Pregnancy after loss during the COVID19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Rapid changes to how maternity health care is delivered has occurred in many countries across the globe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maternity care provisions have been challenged attempting to balance the needs and safety of pregnant women and their care providers. Women experiencing a pregnancy after loss (PAL) during these times face particularly difficult circumstances. AIM: In this paper we highlight the situation in three high income countries (Australia, Ireland and USA) and point to the need to remember the unique and challenging circumstances of these PAL families. We suggest new practices may be deviating from established evidence-based guidelines and outline the potential ramifications of these changes. FINDINGS: Recommendations for health care providers are suggested to bridge the gap between the necessary safety requirements due to the pandemic, the role of the health care provider, and the needs of families experiencing a pregnancy after loss. DISCUSSION: Changes to practices i.e. limiting the number of antenatal appointments and access to a support person may have detrimental effects on both mother, baby, and their family. However, new guidelines in maternity care practices developed to account for the pandemic have not necessarily considered women experiencing pregnancy after loss. CONCLUSION: Bereaved mothers and their families experiencing a pregnancy after loss should continue to be supported during the COVID-19 pandemic to limit unintended consequences.

The RESPECT Study for consensus on global bereavement care after stillbirth.

OBJECTIVE: To develop global consensus on a set of evidence-based core principles for bereavement care after stillbirth. METHODS: A modified policy-Delphi methodology was used to consult international stakeholders and healthcare workers with experience in stillbirth between September 2017 and October 2018. Five sequential rounds involved two expert stakeholder meetings and three internet-based surveys, including a global internet-based survey targeted at healthcare workers in a wide range of settings. RESULTS: Initially, 23 expert stakeholders considered 43 evidence-based themes derived from systematic reviews, identifying 10 core principles. The global survey received 236 responses from participants in 26 countries, after which nine principles met a priori criteria for inclusion. The final stakeholder meeting and internet-based survey of all participants confirmed consensus on eight core principles. Highest quality bereavement care should be enabled through training of healthcare staff to reduce stigma and establish respectful care, including acknowledgement and support for grief responses, and provision for physical and psychologic needs. Women and families should be supported to make informed choices, including those concerning their future reproductive health. CONCLUSION: Consensus was established for eight principles for stillbirth bereavement care. Further work should explore implementation and involve the voices of women and families globally.

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.

Improving student learning on a midwifery education programme by using a benchmark course portfolio as a means of reflection and peer review.

The idea of scholarship within disciplines has long been discussed in the relevant literature. The concept of scholarship in teaching and learning has its foundations in Boyer's (1990) seminal work Scholarship Reconsidered. In this, Boyer made the case for teaching to be enhanced and made public and to be credited with equal weight as research activity within academic institutions. The activities of teaching and learning are truly academia's raison d'être however they get obscured in the mists of the importance placed on research activity. To this end it is vital that educators begin to critically examine their teaching to fully inform research and practice. One of the lenses through which this can be done is through the act of reflection. Reflection on action as a process first described by Schön in 1983 (Schön, 2005) necessitates not only the critical examination of what we do but also what are the underlying assumptions about why we do what we do. The paper outlines such reflective portfolio submitted as part requirement for Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. It examines student midwives learning using the reflective lens of the benchmark course portfolio.

Open exchange as a model for continuing education.

The Global Nursing Exchange is a unique, annual opportunity for a select group of nurses to confer with each other and learn in an unstructured, nonrestrictive forum for free uncensored exchange of ideas. It is an unusual "conference" in that both the structure and process have been designed to encourage spontaneity, creativity, and group sharing. Relaxation and work comingle. Networking, dialog, and inclusiveness are operating themes at all times. Started in 1988 by 9 nurses with a mix of backgrounds and experience, the Global Nursing Exchange has expanded to include international participants. In 2003, over 60 nurses joined in celebrating the 15th year of this group gathering. Examples of outcomes that have resulted from this unique "conferencing" experience are described.

Deep breath reversal and exponential return of methacholine-induced obstruction in asthmatic and nonasthmatic subjects.

A deep breath (DB) during induced obstruction results in a transient reversal with a return to pre-DB levels in both asthmatic and nonasthmatic subjects. The time course of this transient recovery has been reported to be exponential by one group but linear by another group. In the present study, we estimated airway resistance (Raw) from measurements of respiratory system transfer impedance before and after a DB. Nine healthy subjects and nine asthmatic subjects were studied at their maximum response during a methacholine challenge. In all subjects, the DB resulted in a rapid decrease in Raw, which then returned to pre-DB levels. This recovery was well fit with a monoexponential function in both groups, and the time constant was significantly smaller in the asthmatic than the nonasthmatic subjects (11.6 +/- 5.0 and 35.1 +/- 15.9 s, respectively). Obstruction was completely reversed in the nonasthmatic subjects (pre- and postchallenge mean Raw immediately after the DB were 2.03 +/- 0.66 and 2.06 +/- 0.68 cmH2O.l-1.s, respectively), whereas in the asthmatic subjects complete reversal did not occur (2.29 +/- 0.78 and 4.84 +/- 2.64 cmH2O.l-1.s, respectively). Raw after the DB returned to postchallenge, pre-DB values in the nonasthmatic subjects (3.78 +/- 1.56 and 3.97 +/- 1.63 cmH2O.l-1.s, respectively), whereas in the asthmatic subjects it was higher but not significantly so (9.19 +/- 4.95 and 7.14 +/- 3.56 cmH2O.l-1.s, respectively). The monoexponential recovery suggests a first-order process such as airway wall-parenchymal tissue interdependence or renewed constriction of airway smooth muscle.