The Alliance for Innovation in Maternal Health Care: A Way Forward.

The Alliance for Innovation in Maternal Health is a program supported by the Health Services Resource Administration to reduce maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity in the United States. This program develops bundles of evidence based action steps for birth facilities to adapt. Progress is monitored at the facility, state and national levels to foster data-driven quality improvement efforts.

Clinicians' awareness of the Affordable Care Act mandate to provide comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment for pregnant women covered by Medicaid.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires states to provide tobacco-cessation services without cost-sharing for pregnant traditional Medicaid-beneficiaries effective October 2010. It is unknown the extent to which obstetricians-gynecologists are aware of the Medicaid tobacco-cessation benefit. We sought to examine the awareness of the Medicaid tobacco-cessation benefit in a national sample of obstetricians-gynecologists and assessed whether reimbursement would influence their tobacco cessation practice. In 2012, a survey was administered to a national stratified-random sample of obstetricians-gynecologists (n = 252) regarding awareness of the Medicaid tobacco-cessation benefit. Results were stratified by the percentage of pregnant Medicaid patients. Chi-squared tests (p < 0.05) were used to assess significant associations. Analyses were conducted in 2014. Eighty-three percent of respondents were unaware of the benefit. Lack of awareness increased as the percentage of pregnant Medicaid patients in their practices decreased (range = 71.9%-96.8%; P = 0.02). One-third (36.1%) of respondents serving pregnant Medicaid patients reported that reimbursement would influence them to increase their cessation services. Four out of five obstetricians-gynecologists surveyed in 2012 were unaware of the ACA provision that required states to provide tobacco cessation coverage for pregnant traditional Medicaid beneficiaries as of October 2010. Broad promotion of the Medicaid tobacco-cessation benefit could reduce treatment barriers.

Standardized severe maternal morbidity review: rationale and process.

Severe maternal morbidity and mortality have been rising in the United States. To begin a national effort to reduce morbidity, a specific call to identify all pregnant and postpartum women experiencing admission to an intensive care unit or receipt of four or more units of blood for routine review has been made. While advocating for review of these cases, no specific guidance for the review process was provided. Therefore, the aim of this expert opinion is to present guidelines for a standardized severe maternal morbidity interdisciplinary review process to identify systems, professional, and facility factors that can be ameliorated, with the overall goal of improving institutional obstetric safety and reducing severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant and recently pregnant women. This opinion was developed by a multidisciplinary working group that included general obstetrician­gynecologists, maternal­fetal medicine subspecialists, certified nurse­midwives, and registered nurses all with experience in maternal mortality reviews. A process for standardized review of severe maternal morbidity addressing committee organization, review process, medical record abstraction and assessment, review culture, data management, review timing, and review confidentiality is presented. Reference is made to a sample severe maternal morbidity abstraction and assessment form.

Standardized severe maternal morbidity review: rationale and process.

Severe maternal morbidity and mortality have been rising in the United States. To begin a national effort to reduce morbidity, a specific call to identify all pregnant and postpartum women experiencing admission to an intensive care unit or receipt of 4 or more units of blood for routine review has been made. While advocating for review of these cases, no specific guidance for the review process was provided. Therefore, the aim of this expert opinion is to present guidelines for a standardized severe maternal morbidity interdisciplinary review process to identify systems, professional, and facility factors that can be ameliorated, with the overall goal of improving institutional obstetric safety and reducing severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant and recently pregnant women. This opinion was developed by a multidisciplinary working group that included general obstetrician-gynecologists, maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, certified nurse-midwives, and registered nurses all with experience in maternal mortality reviews. A process for standardized review of severe maternal morbidity addressing committee organization, review process, medical record abstraction and assessment, review culture, data management, review timing, and review confidentiality is presented. Reference is made to a sample severe maternal morbidity abstraction and assessment form.

Screening practices and attitudes of obstetricians-gynecologists toward new and emerging tobacco products.

OBJECTIVE: We examined screening practices and attitudes of obstetricians-gynecologists toward the use of noncombustible tobacco products (chewing tobacco, snuff/snus, electronic cigarettes, and dissolvables) during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: The authors mailed a survey in 2012 to 1024 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, including Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network (CARN) and non-CARN members. Stratified random selection was used to generate CARN and non-CARN samples. RESULTS: Response rates were 52% and 31% for CARN and non-CARN members, respectively. Of 252 total eligible respondents (those currently providing obstetrics care) 53% reported screening pregnant women at intake for noncombustible tobacco product use all or some of the time, and 40% reported none of the time. Respondents who reported that noncombustible products have adverse health effects during pregnancy, but are safer than cigarettes, ranged from 20.2% (dissolvables) to 29% (electronic cigarettes) and that the health effects are the same as those of cigarettes from 13.5% (electronic cigarettes) to 53.6% (chewing tobacco). Approximately 14% reported that electronic cigarettes have no adverse health effects; <1% reported no health effects for the remaining products. Two-thirds of the respondents wanted to know more about the potential health effects of noncombustible tobacco products; only 5% believed themselves to be fully informed. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of obstetrician-gynecologists reported never or inconsistently screening their pregnant patients for the use of noncombustible tobacco products. Responses regarding the harms of these products relative to cigarettes were mixed and most respondents wanted more information. Development and dissemination of guidance for providers is needed to improve decision-making regarding noncombustible tobacco products.

