Using standard primipara method to compare the quality of maternity care in Cairo and London

Assessment of quality of obstetric care in Zimbabwe using the standard primipara

BACKGROUND

To improve maternity services in any country, there is need to monitor the quality of obstetric care. There is usually disparity of obstetric care and outcomes in most countries among women giving birth in different obstetric units. However, comparing the quality of obstetric care is difficult because of heterogeneous population characteristics and the difference in prevalence of complications. The concept of the standard primipara was introduced as a tool to control for these various confounding factors. This concept was used to compare the quality of obstetric care among districts in different geographical locations in Zimbabwe.

METHODS

This was a substudy of the Zimbabwe Maternal and Perinatal Mortality Study. In the main study, cluster sampling was done with the provinces as clusters and 11 districts were randomly selected with one from each of the nine provinces and two from the largest province. This database was used to identify the standard primipara defined as; a woman in her first pregnancy without any known complications who has spontaneous onset of labour at term. Obstetric process and outcome indicators of the standard primipara were then used to compare the quality of care between rural and urban, across rural and across urban districts of Zimbabwe.

RESULTS

A total of 45,240 births were recruited in the main study and 10,947 women met the definition of standard primipara. The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) and the perinatal mortality rate (PNMR) for the standard primiparae were 92/100000 live births and 15.4/1000 total births respectively. Compared to urban districts, the PNMR was higher in the rural districts (11/1000 total births vs 19/ 1000 total births, p < 0.001). In the urban to urban and rural to rural districts comparison, there were significant differences in most of the process indicators, but not in the PNMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The study has shown that the standard primipara can be used as a tool to measure and compare the quality of obstetric care in districts in different geographical areas. There is need to explore further how the quality of obstetric care can be improved in rural districts of Zimbabwe.

Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators

BACKGROUND

This paper critically reviews published tools and indicators currently used to measure maternity care performance within Europe, focusing particularly on whether and how current approaches enable systematic appraisal of processes of minimal (or non-) intervention in support of physiological or "normal birth". The work formed part of COST Actions IS0907: "Childbirth Cultures, Concerns, and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for optimal maternity care" (2011-2014) and IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health - an interdisciplinary whole system approach to understanding and contextualising physiological labour and birth (BIRTH) (2014-). The Actions included the sharing of country experiences with the aim of promoting salutogenic approaches to maternity care.

METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted of material published between 2005 and 2013, incorporating research databases, published documents in english in peer-reviewed international journals and indicator databases which measured aspects of health care at a national and pan-national level. Given its emergence from two COST Actions the work, inevitably, focused on Europe, but findings may be relevant to other countries and regions.

RESULTS

A total of 388 indicators were identified, as well as seven tools specifically designed for capturing aspects of maternity care. Intrapartum care was the most frequently measured feature, through the application of process and outcome indicators. Postnatal and neonatal care of mother and baby were the least appraised areas. An over-riding focus on the quantification of technical intervention and adverse or undesirable outcomes was identified. Vaginal birth (no instruments) was occasionally cited as an indicator; besides this measurement few of the 388 indicators were found to be assessing non-intervention or "good" or positive outcomes more generally.

CONCLUSIONS

The tools and indicators identified largely enable measurement of technical interventions and undesirable health (or pathological medical) outcomes. A physiological birth generally necessitates few, or no, interventions, yet most of the indicators presently applied fail to capture (a) this phenomenon, and (b) the relationship between different forms and processes of care, mode of birth and good or positive outcomes. A need was identified for indicators which capture non-intervention, reflecting the reality that most births are low-risk, requiring few, if any, technical medical procedures.