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: his study will provide evidence for the management of pregnant women reaching a gestational age of 41 weeks.
In most countries, maternal and newborn care is fragmented and focused on identification and treatment of pathology that affects only the minority of women and babies. Recently, a framework for quality maternal and newborn care was developed, which encourages a system-level shift to provide skilled care for all.This care includes preventive and supportive care that works to strengthen women’s capabilities and focuses on promotion of normal reproductive processes while ensuring access to emergency treatment when needed. Midwifery care is pivotal in this framework, which contains several elements that resonate with the main dimensions of primary care. Primary health care is the first level of contact with the health system where most of the population’s curative and preventive health needs can be fulfilled as close as possible to where people live and work. In this paper, we argue that midwifery as described in the framework requires the application of a primary care philosophy for all childbearing women and infants. Evaluation of the implementation of the framework should therefore include tools to monitor the performance of primary midwifery care.
Background Variations in childbirth interventions may indicate inappropriate use. Most variation studies are limited by the lack of adjustments for maternal characteristics and do not investigate variations in adverse outcomes. This study aims to explore regional variations in the Netherlands and their correlations with referral rates, birthplace, interventions, and adverse outcomes, adjusted for maternal characteristics. Methods In this nationwide retrospective cohort study, using a national data register, intervention rates were analysed between twelve regions among single childbirths after 37 weeks’ gestation in 2010–2013 (n = 614,730). These were adjusted for maternal characteristics using multivariable logistic regression. Primary outcomes were intrapartum referral, birthplace, and interventions used in midwife- and obstetrician-led care. Correlations both between primary outcomes and between adverse outcomes were calculated with Spearman’s rank correlations. Findings Intrapartum referral rates varied between 55–68% (nulliparous) and 20–32% (multiparous women), with a negative correlation with receiving midwife-led care at the onset of labour in two-thirds of the regions. Regions with higher referral rates had higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhages. Rates of home birth varied between 6–16% (nulliparous) and 16–31% (multiparous), and was negatively correlated with episiotomy and postpartum oxytocin rates. Among midwife-led births, episiotomy rates varied between 14–42% (nulliparous) and 3–13% (multiparous) and in obstetrician-led births from 46–67% and 14–28% respectively. Rates of postpartum oxytocin varied between 59–88% (nulliparous) and 50–85% (multiparous) and artificial rupture of membranes between 43–52% and 54–61% respectively. A north-south gradient was visible with regard to birthplace, episiotomy, and oxytocin. Conclusions Our study suggests that attitudes towards interventions vary, independent of maternal characteristics. Care providers and policy makers need to be aware of reducing unwarranted variation in birthplace, episiotomy and the postpartum use of oxytocin. Further research is needed to identify explanations and explore ways to reduce unwarranted intervention rates.
Vulnerable pregnant women are an important and complex theme in daily practice of birth care professionals. Vulnerability is an important risk factor for maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Providing care for these women is often complex. First, because it is not always easy to identify vulnerability. Secondly, vulnerable women more often cancel their appointments with midwives and finally, many professionals are involved while they do not always know each other. Even though professionals are aware of the risks of vulnerability for future mothers and their (unborn) children and the complexity of care for these women, there is no international definition for ‘vulnerable pregnancies’. Therefore, we start this project with defining a mutual definition of vulnerability during pregnancy. In current projects of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (RUAS) we define a vulnerable pregnant woman as: a pregnant woman facing psychopathology, psychosocial problems, and/or substance abuse combined with lack of individual and/or social resources (low socioeconomic status, low educational level, limited social network). In the Netherlands, care for vulnerable pregnant women is fragmented and therefore it is unclear for birth care professionals which interventions are available and effective. Therefore, Dutch midwives are convinced that exchanging knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices throughout Europe could enhance their knowledge and provide midwives (SMB partners in this project) with tools to improve care for vulnerable pregnant women. The aim of this project is to exchange knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices in several European countries, in order to improve knowledge and skills of midwives. As a result, guidelines will be developed in order to exchange selected best practices which enable midwives to implement this knowledge in their own context. This contributes to improving care for vulnerable pregnant women throughout Europe.
