for NP-, CNM-, and PA-performed aspirations and 0.9% for physician-performed aspirations. The unadjusted risk difference for total complications between NP-CNM-PA and physician groups was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45, 1.29) and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.33, 1.33) in a propensity score-matched sample. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion complications were clinically equivalent between newly trained NPs, CNMs, and PAs and physicians, supporting the adoption of policies to allow these providers to perform early aspirations to expand access to abortion care.

Nurse Practitioners and Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: An Analysis of Supply and Demand.

Use of Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) services is projected to grow between 10 and 20 percent from 2006 to 2020. This growth is driven largely by changes in the racial/ethnic make-up of the population of women of reproductive age and an increase in the number of people with insurance coverage because of new health care legislation. Trends in supply and demand for SRH services, particularly for low-income individuals, suggest demand will outstrip supply in the next decade. Nurse Practitioners (NPs) with a women's health focus are key providers of SRH care in Title X-funded clinics, which deliver a significant proportion of U.S. family planning and SRH services to low-income populations. This article looks at why numbers of women's health NPs (WHNPs) have been declining, and are projected to continue to decline, despite significant growth in total numbers of NPs. Barriers to increasing the supply of NPs competent in SRH care-such as reduced funding for WHNP training, increased funding for primary care and geriatric NP training, and a shrinking proportion of WHNPs choosing to work in public health, clinics, and family planning-are identified. From the standpoint that the evolution of the health care delivery system may serve as an opportunity to optimize the delivery of SRH services in the United States, a comprehensive set of options spanning education, federal and state regulations, and emerging models of care delivery are explored to reverse this trend of too few WHNPs, particularly for servicing Title X facilities and their patients.