Reduced Compared With Traditional Schedules for Routine Antenatal Visits: A Systematic Review

Midwifery Practice Leaders' Experiences of Practice Changes Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Exploration

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated considerable upheaval in all sectors of the US health care system, including maternity care. We focused this inquiry on midwifery practice leaders' experiences and perspectives on changes that occurred in their practices early in the pandemic.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study using thematic analysis. The data were responses to an open-ended question in a survey of pandemic-related employment and clinical practice changes. Findings are presented from a constructivist perspective, describing the experiences and perspectives of a group of US midwifery practice leaders during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Two main themes emerged from the analysis: demands on midwives and driving forces. Demands on midwives were 3-fold: clients' needs, modification of care, and midwives' needs. These encompassed the psychological, physical, and emotional toll that caring for women during the pandemic placed on midwives. Driving forces were those entities that spurred and directed change and included regulations, institutions, financial logistics, and team dynamics. Survey respondents in community (home and birth center) practices reported substantial increases in inquiries and client volume, and many respondents expressed concern about withdrawal of students from clinical placements.

DISCUSSION

Midwifery practices experienced profound changes in their work environments during the COVID-19 pandemic, with both positive and negative characteristics. These challenges in providing birth care were similar to those reported in other countries. Results indicated existing guidance for maternity care during emergencies did not meet clients' needs. Coordinated planning for maternity care in future prolonged health emergencies should incorporate best practices and include midwives in the process.

The Evaluation of Payment for Obstetric and Gynecology Services: From ACOG

PURPOSE

To perform an environmental scan of the current status of reimbursement for obstetric and gynecology services and identify problematic issues and opportunities for change. The areas that were evaluated include the American Medical Association (AMA) relative value unit assignment process, payer rates (where available), and trends in employment and salary determination for obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns).

METHODS

This report was developed by members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) Committee on Health Economics and Coding using public-facing payment data from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and state Medicaid programs, as well as published research and commentary on payment for physicians, maternal health, and gynecologic surgery. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used to describe typical patient characteristics, and practice survey reports from the AMA were analyzed. Finally, an anonymous online survey was distributed to 27,854 members of ACOG in March 2022, with a response rate of 10.8% (3,018 members) and a CI of ±1.7%.

FINDINGS

The evaluation found that payment for ob-gyns is heavily influenced by the values and rates set by third-party payers, a patient case-mix that includes a higher-than-average number of patients with Medicaid insurance, and the increase of employed physicians reliant on salary contracts that include productivity requirements and bonuses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee identified action items, including payment reform for obstetric services; advocating for gynecologic surgery time as a priority for hospital administration; developing resources to assist employed physicians with payment, practice, and business management; developing a business and coding curriculum for students and early-career physicians; and continued advocacy with private and public policymakers who influence physician payment.

Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported.

CONCLUSION

People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021272287.