Smoking cessation during pregnancy and postpartum: practice patterns among obstetrician-gynecologists.

OBJECTIVES: To assess current obstetrician-gynecologist (ob-gyn) practice patterns related to the management of and barriers to smoking cessation during pregnancy and postpartum. METHODS: A smoking cessation questionnaire was mailed to 1024 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellows in 2012. χ(2) analyses were used to assess for categorical differences between groups, Pearson r was used to conduct correlational analysis, and analysis of variance was used to assess for mean differences between groups. RESULTS: The analyses included 252 practicing ob-gyns who see pregnant patients who returned a completed survey. Ob-gyns estimated that 23% of their patients smoke before pregnancy, 18% smoke during first trimester, 12% during second trimester, and 11% during third trimester. They approximated that 32% quit during pregnancy, but 50% return to smoking postpartum. A large majority of ob-gyns feel that it is important for pregnant and postpartum women to quit smoking, and report asking all pregnant patients about tobacco use at the initial prenatal visit. Fewer ob-gyns follow-up on tobacco use at subsequent visits when the patient has admitted to use at a prior visit. The primary barrier to intervention was reported as time limitations, though other barriers were noted that may be addressable through the provision of additional training and resources offered to physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with findings from a similar study conducted in 1998, physicians are less likely to adhere to the 5 As smoking cessation guideline at present. As we know that brief intervention is effective, it is imperative that we work toward addressing practice gaps and providing additional resources to address the important public health issue of smoking during pregnancy and postpartum.

Knowledge, opinions, and practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists regarding their patients' use of alcohol.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evolution of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder prevention practices including awareness and use of recently published tools. METHODS: Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were asked about their knowledge, opinions, and practice regarding alcohol-related care. Eight hundred obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) were selected; 48.1% returned the survey. RESULTS: The majority (66.0%) indicated that occasional alcohol consumption is not safe during any period of pregnancy. There was no consensus when asked if alcohol's effect on fetal development is clear (46.9% thought it was clear and 45.9% did not). Most (82.2%) ask all pregnant patients about alcohol use only during patients' initial visit, whereas 10.6% ask during initial and subsequent visits. Most (78.5%) advise abstinence when pregnant women report alcohol use. When asked which validated alcohol risk screening tool they most commonly use with pregnant patients, 57.8% said they use no tool. Although 71.9% felt prepared to screen for risky or hazardous drinking, older ob-gyns indicated feeling significantly more unprepared than younger ob-gyns. "Patient denial or resistance to treatment" was the top issue affecting alcohol screening and "referral resources for patients with alcohol problems" was the resource needed most. Most ob-gyns were not aware of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism "Clinician's Guide" or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists "Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevention Tool Kit." CONCLUSIONS: There are few changes in the alcohol-related screening and treatment patterns of ob-gyns since 1999; although perceived barriers and needs have changed. Interventions, including referral resources and continuing medical education training, are warranted.

The clinical content of preconception care: alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug exposures.

Substance abuse poses significant health risks to childbearing-aged women in the United States and, for those who become pregnant, to their children. Alcohol is the most prevalent substance consumed by childbearing-aged women, followed by tobacco, and a variety of illicit drugs. Substance use in the preconception period predicts substance use during the prenatal period. Evidence-based methods for screening and intervening on harmful consumption patterns of these substances have been developed and are recommended for use in primary care settings for women who are pregnant, planning a pregnancy, or at risk for becoming pregnant. This report describes the scope of substance abuse in the target population and provides recommendations from the Clinical Working Group of the Select Panel on Preconception Care, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for addressing alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use among childbearing-aged women.

Improving screening for alcohol use during pregnancy: the Massachusetts ASAP program.

OBJECTIVE: To motivate prenatal care staff in public and private settings to universally screen for risk of alcohol and drug use and to conduct a brief intervention with follow-up referral when appropriate during a routine office visit. METHODS: The ASAP Project methods were engagement of site staff; staff training; self-administered questionnaires embedded with a relational and broad catch screening tool; a brief intervention protocol; unique clinical decision tree/protocols for each site; identification of treatment and referral resources; and ongoing technical assistance and consultation. Sites were located in four regions of the state and included four community health centers, a network of multi-specialty private practices and a teaching hospital. RESULTS: Across 16 sites, 118 prenatal staff were trained on use of the screening tool and 175 staff on the brief intervention. The ASAP Project resulted in 95% of pregnant women being screened for alcohol use and 77% of those screening positive for at least one risk factor receiving a brief intervention during a routine office visit. CONCLUSIONS: Screening and brief interventions for alcohol use can be delivered effectively within a routine prenatal care visit by prenatal staff by utilizing and building on existing office systems with practice staff, screening for any use not only at risk use, providing training with skills building sessions and information delivered by physicians, offering easy-to-access community treatment resources, and providing ongoing technical assistance.