Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders

Preliminary findings on the experiences of care for women who suffered early pregnancy losses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Women who suffer an early pregnancy loss require specific clinical care, aftercare, and ongoing support. In the UK, the clinical management of early pregnancy complications, including loss is provided mainly through specialist Early Pregnancy Assessment Units. The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally changed the way in which maternity and gynaecological care was delivered, as health systems moved to rapidly reconfigure and re-organise services, aiming to reduce the risk and spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PUDDLES is an international collaboration investigating the pandemic's impact on care for people who suffered a perinatal bereavement. Presented here are initial qualitative findings undertaken with UK-based women who suffered early pregnancy losses during the pandemic, about how they navigated the healthcare system and its restrictions, and how they were supported.

METHODS

In-keeping with a qualitative research design, in-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with an opportunity sample of women (N = 32) who suffered any early pregnancy loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analysed using a template analysis to understand women's access to services, care, and networks of support, during the pandemic following their pregnancy loss. The thematic template was based on findings from parents who had suffered a late-miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death in the UK, during the pandemic.

RESULTS

All women had experienced reconfigured maternity and early pregnancy services. Data supported themes of: 1) COVID-19 Restrictions as Impractical & Impersonal; 2) Alone, with Only Staff to Support Them; 3) Reduction in Service Provision Leading to Perceived Devaluation in Care; and 4) Seeking Their Own Support. Results suggest access to early pregnancy loss services was reduced and pandemic-related restrictions were often impractical (i.e., restrictions added to burden of accessing or receiving care). Women often reported being isolated and, concerningly, aspects of early pregnancy loss services were reported as sub-optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide important insight for the recovery and rebuilding of health services in the post-pandemic period and help us prepare for providing a higher standard of care in the future and through any other health system shocks. Conclusions made can inform future policy and planning to ensure best possible support for women who experience early pregnancy loss.

Freedom for some, but not for Mum: the reproductive injustice associated with pandemic 'Freedom Day' for perinatal women in the United Kingdom

Introduction

Healthcare services for pregnant and postpartum ('perinatal') women were reconfigured significantly at the advent and for the duration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and despite the United Kingdom announcing 'Freedom Day' on 19 July 2021 (whereafter all legal lockdown-related restrictions were lifted), restrictions to maternity (antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal) services remained. This study presents data from eight perinatal women about their experiences of psychosocial wellbeing and maternity care in the post-'Freedom Day' epoch.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually, with data recorded, transcribed, and analysed by hand. Grounded theory analysis was employed with the final theory assessing the reproductive injustice of the pandemic 'Freedom Day'.

Results

Analysing iteratively and inductively led to four emergent themes: 'A Failing System, Failing Women'; 'Harm Caused by a State of Difference'; 'The Privileges (Not Rights) of Reproductive Autonomy, Agency, and Advocacy'; and 'Worried Women and Marginalised Mothers'. Together, these themes form the theory of 'Freedom for some, but not for Mum'.

Discussion

Women experienced a lack of high-quality reliable information about the pandemic, vaccination against the virus, and the changes to, and decision-making surrounding, their perinatal care. Women recognised healthcare professionals and maternity services were stretched and that maternity services were failing but often reported hostility from staff and abandonment at times when they were unsure about how to navigate their care. The most singular injustice was the disparity between women having to accept continuing restrictions to their freedom whilst receiving maternity care and the (reckless) freedom being enacted by the general public.

Women's experiences of maternity care in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic: A follow-up systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Maternity care services in the United Kingdom have undergone drastic changes due to pandemic-related restrictions. Prior research has shown maternity care during the pandemic was negatively experienced by women and led to poor physical and mental health outcomes in pregnancy. A synthesis is required of published research on women's experiences of maternity care during the latter half of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM

To update a previous systematic review of maternity care experiences during the pandemic to June 2021, exploring experiences of maternity care specifically within the United Kingdom and how they may have changed, in order to inform future maternity services.

METHODS

A systematic review of qualitative literature was conducted using comprehensive searches of five electronic databases and the Cochrane COVID Study Register, published between 1 June 2021 and 13 October 2022, and further updated to 30 September 2023. Thematic Synthesis was utilised for data synthesis.

FINDINGS

Of 21,860 records identified, 27 studies were identified for inclusion. Findings included 14 descriptive themes across the five core concepts: (1)Care-seeking and experience; (2)Virtual care; (3)Self-monitoring; (4)COVID-19 vaccination; (5)Ethical future of maternity care.

