Dataset Information

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women.

Design

National cross-sectional survey.

Setting

All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019.

Outcome measures

Alignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women.

Results

Admission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies.

Conclusions

The variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.

SUBMITTER: Glenister C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7575094 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).

Glenister Ceri C Burns Ethel E Rowe Rachel R

PloS one 20201020 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women.<h4>Design</h4>National cross-sectional survey.<h4>Setting</h4>All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019.<h4>Outcome measures</h4>Alignment of local a ...[more]

PMID: 33079940

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe outcomes in women admitted for labour care to midwifery units with gestational or pre-existing diabetes, compare outcomes with other women admitted to the same units and describe admission and care guidance in midwifery units typically admitting women with diabetes.DesignA national cohort study and a survey of practice.SettingWe used the UK Midwifery Study System to collect data from midwifery units in the UK between October 2021 and February 2023.ParticipantsWomen with a diagnosis of diabetes admitted for labour care to a midwifery unit were compared with a cohort of women without diabetes admitted for labour care to the same units.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal outcome reflecting the need for obstetric care (one or more of augmentation, instrumental birth, caesarean birth, maternal blood transfusion, third or fourth-degree perineal tear, maternal admission to higher level care). We also investigated a number of secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes.ResultsOverall, 420 (0.7% (95% CI 0.67% to 0.82%) of the 56 648 women admitted to midwifery units in the study period were recorded as having diabetes, most (84%) with diet-controlled gestational diabetes. Women with diabetes were no more likely than comparison women to experience the composite primary outcome (18.7% vs 20.7%, adjusted relative risk=1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We found no statistically significant differences between the two groups for the secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes investigated: augmentation, postpartum haemorrhage >1.5 L, shoulder dystocia, maternal blood transfusion and maternal admission for higher level care, Apgar <7 at 5 min, initiation of breast feeding and neonatal unit admission.ConclusionsThe findings of this study provide evidence that selected women with well-controlled gestational diabetes may safely plan birth in midwifery units on the same site as obstetric and neonatal services. With clear admission criteria and careful care planning, access to a midwifery unit provides an opportunity to increase choice, reduce intervention and improve outcomes for these women.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe and compare outcomes in severely obese (body mass index (BMI)>35kg/m2) women and other women admitted to alongside (co-located) midwifery units (AMU) in the United Kingdom.MethodsWe carried out a national prospective cohort study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) in all 122 AMUs in the UK. We identified and collected data about 1122 severely obese women admitted to an AMU, 1st January-31st December 2016, and 1949 comparison women (BMI≤35kg/m2), matched on time of admission, and used Poisson regression to calculate relative risks adjusted for maternal characteristics.Results92% of the severely obese cohort had BMI 35.1-40kg/m2. Severely obese multiparous women were no more likely than comparison women to experience the composite primary outcome (one or more of: augmentation, instrumental birth, Caesarean, maternal blood transfusion, 3rd/4th degree tear, maternal admission to higher level care) (5.6% vs. 8.1%, aRR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.07). For severely obese nulliparous women we found a non-significant 14% increased risk of the primary outcome (37.6% vs 34.8%, aRR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.33). High proportions of severely obese women had a 'straightforward vaginal birth' (nulliparous 67.9%; multiparous 96.3%). Severely obese women were more likely than comparison women to have an intrapartum Casearean section, but Caesarean section rates were low and the absolute difference small (4.7% vs 4.1%; aRR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.02-2.57). In nulliparous women, severely obese women were more likely to have an urgent Caesarean section (12.2% vs. 6.5%, aRR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.05-3.08), or a PPH≥1500ml (5.1% vs. 1.7%, aRR = 3.01, 95% CI 1.24-7.31).ConclusionsWe found no evidence of significantly increased risk associated with planning birth in an AMU for carefully selected multiparous severely obese women, with BMI 35.1-40kg/m2. Severely obese nulliparous women have a potential increased risk of having a more urgent Caesarean section or severe PPH compared with other women admitted to AMUs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the incidence of, and investigate risk factors for, postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) requiring transfer to obstetric care following birth in midwifery units (MU) in the UK; to describe outcomes for women who experience PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care.MethodsWe conducted a national population-based case-control study in all MUs in the UK using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS). Between September 2019 and February 2020, 1501 women with PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care following birth in an MU, and 1475 control women were identified. We used multivariable logistic regression, generating adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to investigate risk factors for PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care.ResultsThe incidence of PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care following birth in an MU was 3.7% (95% CI 3.6%-3.9%). Factors independently associated with PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care were smoking during pregnancy (aOR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.94), nulliparity (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.66-2.30), previous PPH (aOR = 2.67; 95% CI 1.67-4.25), complications in a previous pregnancy other than PPH (aOR = 2.40; 95% CI 1.25-4.60), gestational age ≥41 weeks (aOR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.10-1.69), instrumental birth (aOR = 2.69; 95% CI 1.53-4.72), third stage of labour ≥60 minutes (aOR = 5.56; 95% CI 3.93-7.88), perineal trauma (aOR = 4.67; 95% CI 3.16-6.90), and birthweight 3500-3999g (aOR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.42-2.07) or ≥4000g (aOR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.78-3.00). One in ten (10.6%) cases received a blood transfusion and one in five (21.0%) were admitted to higher level care.ConclusionsThe risk factors identified in this study align with those identified in previous research and with current guidelines for women planning birth in an MU in the UK. Maternal outcomes after PPH were broadly reassuring and indicative of appropriate management. NHS organisations should ensure that robust guidelines are in place to support management of PPH in MUs.

Dataset Information

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).

Objectives

Design

Setting

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets