Knowledge and skills used for clinical decision-making on childbirth interventions: A qualitative study among midwives in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate use of interventions in maternity care is a worldwide issue. Midwifery-led models of care are associated with more efficient use of resources, fewer medical interventions, and improved outcomes. However, the use of interventions varies considerably between midwives. The aim of this study was to explore how knowledge and skills influence clinical decision-making of midwives on the appropriate use of childbirth interventions. METHODS: A qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 20 primary care midwives was performed in June 2019. Participants' clinical experience varied in the use of interventions. The interviews combined a narrative approach with a semi-structured question route. Data were analyzed using deductive content analysis. RESULTS: 'Knowledge', 'Critical thinking skills', and 'Communication skills' influenced midwives' clinical decision-making towards childbirth interventions. Midwives obtained their knowledge through the formal education program and extended their knowledge by reflecting on experiences and evidence. Midwives with a low use of interventions seem to have a higher level of reflective skills, including reflection-in-action. These midwives used a more balanced communication style with instrumental and affective communication skills in interaction with women, and have more skills to engage in discussions during collaboration with other professionals, and thus personalizing their care. CONCLUSIONS: Midwives with a low use of interventions seemed to have the knowledge and skills of a reflective practitioner, leading to more personalized care compared to standardized care as defined in protocols. Learning through reflectivity, critical thinking skills, and instrumental and affective communication skills, need to be stimulated and trained to pursue appropriate, personalized use of interventions.

Associations of severe adverse perinatal outcomes among continuous birth weight percentiles on different birth weight charts: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To identify neonatal risk for severe adverse perinatal outcomes across birth weight centiles in two Dutch and one international birth weight chart. BACKGROUND: Growth restricted newborns have not reached their intrinsic growth potential in utero and are at risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. There is no golden standard for the confirmation of the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction after birth. Estimated fetal weight and birth weight below the 10th percentile are generally used as proxy for growth restriction. The choice of birth weight chart influences the specific cut-off by which birth weight is defined as abnormal, thereby triggering clinical management. Ideally, this cut-off should discriminate appropriately between newborns at low and at high risk of severe adverse perinatal outcomes and consequently correctly inform clinical management. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the IUGR Risk Selection (IRIS) study. Newborns (n = 12 953) of women with a low-risk status at the start of pregnancy and that received primary antenatal care in the Netherlands were included. We examined the distribution of severe adverse perinatal outcomes across birth weight centiles for three birth weight charts (Visser, Hoftiezer and INTERGROWTH) by categorizing birth weight centile groups and comparing the prognostic performance for severe adverse perinatal outcomes. Severe adverse perinatal outcomes were defined as a composite of one or more of the following: perinatal death, Apgar score < 4 at 5 min, impaired consciousness, asphyxia, seizures, assisted ventilation, septicemia, meningitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, or necrotizing enterocolitis. RESULTS: We found the highest rates of severe adverse perinatal outcomes among the smallest newborns (< 3rd percentile) (6.2% for the Visser reference curve, 8.6% for the Hoftiezer chart and 12.0% for the INTERGROWTH chart). Discriminative abilities of the three birth weight charts across the entire range of birth weight centiles were poor with areas under the curve ranging from 0.57 to 0.61. Sensitivity rates of the various cut-offs were also low. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of all three charts in identifying high risk of severe adverse perinatal outcomes is poor. There is no single cut-off that discriminates clearly between newborns at low or high risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4367 . Registration date March 20th, 2014.

Change in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands in 2000­2008: A descriptive study of caesarean sections and other interventions among 807,437 low-risk births.

