Dataset Information

Training and expertise in undertaking assisted vaginal delivery (AVD): a mixed methods systematic review of practitioners views and experiences.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During childbirth, complications may arise which necessitate an expedited delivery of the fetus. One option is instrumental assistance (forceps or a vacuum-cup), which, if used with skill and sensitivity, can improve maternal/neonatal outcomes. This review aimed to understand the core competencies and expertise required for skilled use in AVD in conjunction with reviewing potential barriers and facilitators to gaining competency and expertise, from the point of view of maternity care practitioners, funders and policy makers.

Methods

A mixed methods systematic review was undertaken in five databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies reporting views, opinions, perspectives and experiences of the target group in relation to the expertise, training, behaviours and competencies required for optimal AVD, barriers and facilitators to achieving practitioner competencies, and to the implementation of appropriate training. Quality appraisal was carried out on included studies. A mixed-methods convergent synthesis was carried out, and the findings were subjected to GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence.

Results

31 papers, reporting on 27 studies and published 1985-2020 were included. Studies included qualitative designs (3), mixed methods (3), and quantitative surveys (21). The majority (23) were from high-income countries, two from upper-middle income countries, one from a lower-income country: one survey included 111 low-middle countries. Confidence in the 10 statements of findings was mostly low, with one exception (moderate confidence). The review found that AVD competency comprises of inter-related skill sets including non-technical skills (e.g. behaviours), general clinical skills; and specific technical skills associated with particular instrument use. We found that practitioners needed and welcomed additional specific training, where a combination of teaching methods were used, to gain skills and confidence in this field. Clinical mentorship, and observing others confidently using the full range of instruments, was also required, and valued, to develop competency and expertise in AVD. However, concerns regarding poor outcomes and litigation were also raised.

Conclusion

Access to specific AVD training, using a combination of teaching methods. Complements, but does not replace, close clinical mentorship from experts who are positive about AVD, and opportunities to practice emerging AVD skills with supportive supervision. Further research is required to ascertain effective modalities for wider training, education, and supportive supervision for optimal AVD use.

SUBMITTER: Feeley C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8097768 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:When certain complications arise during the second stage of labour, assisted vaginal delivery (AVD), a vaginal birth with forceps or vacuum extractor, can effectively improve outcomes by ending prolonged labour or by ensuring rapid birth in response to maternal or fetal compromise. In recent decades, the use of AVD has decreased in many settings in favour of caesarean section (CS). This review aimed to improve understanding of experiences, barriers and facilitators for AVD use. METHODS:Systematic searches of eight databases using predefined search terms to identify studies reporting views and experiences of maternity service users, their partners, health care providers, policymakers, and funders in relation to AVD. Relevant studies were assessed for methodological quality. Qualitative findings were synthesised using a meta-ethnographic approach. Confidence in review findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. Findings from quantitative studies were synthesised narratively and assessed using an adaptation of CERQual. Qualitative and quantitative review findings were triangulated using a convergence coding matrix. RESULTS:Forty-two studies (published 1985-2019) were included: six qualitative, one mixed-method and 35 quantitative. Thirty-five were from high-income countries, and seven from LMIC settings. Confidence in the findings was moderate or low. Spontaneous vaginal birth was most likely to be associated with positive short and long-term outcomes, and emergency CS least likely. Views and experiences of AVD tended to fall somewhere between these two extremes. Where indicated, AVD can be an effective, acceptable alternative to caesarean section. There was agreement or partial agreement across qualitative studies and surveys that the experience of AVD is impacted by the unexpected nature of events and, particularly in high-income settings, unmet expectations. Positive relationships, good communication, involvement in decision-making, and (believing in) the reason for intervention were important mediators of birth experience. Professional attitudes and skills (development) were simultaneously barriers and facilitators of AVD in quantitative studies. CONCLUSIONS:Information, positive interaction and communication with providers and respectful care are facilitators for acceptance of AVD. Barriers include lack of training and skills for decision-making and use of instruments.

Project description:BackgroundIn the Netherlands, physician-assisted death (PAD) is allowed under certain conditions. Patients who suffer from mental illnesses are not excluded from this practice. In 2018, general practitioners (GPs) performed 20 out of a total of 67 cases of EAS for psychiatric suffering.ObjectiveMore insight into GPs' experiences and views with regard to PAD in psychiatry.DesignThe data for this study were obtained through a survey amongst 500 randomly selected Dutch GPs and by in-depth interviews with 20 Dutch GPs.SettingA survey study and in-depth interviews.SubjectsDutch GPs.Results86 out of 101 GPs found it conceivable to perform EAS in case of somatic disease, and 51 out of 104 GPs found it conceivable in the case a patient suffered from a mental illness only. The main reason given for refusing an PAD request was that the criteria of due care were not met. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide. Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.ConclusionGPs are less likely to perform PAD for suffering from a mental illness, compared to somatic suffering. Some GPs apply an extra criterion of 'life-expectancy' in case of PAD for suffering from a mental illness. Refusing PAD based on a long life expectancy keeps open the possibility of recovery, but may also just prolong the suffering and add to the unbearableness of it.KEY POINTSCurrently, there is no qualitative research on what the views are of general practitioners regarding the subject of physician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from severe mental disorders.General practitioners are less likely to consider a request for physician-assisted death by a patient suffering from a psychiatric disorder, compared to somatic suffering. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide.Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.Significance for the reader: Although allowed in the Netherlands, PAD in case of severe mental suffering remains a controversial topic. We need in-depth information about the actual practice of it to have an informed debate with regard to this subject.

