Inter-hospital and inter-disciplinary variation in planned birth practices and readiness for change: a survey study

Maternity clinician use of shared decision-making in antenatal care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Implementation of shared decision-making in antenatal care has had limited exploration.

OBJECTIVE

To assess what is known about shared decision-making in antenatal care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Five databases were searched (1997-2022) limited to English language studies from OECD countries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A data collection table was constructed with findings from 32 papers. A narrative synthesis was conducted with subsequent thematic analysis of included papers.

MAIN RESULTS

Four areas of decision-making were identified with six themes revealing enablers and barriers to shared decision-making in antenatal care.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of shared decision-making requires continuity, time and personalisation of care.

Likelihood of primary cesarean section following induction of labor in singleton cephalic pregnancies at term, compared with expectant management: An Australian population-based, historical cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There has been increased use of both induction of labor (IOL) and cesarean section for women with term pregnancies in many high-income countries, and a trend toward birth at earlier gestational ages. Existing evidence regarding the association between IOL and cesarean section for term pregnancies is mixed and conflicting, and little evidence is available on the differential effect at each week of gestation, stratified by parity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To explore the association between IOL and primary cesarean section for singleton cephalic pregnancies at term, compared with two definitions of expectant management (first: at or beyond the week of gestation at birth following IOL; and secondary: only beyond the week of gestation at birth following IOL), we performed analyses of population-based historical cohort data on women who gave birth in one Australian state (Queensland), between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2018. Women who gave birth before 37+0 or after 41+6 weeks of gestation, had stillbirths, no-labor, multiple births (twins or triplets), non-cephalic presentation at birth, a previous cesarean section, or missing data on included variables were excluded. Four sub-datasets were created for each week at birth (37-40). Unadjusted relative risk, adjusted relative risk using modified Poisson regression, and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated in each sub-dataset. Analyses were stratified by parity (nulliparas vs. parous women with a previous vaginal birth). Sensitivity analyses were conducted by limiting to women with low-risk pregnancies.

RESULTS

A total of 239 094 women were included in the analysis, 36.7% of whom gave birth following IOL. The likelihood of primary cesarean section following IOL in a Queensland population-based cohort was significantly higher at 38 and 39 weeks, compared with expectant management up to 41+6 weeks, for both nulliparas and paras with singleton cephalic pregnancies, regardless of risk status of pregnancy and definition of expectant management. No significant difference was found for nulliparas at 37 and 40 weeks; and for paras at 40 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies are suggested to investigate further the association between IOL and other maternal and neonatal outcomes at each week of gestation in different maternal populations, before making any recommendation.

From data to practice change - exploring new territory for atlases of clinical variation

Despite decades of atlas production and use within multiple healthcare systems, and consistent reporting of geographical differences in the utilisation of services, significant levels of clinical variation persist. Drawing on over forty years of combined experience using atlases of clinical variation, we reflect on why that might be the case and explore the role of atlases have played in efforts to reduce inappropriate overuse, underuse and misuse of healthcare services. We contend that atlases are useful but, on their own, are not enough to drive change in clinical practice and improvement in patient outcomes. Building on four conceptual models we have published since 2017, we argue that atlases, with their focus on measuring healthcare utilisation by residents in different geographies, generally fail to provide sufficient information and statistical analyses to truly assess the nature of the variation and support action for change. They seldom use structures such as hospitals or teams as the unit of analysis to understand variation; they rarely feature the key elements of healthcare performance which underlie variation; they are mostly silent about how to assess whether the variation measured is warranted or truly unwarranted; nor do they identify evidence-based levers for change. This means that a stark choice confronts producers of atlases - to either continue with the current model and more explicitly rely on other players to undertake work to complete the 'data to action' cycle that is necessary to secure improvement; or to refine their offering - including more sophisticated performance measurement approaches, nuanced guides for interpretation of any differences found, support for the selection and application of levers for change that align with local context, and provision of evidence-based options for implementation.