DISCUSSION

Our findings in the UK are consistent with those globally, and extend those of the previous systematic review, particularly about women's perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest the following are important to women for future maternity care: personalisation and inclusiveness; clear and evidence-based communication to facilitate informed decision-making; and achieving balance between social commitments and time spent settling into motherhood.

A positive deviant approach to examining the impact of Covid-19 on ethnic inequalities in maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVES

During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid and heterogeneous changes were made to maternity care. Identification of changes that may reduce maternal health inequalities is a national priority. The aim of this project was to use data collected about care and outcomes to identify NHS Trusts in the UK where inequalities in outcomes reduced during the pandemic and explore through interviews how the changes that occurred may have led to a reduction in inequalities.

METHODS

A Women's Reference Group of public advisors guided the project. Analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data of 128 organisations in England identified "positive deviant" organisations that reduced inequalities, using maternal and perinatal composite adverse outcome indicators. Positive deviant organisations were identified for investigation, alongside comparators. Senior clinicians, heads of midwifery and representatives of women giving birth were interviewed. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed.

RESULTS

The change in the inequality gap for the maternal indicator ranged from a reduction of -0.24 to an increase of 0.30 per 1000 births between the pre-pandemic and pandemic period. For the perinatal composite indicator, the change in inequality gap ranged from -0.47 to 0.67 per 1000 births. Nine Trusts were identified as positive deviants and 10 as comparators. We conducted 20 interviews from six positive deviant and four comparator organisations. Positive deviants reported that necessary shifts in roles led to productive and novel use of expert staff; comparators reported senior staff 'stepping in' where needed and no benefits of this. They reported proactivity and quick reactions, increased team working, and rapid implementation of new ideas. Comparators found constant changes overwhelming, and no increase in team working. No specific differences in care processes were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Harnessing proactivity, flexibility, staffing resource, and increased team working proves vital in reducing health inequalities.

Self-monitoring blood pressure in Pregnancy: Evaluation of health professional experiences of the BUMP trials

BACKGROUND

The BUMP trials evaluated a self-monitoring of blood pressure intervention in addition to usual care, testing whether they improved detection or control of hypertension for women at risk of hypertension or with hypertension during pregnancy. This process evaluation aimed to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of the BUMP trials of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy.

METHODS

Twenty-two in-depth qualitative interviews and an online survey with 328 healthcare professionals providing care for pregnant people in the BUMP trials were carried out across five maternity units in England.

RESULTS

Analysis used Normalisation Process Theory to identify factors required for successful implementation and integration into routine practice. Healthcare professionals felt self-monitoring of blood pressure did not over-medicalise pregnancy for women with, or at risk of, hypertension. Most said self-monitored readings positively affected their clinical encounters and professional roles, provided additive information on which to base decisions and enriched their relationships with pregnant people. Self-monitoring of blood pressure shifts responsibilities. Some healthcare professionals felt women having responsibility to decide on timing of monitoring and whether to act on self-monitored readings was unduly burdensome, and resulted in healthcare professionals taking additional responsibility for supporting them.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite healthcare professionals' early concerns that self-monitoring of blood pressure might over-medicalise pregnancy, our analysis shows the opposite was the case when used in the care of pregnant people with, or at higher risk of, hypertension. While professionals retained ultimate clinical responsibility, they viewed self-monitoring of blood pressure as a means of sharing responsibility and empowering women to understand their bodies, to make judgements and decisions, and to contribute to their care.

Using self-monitoring to detect and manage raised blood pressure and pre-eclampsia during pregnancy: the BUMP research programme and its impact

Raised blood pressure affects around ten percent of pregnancies worldwide, causing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Self-monitoring of blood pressure during higher-risk or hypertensive pregnancy has been shown to be feasible, acceptable, safe, and no more expensive than usual care alone. Additionally, self-testing for proteinuria has been shown to be just as accurate as healthcare professional testing, creating the potential for monitoring of multiple indicators through pregnancy. The work suggests however, that an organisational shift is needed to properly use and see benefits from self-monitored readings. This paper describes the findings from a large programme of work examining the use of self-monitoring in pregnancy, summarising the findings in the context of the wider literature and current clinical context. The BUMP Research Programme developed and tested self-monitoring and self-testing interventions for pregnancy. The work showed that self-monitoring during pregnancy was feasible, acceptable, safe, and no more expensive, but did not improve the detection or control of hypertension.