OBJECTIVE: to study whether an increase in intrapartum referrals in primary midwife-led care births in the Netherlands is accompanied by an increase in caesarean sections. DESIGN: nationwide descriptive study. SETTING: The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. PARTICIPANTS: 807,437 births of nine year cohorts of women with low risk pregnancies in primary midwife-led care at the onset of labour between 2000 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS: primary outcome is the caesarean section rate. Vaginal instrumental childbirth, augmentation with oxytocin, and pharmacological pain relief are secondary outcomes. Trends in outcomes are described. We used logistic regression to explore whether changes in the planned place of birth and other maternal characteristics were associated with the caesarean section rate. FINDINGS: the caesarean section rate increased from 6.2 to 8.3 per cent for nulliparous and from 0.8 to 1.1 per cent for multiparous women. After controlling for maternal characteristics the year by year increase in the caesarean section rate was still significant for nulliparous women (adj OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02­1.03). The vaginal instrumental birth declined from 18.2 to 17.4 per cent for nulliparous women (multiparous women: 1.7­1.5 per cent). Augmentation of labour and/or pharmacological pain relief increased from 23.1 to 38.1 per cent for nulliparous women and from 5.4 to 9.6 per cent for multiparous women. CONCLUSION: the rise in augmentation of labour, pharmacological pain relief and electronic fetal monitoring in the period 2000­2008 among women in primary midwife-led care was accompanied by an increase in caesarean section rate for nulliparous women. The vaginal instrumental deliveries declined for both nulliparous and multiparous women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: primary care midwives should evaluate whether they can strengthen the opportunities for nulliparous women to achieve a physiological birth, without augmentation or pharmacological pain relief. If such interventions are considered necessary to achieve a spontaneous vaginal birth, the current disadvantage of discontinuity of care should be reduced. In a more integrated care system, women could receive continuous care and support from their own primary care midwife, as long as only supportive interventions are needed.

Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman's chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth). METHODS: We performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008-2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined. RESULTS: The intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety.

Variation in intrapartum referral rates in primary midwifery care in the Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: in midwife-led care models of maternity care, midwives are responsible for intrapartum referrals to the obstetrician or obstetric unit, in order to give their clients access to secondary obstetric care. This study explores the influence of risk perception, policy on routine labour management, and other midwife related factors on intrapartum referral decisions of Dutch midwives. DESIGN: a questionnaire was used, in which a referral decision was asked in 14 early labour scenarios (Discrete Choice Experiment or DCE). The scenarios varied in woman characteristics (BMI, gestational age, the preferred birth location, adequate support by a partner, language problems and coping) and in clinical labour characteristics (cervical dilatation, estimated head-to-cervix pressure, and descent of the head). SETTING: primary care midwives in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: a systematic random selection of 243 practicing primary care midwives. The response rate was 48 per cent (117/243). MEASUREMENTS: the Impact Factor of the characteristics in the DCE was calculated using a conjoint analysis. The number of intrapartum referrals to secondary obstetric care in the 14 scenarios of the DCE was calculated as the individual referral score. Risk perception was assessed by respondents׳ estimates of the probability of eight birth outcomes. The associations between midwives׳ policy on management of physiological labour, personal characteristics, workload in the practice, number of midwives in the practice, and referral score were explored. FINDINGS: the estimated head-to-cervix pressure and descent of the head had the largest impact on referral decisions in the DCE. The median referral score was five (range 0-14). Estimates of probability on birth outcomes were predominantly overestimating actual risks. Factors significantly associated with a high referral score were: a low estimated probability of a spontaneous vaginal birth (p=0.007), adhering to the active management policy Proactive Support of Labour (PSOL) (p=0.047), and a practice situated in a rural area or small city (p=0.016). KEY CONCLUSIONS: there is considerable variation in referral decisions among midwives that cannot be explained by woman characteristics or clinical factors in early labour. A realistic perception of the possibility of a spontaneous vaginal birth and adhering to expectant management can contribute to the prevention of unwarranted medicalisation of physiological childbirth. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: awareness of variation in referrals and the associated midwife-related factors can stimulate midwives to reflect on their referral behavior. To diminish unwarranted variation, high quality research on the optimal management of a physiological first stage of labour should be performed.

