Identifying the factors that influence midwives' perineal practice at the time of birth in the United Kingdom

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Perineal Techniques: A Scoping Review Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

AIM

To summarise the barriers and facilitators to the clinical implementation of perineal techniques and to provide evidence-based insights for decision-making based on existing research.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Nine electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed) were systematically searched on 4 February 2024.

REVIEW METHODS

This study followed Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodology. The barriers and facilitators identified in the included studies were mapped to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals and process.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were finally included and analysed. The most frequently identified facilitator was theoretical education for midwives (inner setting). Common barriers included: lack of time to implement perineal techniques (intervention characteristics); labour pain and women's stress due to insufficient understanding of the birthing process, as well as women's reluctance to receive the perineal techniques (outer setting); risk factors for OASIS (inner setting); insufficient theoretical education for midwives and inadequate prenatal education for pregnant women (inner setting) and concerns about potential medical disputes among performers (characteristics of individuals).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the factors influencing the implementation of perineal techniques identified in this review are modifiable. Developing implementation strategies based on these factors can promote the successful implementation of these perineal techniques in clinical settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION

This scoping review could serve as a reference framework for health authorities in developing strategies to promote the use of perineal techniques in clinical practice.

IMPACT

Existing research has primarily focused on the outer setting, inner setting and characteristics of individuals implementing perineal techniques. Therefore, there is a need for more high-quality studies focusing on intervention characteristics and the implementation process.

REPORTING METHOD

This study followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Not applicable.

Variability of clinical practice in the care of the second stage of labor among midwives in Spain

BACKGROUND

There are recommendations based on scientific evidence on care in the second stage of labor, but it is not known to what degree the professionals comply with these recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to examine the variability in clinical practices among midwives during the second stage of labor, including positions, mobility, practices, and the maximum time allowed before initiating active pushing, and to assess their adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study. A self-designed questionnaire was developed and distributed online through scientific societies. The main variables studied were professional and work environment characteristics, maternal positions and mobility, practices during this stage, maximum time to start active pushing and duration of the second stage of labor. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS 24.0.

RESULTS

Regarding the woman's position during childbirth, 80.3% (245) of midwives frequently or always allow the woman to choose her birthing position. Furthermore, 44.6% (136) of professionals prefer using side-lying positions for the mother. Regarding drinking fluids during childbirth, 51.1% (156) of midwives allowed the woman to drink the amount of liquids she wanted, whereas 11.1% (34) said that they would allow them to do so however, this was against the protocol of their hospital. When inquiring about the Kristeller maneuver, it was reported to be excessively performed in 35.1% (107) of cases for fetal bradycardia, 33.1% (101) for maternal exhaustion, and 38.4% (117) to avoid instrumental birth. Finally, a great variability was observed in the time criteria used for the initiation of active pushing and the maximum duration of the second stage of labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain practices, such as the Kristeller maneuver, are overused among midwives, with great variability in the use of certain procedures, the waiting times to initiate pushing and completion of the second stage of labor. Further training and awareness campaigns are needed for professionals to apply evidence-based care.

The effects of computerised decision support systems on nursing and allied health professional performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review and user contextualisation

Background

Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are widely used by nurses and allied health professionals but their effect on clinical performance and patient outcomes is uncertain.

Objectives

Evaluate the effects of clinical decision support systems use on nurses', midwives' and allied health professionals' performance and patient outcomes and sense-check the results with developers and users.

Eligibility criteria

Comparative studies (randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) and repeated measures studies comparing) of CDSS versus usual care from nurses, midwives or other allied health professionals.

Information sources

Nineteen bibliographic databases searched October 2019 and February 2021.

Risk of bias

Assessed using structured risk of bias guidelines; almost all included studies were at high risk of bias.

Synthesis of results

Heterogeneity between interventions and outcomes necessitated narrative synthesis and grouping by: similarity in focus or CDSS-type, targeted health professionals, patient group, outcomes reported and study design.

Included studies

Of 36,106 initial records, 262 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 35 included: 28 RCTs (80%), 3 CBA studies (8.6%), 3 ITS (8.6%) and 1 non-randomised trial, a total of 1318 health professionals and 67,595 patient participants. Few studies were multi-site and most focused on decision-making by nurses (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). Standalone, computer-based CDSS featured in 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile or handheld technology. Care processes - including adherence to guidance - were positively influenced in 47% of the measures adopted. For example, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling, and documenting care were improved if they used CDSS. Patient care outcomes were statistically - if not always clinically - significantly improved in 40.7% of indicators. For example, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity, and accurate triaging were features of professionals using CDSS compared to those who were not.

Evidence limitations

Allied health professionals (AHPs) were underrepresented compared to nurses; systems, studies and outcomes were heterogeneous, preventing statistical aggregation; very wide confidence intervals around effects meant clinical significance was questionable; decision and implementation theory that would have helped interpret effects - including null effects - was largely absent; economic data were scant and diverse, preventing estimation of overall cost-effectiveness.

Interpretation

CDSS can positively influence selected aspects of nurses', midwives' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. Comparative research is generally of low quality and outcomes wide ranging and heterogeneous. After more than a decade of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the effect on processes and outcomes remains uncertain. Higher-quality, theoretically informed, evaluative research that addresses the economics of CDSS development and implementation is still required.

Future work

Developing nursing CDSS and primary research evaluation.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; 2023. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Registration

PROSPERO [number: CRD42019147773].