Project description:BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

Project description:Introduction ?In the United Kingdom, work-based assessments (WBAs) including procedure-based assessments (PBAs), case-based discussions (CBDs), clinical evaluation exercises (CEXs), and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) have been used in Higher General Surgical Training Program (HGSTP) since the introduction of Modernising Medical Careers. Although the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Project states that they should be used for the formative development of trainees using feedback and reflection, there is no study to look at the perception of their usefulness and barriers in using them, particularly in HGSTP. The aim of this study is to investigate trainer's and trainee's perception of their usefulness, barriers in using them, and way forward for their improvement in HGSTP. Methods ?This was a mixed method study. In phase I, after ethics committee approval, an online survey was sent to 83 trainers and 104 trainees, with a response rate of 33 and 37%, respectively, using Online Surveys (formerly Bristol Online Survey) from July 2018 to December 2018. After analysis of this result, in phase II, semistructured interviews were conducted with five trainees and five trainers who had volunteered to take part from phase I. Thematic analysis was performed to develop overarching themes. Results ?For professional formative development, 15% of the trainers and 53% of the trainees felt that WBAs had a low value. Among 4 WBAs-CEX, CBD, PBA, and DOPS-PBA was thought to be the most useful WBA by 52% trainers and 74% trainees. More trainers than trainees felt that it was being used as a formative tool (33 vs. 16%). The total number of WBAs thought to be required was between 20 and 40 per year, with 46% of the trainers and 53% of the trainees preferring these numbers. The thematic analysis generated four themes with subthemes in each: theme 1, "factors affecting usefulness," including the mode of validation, trainer/trainee engagement, and time spent in validating; theme 2, "doubt on utility" due to doubt on validity and being used as a tick-box exercise; theme 3, "pitfalls/difficulties" due to lack of time to validate, late validation, e-mail rather than face-to-face validation, trainer and trainee behavior, variability in feedback given, and emphasis on number than quality; and theme 4, "improvement strategies." Conclusions ?The WBAs are not being used in a way they are supposed to be used. The perception of educational impact (Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2) by trainers was more optimistic than by trainees. Improvements can be made by giving/finding more time, trainer training, more face-to-face validation, and better trainer trainee interactions.

Project description:BackgroundVaginal seeding is the administration of maternal vaginal bacteria to babies following birth by caesarean section (CS), intended to mimic the microbial exposure that occurs during vaginal birth. Appropriate development of the infant gut microbiome assists early immune development and might help reduce the risk of certain health conditions later in life, such as obesity and asthma. We aimed to explore the views of pregnant women on this practice.MethodsWe conducted a sequential mixed-methods study on the views of pregnant women in New Zealand (NZ) on vaginal seeding. Phase one: brief semi-structured interviews with pregnant women participating in a clinical trial of vaginal seeding (n = 15); and phase two: online questionnaire of pregnant women throughout NZ (not in the trial) (n = 264). Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to interview and open-ended questionnaire data. Closed-ended questionnaire responses were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsSix themes were produced through analysis of the open-ended data: "seeding replicates a natural process", "microbiome is in the media", "seeding may have potential benefits", "seeking validation by a maternity caregiver", "seeding could help reduce CS guilt", and "the unknowns of seeding". The idea that vaginal seeding replicates a natural process was suggested by some as an explanation to help overcome any initial negative perceptions of it. Many considered vaginal seeding to have potential benefit for the gut microbiome, while comparatively fewer considered it to be potentially beneficial for specific conditions such as obesity. Just under 30% of questionnaire respondents (n = 78; 29.5%) had prior knowledge of vaginal seeding, while most (n = 133; 82.6%) had an initially positive or neutral reaction to it. Few respondents changed their initial views on the practice after reading provided evidence-based information (n = 60; 22.7%), but of those who did, most became more positive (n = 51; 86.4%).ConclusionsGiven its apparent acceptability, and if shown to be safe and effective for the prevention of early childhood obesity, vaginal seeding could be a non-stigmatising approach to prevention of this condition among children born by CS. Our findings also highlight the importance of lead maternity carers in NZ remaining current in their knowledge of vaginal seeding research.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.