ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health systems quickly implemented changes in care delivery with a goal of balancing patient-focused obstetric care with the need to protect pregnant persons and health care providers from infection. Yet, there is no consensus within the scientific community on the impact these measures have on obstetric outcomes in vulnerable populations. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rates of obstetric procedures and severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among births at an urban safety net institution. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing monthly rates of labor induction, cesarean births (overall and among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex births), operative vaginal births, and SMM among births occurring at a public hospital before (March 1, 2016, to February 29, 2020) and during (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There were 10,714 and 2,736 births in the prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively. Overall, the rates of obstetric interventions and SMM were constant over the two time periods. There were no significant differences in rates of labor induction (42% during prepandemic period vs. 45% during pandemic period; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.34), operative vaginal births (5% vs. 6%; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88-1.76), cesarean births (28% vs. 33%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28), or nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean births (24% vs. 31%; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.92-1.74). Rates of SMM (7% vs. 8%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86-1.65) were also unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the rapid implementation of measures to reduce viral transmission in the labor and delivery setting did not materially affect routine clinical management or rates of serious maternal complications.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To understand perceived quality of obstetric care following changes to the structure of care in a safety-net institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study including a web-based survey (nâ¯=â¯67) and in-depth interviews (nâ¯=â¯16) between October 2020 and January 2021. We present a descriptive analysis of quantitative results and key qualitative themes on reactions to changes and drivers of perceived quality. RESULTS: Reported quality was high for in-person and phone visits (median subscale responses: 5/5). Respondents were willing to include phone visits in care for a future pregnancy (77.8% (49)) but preferred in-person visits (84.1% (53)). In interviews, provider communication was the key driver of quality. Respondents found changes to care to be inconvenient but acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: To improve satisfaction with changes to care, health systems should ensure that relationship building remains a priority and offer patients information about the reason behind changes.