The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises. AIM: To compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations. METHOD: A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders. FINDINGS: Both countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers' fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised. CONCLUSION: We recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women's and families' values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events.

Making maternity and neonatal care personalised in the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the Babies Born Better survey in the UK and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on women's birth experiences. To date, there are no studies that use both quantitative and qualitative data to compare women's birth experiences before and during the pandemic, across more than one country. AIM: To examine women's birth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the experiences of women who gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) or the Netherlands (NL) either before or during the pandemic. METHOD: This study is based on analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from the online Babies Born Better survey. Responses recorded by women giving birth in the UK and the NL between June and December 2020 have been used, encompassing women who gave birth between 2017 and 2020. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and chi-squared tests were performed to compare women who gave birth pre- versus during pandemic and separately by country. Qualitative data was analysed by inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Respondents in both the UK and the NL who gave birth during the pandemic were as likely, or, if they had a self-reported above average standard of life, more likely to rate their labour and birth experience positively when compared to women who gave birth pre-pandemic. This was despite the fact that those labouring in the pandemic reported a lack of support and limits placed on freedom of choice. Two potential explanatory themes were identified in the qualitative data: respondents had lower expectations of care during the pandemic, and they appreciated the efforts of staff to give individualised care, despite the rules. CONCLUSION: Our study implies that many women labouring during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced restrictions, but their experience was mitigated by staff actions. However, personalised care should not be maintained by the good will of care providers, but should be a priority in maternity care policy to benefit all service users equitably.

It was tough, but necessary. Organizational changes in a community based maternity care system during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2pandemic necessitated several changes in maternity care. We investigated maternity care providers' opinions on the positive and negative effects of these changes and on potential areas of improvement for future maternity care both in times of crisis and in regular maternity care. METHODS: We conducted nineteen semi-structured in-depth interviews with obstetricians, obstetric residents, community-based and hospital-based midwives and obstetric nurses. The interviews were thematically analysed using inductive Thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were generated: '(Dis)proportionate measures', 'A significant impact of COVID-19', 'Differing views on inter-provider cooperation', 'Reluctance to seek help' and 'Lessons learnt'. The Central Organizing Concept was: 'It was tough but necessary'. The majority of participants were positive about most of the measures that were taken and about their proportionality. These measures had a significant impact on maternity care providers, both mentally and on an organizational level. Most hospital-based care providers were positive about professional cooperation and communication, but some community-based midwives indicated that the cooperation between different midwifery care practices was suboptimal. Negative effects mentioned were a higher threshold for women to seek care, less partner involvement and perceived more fear among women and their partners, especially around birth. The most significant positive effect mentioned was increased use of eHealth tools. Recommendations for future care were to consider the necessity of prenatal and postnatal care more critically, to replace some face-to-face visits with eHealth and to provide more individualised care. CONCLUSION: Maternity care providers experienced measures and organizational changes during the first wave of the COVID19-pandemic as tough, but necessary. They believed that a more critical consideration of medically necessary care, increased use of e-health and more individualised care might contribute to making maternity care more sustainable during and after the pandemic.

More home births during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this observational study was to examine whether the course of pregnancy and birth and accompanying outcomes among low-risk pregnant women changed in the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the prepandemic period. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Dutch Midwifery Case Registration System (VeCaS). Differences in the course of pregnancy and birth, and accompanying maternal and neonatal outcomes, were calculated between women pregnant during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 to August 3, 2020) and the prepandemic period (March 1-August 3, 2019). We also conducted a stratified analysis by parity. RESULTS: We included 5913 low-risk pregnant women of whom 2963 (50.1%) were pregnant during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2950 (49.9%) in the prepandemic period. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more women desired and had a home birth. More women used pain medication and fewer had an episiotomy in the COVID-19 period than prior. Multiparous women had a higher suspected rate of fetal growth restriction during COVID; however, the actual rate of small for gestational age infants was not significantly increased. We observed no differences for onset and augmentation of labor or for mode of birth, though the rate of vaginal births increased. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a higher rate of planned and actual home birth, and suspected growth restriction and a lower rate of episiotomy among low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands.

Centralisation of acute obstetric care in the Netherlands: a qualitative study to explore the experiences of stakeholders with adaptations in organisation of care.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, acute obstetric care (AOC) has become centralised in many high-income countries. In this qualitative study, we explored how stakeholders in maternity care perceived and experienced adaptations in the organisation of maternity care in areas in the Netherlands where AOC was centralised. METHODS: A heterogenic group of fifteen maternity care stakeholders, including patients, were purposively selected for semi-structured interviews. An inductive thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) lack of involvement. (2) the process of making adaptations in the organisation of maternity care. (3) maintaining quality of care. Stakeholders in this study were highly motivated to maintain a high quality of maternity care and therefore made adaptations at several organisational levels. However, they felt a lack of involvement during the planning of centralisation of AOC and highlighted the importance of a collaborative process when making adaptations after centralisation of AOC. CONCLUSIONS: Regions with AOC centralisation plans should invest time and money in change management, encourage early involvement of all maternity care stakeholders and acknowledge centralisation of AOC as a professional life event with associated emotions, including a feeling of unsafety.

Experiences of Dutch maternity care professionals during the first wave of COVID-19 in a community based maternity care system.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic the organization of maternity care changed drastically; this study into the experiences of maternity care professionals with these changes provides suggestions for the organization of care during and after pandemics. DESIGN: An online survey among Dutch midwives, obstetricians and obstetric residents. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to investigate associations between the respondents' characteristics and answers. RESULTS: Reported advantages of the changes were fewer prenatal and postpartum consultations (50.1%). The necessity and safety of medical interventions and ultrasounds were considered more critically (75.9%); 14.8% of community midwives stated they referred fewer women to the hospital for decreased fetal movements, whereas 64.2% of the respondents working in hospital-based care experienced fewer consultations for this indication. Respondents felt that women had more confidence in giving birth at home (57.5%). Homebirths seemed to have increased according to 38.5% of the community midwives and 65.3% of the respondents working in hospital-based care. Respondents appreciated the shift to more digital consultations rather than face-to-face consultations. Mentioned disadvantages were that women had appointments alone, (71.1%) and that the community midwife was not allowed to join a woman to obstetric-led care during labour and subsequently stay with her (56.8%). Fewer postpartum visits by family and friends led to more tranquility (59.8%). Overall, however, 48.0% of the respondents felt that the safety of maternity care was compromised due to policy changes. CONCLUSIONS: Maternity care professionals were positive about the decrease in routine care and the increased confidence of women in home birth, but also felt that safety in maternity care was sometimes compromised. According to the respondents in a future crisis situation it should be possible for community midwives to continue to deliver a personal handover after the referral of women to the hospital, and to stay with them.