Challenges of being a maternity service leader during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive analysis of the journey.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, maternity care services provide care for pregnant and postpartum women and their newborns. The COVID-19 pandemic forced these services to quickly adapt and develop policies and procedures for dealing with transmission in health care facilities, as well as work under public health measures to counter its spread within the community. Despite well-documented responses and adaptations by healthcare systems, no studies have examined the experiences of maternity service leaders through the pandemic. This study aimed to explore the experiences of maternity service leaders, to understand their perspectives on what happened in health services and what was required of a leader during the COVID-19 pandemic in one Australian state. METHODS: A longitudinal qualitative study collected data from 11 maternity care leaders during the pandemic in the state of Victoria. Leaders participated in a series of interviews over the 16-month study period, with a total of 57 interviews conducted. An inductive approach to developing codes allowed for semantic coding of the data, then a thematic analysis was conducted to explore patterned meaning across the dataset. RESULTS: One overarching theme, 'challenges of being a maternity service leader during the pandemic', encompassed participant's experiences. Four sub-themes described the experiences of these leaders: (1) needing to be a rapid decision-maker, (2) needing to adapt and alter services, (3) needing to filter and translate information, and (4) the need to support people. At the beginning of the pandemic, the challenges were most acute with slow guideline development, rapid communications from the government and an urgent need to keep patients and staff safe. Over time, with knowledge and experience, leaders were able to quickly adjust and respond to policy change. CONCLUSION: Maternity service leaders played an important role in preparing and adapting services in accordance with government directives and guidelines while also developing strategies tailored to their own health service requirements. These experiences will be invaluable in designing high quality and responsive systems for maternity care in future crises.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

"Tell us what's going on": Exploring the information needs of pregnant and post-partum women in Australia during the pandemic with 'Tweets', 'Threads', and women's views.

INTRODUCTION: The provision of maternity services in Australia has been significantly disrupted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many changes were initiated quickly, often with rapid dissemination of information to women. The aim of this study was to better understand what information and messages were circulating regarding COVID-19 and pregnancy in Australia and potential information gaps. METHODS: This study adopted a qualitative approach using social media and interviews. A data analytics tool (TIGER-C19) was used to extract data from social media platforms Reddit and Twitter from June to July 2021 (in the middle of the third COVID-19 wave in Australia). A total of 21 individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with those who were, or had been, pregnant in Australia since March 2020. Social media data were analysis via inductive content analysis and interview data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Social media provided a critical platform for sharing and seeking information, as well as highlighting attitudes of the community towards COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy. Women interviewed described wanting further information on the risks COVID-19 posed to themselves and their babies, and greater familiarity with the health service during pregnancy, in which they would labour and give birth. Health providers were a trusted source of information. Communication strategies that allowed participants to engage in real-time interactive discussions were preferred. A real or perceived lack of information led participants to turn to informal sources, increasing the potential for exposure to misinformation. CONCLUSION: It is vital that health services communicate effectively with pregnant women, early and often throughout public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This was particularly important during periods of increased restrictions on accessing hospital services. Information and communication strategies need to be clear, consistent, timely and accessible to reduce reliance on informal and potentially inaccurate sources.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. METHODS: The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Women's experiences of mistreatment during childbirth and their satisfaction with care: findings from a multicountry community-based study in four countries.

INTRODUCTION: Experiences of care and satisfaction are intrinsically linked, as user's experiences of care may directly impact satisfaction, or indirectly impact user's expectations and values. Both experiences of care and satisfaction are important to measure so that quality can be monitored and improved. Globally, women experience mistreatment during childbirth at facilities; however, there is limited evidence exploring the mistreatment and women's satisfaction with care during childbirth. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey within the WHO study 'How women are treated during facility-based childbirth' exploring the mistreatment of women during childbirth in Ghana, Guinea, Myanmar and Nigeria. Women's experiences of mistreatment and satisfaction with care during childbirth was explored. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was conducted to evaluate the association between mistreatment, women's overall satisfaction with the care they received, and whether they would recommend the facility to others. RESULTS: 2672 women were included in this analysis. Despite over one-third of women reporting experience of mistreatment (35.4%), overall satisfaction for services received and recommendation of the facility to others was high, 88.4% and 90%, respectively. Women who reported experiences of mistreatment were more likely to report lower satisfaction with care: women were more likely to be satisfied if they did not experience verbal abuse (adjusted OR (AOR) 4.52, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.85), or had short waiting times (AOR 5.12, 95% CI 3.94 to 6.65). Women who did not experience any physical or verbal abuse or discrimination were more likely to recommend the facility to others (AOR 3.89, 95% CI 2.98 to 5.06). CONCLUSION: Measuring both women's experiences and their satisfaction with care are critical to assess quality and provide actionable evidence for quality improvement. These measures can enable health systems to identify and respond to root causes contributing to measures of satisfaction.

Clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19: Living recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

To date, 18 living recommendations for the clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 have been issued by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. This includes recommendations on mode of birth, delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, antenatal corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, disease-modifying treatments (including dexamethasone, remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and advanced respiratory support interventions (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Through continuous evidence surveillance, these living recommendations are updated in near real-time to ensure clinicians in Australia have reliable, evidence-based guidelines for clinical decision-making. Please visit https://covid19evidence.net.au/ for the latest recommendation updates.

Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. METHODS: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. RESULTS: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

Clinical guidelines for caring for women with COVID-19 during pregnancy, childbirth and the immediate postpartum period.

BACKGROUND: The spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11th March 2020. Since then there has been a rapid rise in development of maternal and perinatal health guidelines related to COVID-19. The aim of this project was to develop a database of Australian and international recommendations relating to antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care of women during the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to identify inconsistencies in clinical guidance. METHODS: We conducted weekly web searches from 30th March to 15th May 2020 to identify recommendations pertaining to the care of women during pregnancy, labour and postpartum period from national or international professional societies, specialist colleges, Ministries of Health, Australian state and territory governments, and international guideline development organisations. Individual recommendations were extracted and classified according to intervention type, time period, and patient population. Findings were reported using descriptive analysis, with areas of consensus and non-consensus identified. RESULTS: We identified 81 guidelines from 48 different organisations. Generally, there was high consensus across guidelines for specific interventions. However, variable guidance was identified on the use of nitrous oxide during labour, administration of antenatal corticosteroids, neonatal isolation after birth, labour and birth companions, and the use of disease modifying agents for treating COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies between different guideline development organisations creates challenges for maternity care clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Collating recommendations and keeping up-to-date with the latest guidance can help clinicians provide the best possible care to pregnant women and their babies.

Self-care and remote care during pregnancy: a new paradigm?

Self-care interventions and remote care offer innovative and equitable ways to strengthen access to sexual and reproductive health services. Self-isolation during COVID-19 provided the opportunity for obstetric facilities and healthcare providers to integrate and increase the usage of interventions for self-care and remote care for pregnant women and to improve the quality of care overall.

Caring for the carers: Ensuring the provision of quality maternity care during a global pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting health systems worldwide. Maternity care providers must continue their core business in caring and supporting women, newborns and their families whilst also adapting to a rapidly changing health system environment. This article provides an overview of important considerations for supporting the emotional, mental and physical health needs of maternity care providers in the context of the unprecedented crisis that COVID-19 presents. Cooperation, planning ahead and adequate availability of PPE is critical. Thinking about the needs of maternity providers to prevent stress and burnout is essential. Emotional and psychological support needs to be available throughout the response. Prioritising food, rest and exercise are important. Healthcare workers are every country's most valuable resource and maternity providers need to be supported to provide the best quality care they can to women and newborns in exceptionally trying circumstances.