The phenomenon of intrapartum transfer from a western Australian birth centre to a tertiary maternity hospital: The overall experiences of partners

Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review

Globally, millions of women and their children suffer due to preventable morbidity and mortality, associated with both underuse and overuse of maternal and newborn care. An effective system of risk selection that differentiates between what care should be provided and who should provide it is a global necessity to ensure women and children receive appropriate care, at the right place and the right time. Poor conceptualization of risk selection impedes evaluation and comparison of models of risk selection across various settings, which is necessary to improve maternal and newborn care. We conducted a scoping review to enhance the understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care. We included 210 papers, published over the past four decades, originating from 24 countries. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified three main dimensions of risk selection: (1) risk selection as an organisational measure to optimally align women's and children's needs and resources, (2) risk selection as a practice to detect and assess risk and to make decisions about the delivery of care, and (3) risk selection as a tool to ensure safe care. We found that these three dimensions have three themes in common: risk selection (1) is viewed as both requiring and providing regulation, (2) has a provider centred focus and (3) aims to avoid underuse of care. Due to the methodological challenges of contextual diversity, the concept of risk selection needs clear indicators that capture the complexity of care to make cross-setting evaluation and comparison of risk selection possible. Moreover, a comprehensive understanding of risk selection needs to consider access disparity, women's needs, and unnecessary medicalization.

Journey of vulnerability: a mixed-methods study to understand intrapartum transfers in Tanzania and Zambia

Background

Timely intrapartum referral between facilities is pivotal in reducing maternal/neonatal mortality and morbidity but is distressing to women, resource-intensive and likely to cause delays in care provision. We explored the complexities around referrals to gain understanding of the characteristics, experiences and outcomes of those being transferred.

Methods

We used a mixed-method parallel convergent design, in Tanzania and Zambia. Quantitative data were collected from a consecutive, retrospective case-note review (target, n = 2000); intrapartum transfers and stillbirths were the outcomes of interest. A grounded theory approach was adopted for the qualitative element; data were collected from semi-structured interviews (n = 85) with women, partners and health providers. Observations (n = 33) of transfer were also conducted. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, followed by binary logistic regression models, with multiple imputation for missing data. Qualitative data were analysed using Strauss’s constant comparative approach.

Results

Intrapartum transfer rates were 11% (111/998; 2 unknown) in Tanzania and 37% (373/996; 1 unknown) in Zambia. Main reasons for transfer were prolonged/obstructed labour and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. Women most likely to be transferred were from Zambia (as opposed to Tanzania), HIV positive, attended antenatal clinic < 4 times and living > 30 min away from the referral hospital. Differences were observed between countries. Of those transferred, delays in care were common and an increase in poor outcomes was observed. Qualitative findings identified three categories: social threats to successful transfer, barriers to timely intrapartum care and reparative interventions which were linked to a core category: journey of vulnerability.

Conclusion

Although intrapartum transfers are inevitable, modifiable factors exist with the potential to improve the experience and outcomes for women. Effective transfers rely on adequate resources, effective transport infrastructures, social support and appropriate decision-making. However, women’s (and families) vulnerability can be reduced by empathic communication, timely assessment and a positive birth outcome; this can improve women’s resilience and influence positive decision-making, for the index and future pregnancy.

Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres: A case study from a process perspective

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Handovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements.

METHODS

This case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

RESULTS

Solutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face-to-face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring quality during handovers requires a case-specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter-organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well.

Remote rural women's choice of birthplace and transfer experiences in rural Otago and Southland New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Birth in primary midwife-led maternity units has been demonstrated to be a safe choice for well women anticipating a normal birth. The incidence of serious perinatal outcomes for these women is comparable to similarly low risk women, who choose to birth in hospital. New Zealand women have a choice of Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) and birthplace; home, primary birthing unit, or a base hospital, though not all women may have all these choices available locally. Women in rural and rural remote areas can also choose to birth in their rural primary maternity unit. A percentage of these women (approx. 15-17%) will require transfer during labour, an event which can cause distress and often loss of midwifery continuity of care.

OBJECTIVE

To explore retrospectively the choice of birth place decisions and the labour and birth experiences of a sample of women resident in remotely zoned, rural areas of the lower South Island of New Zealand.

DESIGN

A purposive sample of women living in remote rural areas, recruited by advertising in local newspapers and flyers. Individual semi-structured interviews were digitally recorded using a pragmatic interpretive approach. The data (transcripts and field notes) were analysed using thematic and content analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the Health and Disability Ethics Committee (HEDC) MEC/06/05/045.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen women consented to participate. Each was resident in a remote rural area having given birth in the previous 18 months. The women had been well during their pregnancies and at the onset of labour had anticipated a spontaneous vaginal birth.

SETTING

Rural remote zoned areas in Otago and Southland in the South Island of New Zealand FINDINGS: Five women planned to birth in a regional hospital and eight chose their nearest rural primary maternity unit. All of the women were aware of the possibility of transfer and had made their decision about their birthplace based on their perception of their personal safety, and in consideration of their distance from specialist care. Themes included, deciding about the safest place to give birth; making the decision to transfer; experiencing transfer in labour, and reflecting on their birth experience and considering future birthplace choices.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY

The experiences of the women show that for some, distance from a base hospital influences their place of birth decisions in remote rural areas of New Zealand and increases the distress for those needing to transfer over large distances. These experiences can result in women choosing, or needing to make different choices for subsequent births; the consequences of which impact on the future sustainability of midwifery services in remote rural areas, a challenge which resonates with maternity service provision internationally. While choices about birth place cannot be reliably predicted, creative solutions are needed to provide rural midwifery care and birth options for women and more timely and efficient transfer services when required.

Women's experience of intrapartum transfer from a Western Australian birth centre co-located to a tertiary maternity hospital

BACKGROUND

The aim of this Western Australian study was to describe the overall labour and birth experience of women who were transferred during the first and second stages of labour from a low risk woman-centred, midwifery-led birth centre to a co-located tertiary maternity referral hospital.

METHODS

Using a descriptive phenomenological design, fifteen women were interviewed up to 8 weeks post birth (July to October, 2013) to explore their experience of the intrapartum transfer. Giorgi's method of analysis was used.

RESULTS

The following themes and subthemes emerged: 1) The midwife's voice with subthemes, a) The calming effect and b) Speaking up on my behalf; 2) In the zone with subthemes, a) Hanging in there and b) Post birth rationalizing; 3) Best of both worlds with subthemes a) The feeling of relief on transfer to tertiary birth suite and b) Returning back to the comfort and familiarity of the birth centre; 4) Lost sense of self; and 5) Lost birth dream with subthemes a) Narrowing of options and b) Feeling of panic. Women found the midwife's voice guided them through the transfer experience and were appreciative of continuity of care. There was a sense of disruption to expectations and disappointment in not achieving the labour and birth they had anticipated. There was however appreciation that the referral facility was nearby and experts were close at hand. The focus of care altered from woman to fetus, making women feel diminished. Women were glad to return to the familiar birth centre after the birth with the opportunity to talk through and fully understand their labour journey which helped them contextualise the transfer as one part of the whole experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings can inform midwives of the value of a continuity of care model within a birth centre, allowing women both familiarity and peace of mind. Maternity care providers should ensure that the woman remains the focus of care after transfer and understand the significance of effective communication to ensure women are included in all care discussions.