Dataset Information

Impact of Covid-19 on attendances for a 1st episode of reduced fetal movements: A retrospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prior studies have demonstrated an increased stillbirth rate. It was suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted on attendances for reduced fetal movements. Thus, we sought to ascertain the impact of the pandemic on attendances for reduced fetal movements (RFM) in our unit, ultrasound provision for reduced fetal movements, and the stillbirth rate.

Methods

This was a single site retrospective cohort study involving all women complaining of a 1st episode of reduced fetal movements between 01/03/2020-30/04/2020 (COVID) to 01/03/2019-30/04/2019 (Pre-COVID). Data were retrieved from computerised hospital records and statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism and SPSS.

Results

22% (179/810) of women presented with a 1st episode of reduced fetal movements Pre-COVID compared to 18% (145/803) during COVID (p = 0.047). Primiparous women were significantly over-represented in this population with a 1.4-fold increase in attendances during COVID (67% vs 48%, p = 0.0005). Neither the total stillbirth rate nor the stillbirth rate amongst women who presented with reduced fetal movements changed during COVID. Ultrasound provision was not impacted by COVID with 95% of the scans performed according to local guidelines, compared to Pre-COVID (74%, p = 0.0001).

Conclusions

There is a significant decrease in 1st attendances for reduced fetal movements during COVID-19 pandemic. Primiparous women were 1.4 times more likely to attend with RFM. Women should be reassured that COVID-19 has not resulted in a decreased provision of care for RFM, and has not impacted on the stillbirth rate.

SUBMITTER: Marques-Fernandez L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8232461 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital healthcare, we studied activity in the emergency department (ED) and acute medicine department of a major UK hospital.MethodsElectronic patient records for all adult patients attending ED (n = 243,667) or acute medicine (n = 82,899) during the pandemic (2020-2021) and prior year (2019) were analysed and compared. We studied parameters including severity, primary diagnoses, co-morbidity, admission rate, length of stay, bed occupancy, and mortality, with a focus on non-COVID-19 diseases.ResultsDuring the first wave of the pandemic, daily ED attendance fell by 37%, medical admissions by 30% and medical bed occupancy by 27%, but all returned to normal within a year. ED attendances and medical admissions fell across all age ranges; the greatest reductions were seen for younger adults in ED attendances, but in older adults for medical admissions. Compared to non-COVID-19 pandemic admissions, COVID-19 admissions were enriched for minority ethnic groups, for dementia, obesity and diabetes, but had lower rates of malignancy. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, non-COVID-19 pandemic admissions had more hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, liver disease, and obesity. There were fewer low severity ED attendances during the pandemic and fewer medical admissions across all severity categories. There were fewer ED attendances with common non-respiratory illnesses including cardiac diagnoses, but no change in cardiac arrests. COVID-19 was the commonest diagnosis amongst medical admissions during the first wave and there were fewer diagnoses of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, heart failure, cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urinary tract infection and other sepsis, but not stroke. Levels had rebounded by a year later with a trend to higher levels of stroke than before the pandemic. During the pandemic first wave, 7-day mortality was increased for ED attendances, but not for non-COVID-19 medical admissions.ConclusionsReduced ED attendances in the first wave of the pandemic suggest opportunities for reducing low severity presentations to ED in the future, but also raise the possibility of harm from delayed or missed care. Reassuringly, recent rises in attendance and admissions indicate that any deterrent effect of the pandemic on attendance is diminishing.

Project description:BackgroundMaternal perception of reduced fetal movement (RFM) is associated with increased risk of stillbirth and fetal growth restriction (FGR). RFM is thought to represent fetal compensation to conserve energy due to insufficient oxygen and nutrient transfer resulting from placental insufficiency.ObjectiveTo identify predictors of poor perinatal outcome after maternal perception of reduced fetal movements (RFM).DesignProspective cohort study.Methods305 women presenting with RFM after 28 weeks of gestation were recruited. Demographic factors and clinical history were recorded and ultrasound performed to assess fetal biometry, liquor volume and umbilical artery Doppler. A maternal serum sample was obtained for measurement of placentally-derived or modified proteins including: alpha fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), human placental lactogen (hPL), ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA), pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) and progesterone. Factors related to poor perinatal outcome were determined by logistic regression.Results22.1% of pregnancies ended in a poor perinatal outcome after RFM. The most common complication was small-for-gestational age infants. Pregnancy outcome after maternal perception of RFM was related to amount of fetal activity while being monitored, abnormal fetal heart rate trace, diastolic blood pressure, estimated fetal weight, liquor volume, serum hCG and hPL. Following multiple logistic regression abnormal fetal heart rate trace (Odds ratio 7.08, 95% Confidence Interval 1.31-38.18), (OR) diastolic blood pressure (OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.09), estimated fetal weight centile (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.97) and log maternal serum hPL (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.99) were independently related to pregnancy outcome. hPL was related to placental mass.ConclusionPoor perinatal outcome after maternal perception of RFM is closely related to factors which are connected to placental dysfunction. Novel tests of placental function and associated fetal response may provide improved means to detect fetuses at greatest risk of poor perinatal outcome after RFM.

Project description:BackgroundThe development of evidence-based guidelines is a key step in ensuring that maternity care is of a universally high standard. To influence patient care national and international guidelines need to be interpreted and implemented locally. In 2011, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published guidelines for the management of reduced fetal movements (RFM), which can be an important symptom of fetal compromise. Following dissemination it was anticipated that this guidance would be implemented in UK maternity units. This study aimed to assess the quality of local guidelines for the management of RFM in comparison to published national standards.MethodsCross-sectional survey of maternity unit guidelines for RFM. The guidelines were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Tool and scored by two independent investigators. Two national guidelines were used as standards to evaluate unit guidelines.ResultsResponses were received from 98 units (42%); 12 units had no guideline. National guidelines scored highly using the AGREE II tool but there was wide variation in the quality of individual maternity unit guidelines, which were frequently of low quality. No guidelines incorporated all the recommendations from the national guideline. Maternity unit guidelines performed well for clarity and presentation but had low scores for stakeholder involvement, rigour of development and applicability.ConclusionsIn contrast to national evidence based guidance the quality of maternity unit guidelines for RFM is variable and frequently of low quality. To increase quality, guidelines need to include up to date evidence and audit standards which could be taken directly from national evidence-based guidance. Barriers to local implementation and resource implications need to be taken into consideration. Training may also improve the implementation of the guideline. Research is needed to inform strategies to realize the benefits of clinical guidance in practice.