Effects of induction of labour versus expectant management in women with impending post-term pregnancies: the 41 week - 42 week dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Post-term pregnancy, a pregnancy exceeding 294 days or 42 completed weeks, is associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality and is considered a high-risk condition which requires specialist surveillance and induction of labour. However, there is uncertainty on the policy concerning the timing of induction for post-term pregnancy or impending post-term pregnancy, leading to practice variation between caregivers. Previous studies on induction at or beyond 41 weeks versus expectant management showed different results on perinatal outcome though conclusions in meta-analyses show a preference for induction at 41 weeks. However, interpretation of the results is hampered by the limited sample size of most trials and the heterogeneity in design. Most control groups had a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour that went far beyond 42 weeks, which does not reflect usual care in The Netherlands where induction of labour at 42 weeks is the regular policy. Thus leaving the question unanswered if induction at 41 weeks results in better perinatal outcomes than expectant management until 42 weeks. METHODS/DESIGN: In this study we compare a policy of labour induction at 41 + 0/+1 weeks with a policy of expectant management until 42 weeks in obstetrical low risk women without contra-indications for expectant management until 42 weeks and a singleton pregnancy in cephalic position. We will perform a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. Our primary outcome will be a composite outcome of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes will be maternal outcomes as mode of delivery (operative vaginal delivery and Caesarean section), need for analgesia and postpartum haemorrhage (≥1000 ml). Maternal preferences, satisfaction, wellbeing, pain and anxiety will be assessed alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence for the management of pregnant women reaching a gestational age of 41 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (Nederlands Trial Register): NTR3431. Registered: 14 May 2012.

Change in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands in 2000-2008: a descriptive study of caesarean sections and other interventions among 789,795 low risk births.

OBJECTIVE: to study whether an increase in intrapartum referrals in primary midwife-led care births in the Netherlands is accompanied by an increase in caesarean sections. DESIGN: nationwide descriptive study. SETTING: the Netherlands Perinatal Registry. PARTICIPANTS: 789,795 births of nine year cohorts of women with low risk pregnancies in primary midwife-led care at the onset of labour between 2000 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS: primary outcome is the caesarean section rate. Vaginal instrumental delivery, augmentation with oxytocin, and pharmacological pain relief are secondary outcomes. Trends in outcomes are described. We used logistic regression to explore whether changes in the planned place of birth and other maternal characteristics influenced the caesarean section rate. FINDINGS: the caesarean section rate did not increase and was 5.5 per cent (range 4.9-6.3 per cent) for nulliparous women, and 1.0 per cent (range 0.8-1.1 per cent) for multiparous women. After controlling for the decline in planned home births and other maternal characteristics no increase in the caesarean section rate was found. The vaginal instrumental birth rate showed no increase, and was 18.1 per cent (range 17.9-18.5 per cent) for nulliparous women and 1.5 per cent (range 1.4-1.7 per cent) for multiparous women. Augmentation of labour and/or pharmacological pain relief increased from 24.0 to 38.8 per cent for nulliparous women, and from 5.4 to 10.0 per cent for multiparous women. CONCLUSION: the rise in intrapartum referrals was not accompanied by an increase in caesarean section rate over the period 2000-2008. Despite a considerable rise in the use of pain relief and augmentation, the rate of spontaneous vaginal birth remained high for low risk women who started labour in primary midwife-led care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the current strict role division between primary care midwives and the obstetrician-led team increasingly results in a change in care provider during labour. In a more integrated care system, more women can receive continuous support of labour from their own primary care midwife, as long as only supportive interventions are needed.

Persisting rise in referrals during labor in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the Dutch maternity care system, characterized by a strict role division between primary and secondary care. The objective of this study was to describe trends in referrals and in perinatal outcomes among labors that started in primary midwife-led care. METHODS: We performed a descriptive study of all 789,795 labors that started in primary midwife-led care during 2000 to 2008 in The Netherlands. Referrals to obstetrician-led care or pediatrician were classified as urgent or nonurgent. Perinatal safety was described by perinatal mortality (intrapartum or neonatal 0-7 days), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 0-7 days, and Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes. RESULTS: The proportion of referrals during labor or after birth declined from 52.6 to 42.6 percent for nulliparous women and from 83.2 to 76.7 percent for multiparous women. Especially nonurgent referrals during the first stage increased, for nulliparous women from 28.7 to 40.7 percent and for multiparous women from 10.5 to 16.5 percent. Referrals were less frequent in planned home births. Perinatal mortality was 0.9 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 0.6 per thousand for multiparous women. A low Apgar score was registered in 8.6 per thousand births for nulliparous women, and 4.1 per thousand for multiparous women. CONCLUSIONS: There was a considerable rise in nonurgent referrals to obstetrician-led care in primary midwife-led care during labor. Perinatal safety did not improve significantly over time. The persisting rise in referrals challenges the sustainability of the current strict role division between primary and secondary maternity care in The Netherlands.