Telehealth in antenatal care: recent insights and advances

BACKGROUND

For decades, antenatal care in high-resource settings has involved 12-14 face-to-face visits across pregnancy. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many care providers to rapidly embrace telehealth to reduce face-to-face visits. Here we review recent advances in telehealth used to provide antenatal care.

MAIN BODY

We conducted a narrative review examining the impact of telehealth on obstetric care. Two broad types of telehealth are used in antenatal care. The first is real-time telehealth, where consultations are done virtually instead of face-to-face. The second is remote monitoring, where in-clinic physical examinations are replaced with at-home alternatives. These can include blood pressure monitoring, fetal heart rate monitoring, and emerging technologies such as tele-ultrasound. Large cohort studies conducted during the pandemic era have shown that telehealth appears not to have increased adverse clinical outcomes for mothers or babies. However, further studies may be required to confidently conclude rare outcomes are unchanged, such as maternal mortality, serious morbidity, or stillbirth. Health economic studies suggest telehealth has the potential to reduce the financial cost of care provision. Telehealth in antenatal care seems to be acceptable to both pregnant women and healthcare providers.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of telehealth technologies may improve the antenatal care experience for women and reduce healthcare expenditure without adversely impacting health outcomes for the mother or baby. More studies are warranted to confirm telehealth does not alter the risk of rare outcomes such as maternal or neonatal mortality.

'Nesting networks': Women's experiences of social network support in high-risk pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

Social support, an individual's social relationships (both online and offline), may provide protection against adverse mental health outcomes, such as anxiety and depression, which are high in women who have been hospitalised with high-risk pregnancy. This study explored the social support available to women at higher risk of preeclampsia during pregnancy by examining personal social networks.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were accompanied by social network mapping using the web-based social networking tool GENIE.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one women were recruited, of whom 18 were interviewed both during pregnancy and postnatally between April 2019 and April 2020. Nineteen women completed maps pre-natally, 17 women completed maps pre-natally and post-natally. Women were taking part in the BUMP study, a randomised clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019.

RESULTS

Women's social networks tightened during pregnancy. The inner network changed most dramatically postnatally with women reporting fewer network members. Interviews revealed networks were primarily 'real-life' rather than online social networks, with members providing emotional, informational, and practical support. Women with a high-risk pregnancy valued the relationships they developed with health professionals during pregnancy, and would like their midwife to have a more central role in their networks by providing informational and, where needed, emotional support. The social network mapping data supported the qualitative accounts of changing networks across high-risk pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Women with a high-risk pregnancy seek to build "nesting networks" to support them through pregnancy into motherhood. Different types of support are sought from trusted sources. Midwives can play a key role.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As well as highlighting other potential needs during pregnancy and the ways in which they can be met, support from midwives has a key role. Through talking to women early in their pregnancy, signposting information and explaining ways to contact health professionals regarding informational or emotional support would fill a gap that currently is met by other aspects of their network.

Realist inquiry into Maternity care @ a Distance (ARM@DA): realist review protocol

INTRODUCTION

One of the most commonly reported COVID-19-related changes to all maternity services has been an increase in the use of digital clinical consultations such as telephone or video calling; however, the ways in which they can be optimally used along maternity care pathways remain unclear. It is imperative that digital service innovations do not further exacerbate (and, ideally, should tackle) existing inequalities in service access and clinical outcomes. Using a realist approach, this project aims to synthesise the evidence around implementation of digital clinical consultations, seeking to illuminate how they can work to support safe, personalised and appropriate maternity care and to clarify when they might be most appropriately used, for whom, when, and in what contexts?

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The review will be conducted in four iterative phases, with embedded stakeholder involvement: (1) refining the review focus and generating initial programme theories, (2) exploring and developing the programme theories in light of evidence, (3) testing/refining the programme theories and (4) constructing actionable recommendations. The review will draw on four sources of evidence: (1) published literature (searching nine bibliographic databases), (2) unpublished (grey) literature, including research, audit, evaluation and policy documents (derived from Google Scholar, website searches and e-thesis databases), (3) expertise contributed by service user and health professional stakeholder groups (n=20-35) and (4) key informant interviews (n=12). Included papers will consist of any study design, in English and from 2010 onwards. The review will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards quality procedures and reporting guidance.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee (FMHS 426-1221). Informed consent will be obtained for all key informant interviews. Findings will be disseminated in a range of formats relevant to different audiences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021288702.