Outreach in obstetric critical care

What factors influence midwives to provide obstetric high dependency care on the delivery suite or request care be escalated away from the obstetric unit? Findings of a focus group study

BACKGROUND

In the United Kingdom, midwives will engage in discussions with the multidisciplinary team as to whether they can provide Obstetric High Dependency Care (OHDC) on the Delivery Suite or whether a woman's care should be escalated to the critical care team. This study aimed to explore the question: What factors influence midwives to provide OHDC or request care be escalated away from the obstetric unit in hospitals remote from tertiary referral centres?

METHODS

Focus groups were undertaken with midwives (n = 34) across three obstetric units in England, with annual birth rates ranging from 1500 to 5000 per annum, in District General Hospitals. Three scenarios in the form of video vignettes of handover were used as triggers for the focus groups. Scenario 1; severe pre-eclampsia, physiologically unstable 2; major postpartum haemorrhage requiring invasive monitoring 3; recent admission of woman with chest pain receiving facial oxygen and requiring continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. Two focus groups were conducted in each of the obstetric units with experienced midwives. Data were analysed using a qualitative framework approach.

RESULTS

Factors influencing midwives' care escalation decisions included the care environment, a woman's diagnosis and fetal or neonatal factors. The overall plan of care including the need for ECG and invasive monitoring were also influential factors. Midwives in the smallest obstetric unit did not have access to the facilities for OHDC provision. Midwives in the larger obstetric units provided OHDC but identified varying degrees of skill and sometimes used 'workarounds' to facilitate care provision. Midwifery staffing levels, skill mix and workload were also influential. Some differences of opinion were evident between midwives working in the same obstetric units as to whether OHDC could be provided and the support they would enlist to help them provide it. Reliance on clinical guidelines appeared variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that there may be inequitable OHDC provision at a local level. Organisationally robust systems are required to promote safe, equitable OHDC care including skills development for midwives and precise escalation guidelines to minimise workarounds. Training for midwives must include strategies that prevent skills fade.

Design and internal validation of an obstetric early warning score: secondary analysis of the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre Case Mix Programme database

We designed and internally validated an aggregate weighted early warning scoring system specific to the obstetric population that has the potential for use in the ward environment. Direct obstetric admissions from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre's Case Mix Programme Database were randomly allocated to model development (n = 2240) or validation (n = 2200) sets. Physiological variables collected during the first 24 h of critical care admission were analysed. Logistic regression analysis for mortality in the model development set was initially used to create a statistically based early warning score. The statistical score was then modified to create a clinically acceptable early warning score. Important features of this clinical obstetric early warning score are that the variables are weighted according to their statistical importance, a surrogate for the FI O2 /Pa O2 relationship is included, conscious level is assessed using a simplified alert/not alert variable, and the score, trigger thresholds and response are consistent with the new non-obstetric National Early Warning Score system. The statistical and clinical early warning scores were internally validated using the validation set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.995 (95% CI 0.992-0.998) for the statistical score and 0.957 (95% CI 0.923-0.991) for the clinical score. Pre-existing empirically designed early warning scores were also validated in the same way for comparison. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.955 (95% CI 0.922-0.988) for Swanton et al.'s Modified Early Obstetric Warning System, 0.937 (95% CI 0.884-0.991) for the obstetric early warning score suggested in the 2003-2005 Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the UK, and 0.973 (95% CI 0.957-0.989) for the non-obstetric National Early Warning Score. This highlights that the new clinical obstetric early warning score has an excellent ability to discriminate survivors from non-survivors in this critical care data set. Further work is needed to validate our new clinical early warning score externally in the obstetric ward environment.