Search

Objectives: To explore and characterise maternity healthcare professionals' (MHCPs) experience and practice of shared decision-making (SDM), to inform policy, research and practice development., Design: Qualitative focus group study., Setting: Large Maternity Unit in the Southwest of England., Participants: MHCPs who give information relating to clinical procedures and pregnancy care relating to labour and birth and are directly involved in decision-making conversations were purposively sampled to ensure representation across MHCP groups., Data Collection: A semistructured topic guide was used., Data Analysis: Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken., Results: Seven focus groups were conducted, comprising a total of 24 participants (3-5 per group). Two themes were developed: contextualising decision-making and controversies in current decision-making. Contextual factors that influenced decision-making practices included lack of time and challenges faced in intrapartum care. MHCPs reported variation in how they approach decision-making conversations and asked for more training on how to consistently achieve SDM. There were communication challenges with women who did not speak English. Three controversies were explored: the role of prior clinical experience, the validity of informed consent when women were in pain and during life-threatening emergencies and instances where women declined medical advice., Conclusions: We found that MHCPs are committed to SDM but need better support to deliver it. Structured processes including Core Information Sets, communication skills training and decision support aids may help to consistently deliver SDM in maternity care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Studies have shown that women are often underinformed about potential benefits and risks of vaginal birth. This is in contrast to other modes of birth, such as caesarean birth, for which the risks/benefits are often conveyed prior to undergoing the procedure. A core information set (CIS) is an agreed set of information points that should be discussed with all patients prior to undergoing a procedure or intervention. This CIS could improve the quality of information given regarding mode of birth options, as women will be given information prioritised by patients and stakeholders regarding vaginal birth, empowering them to make informed decisions about their birth. We aim to describe the protocol for the development of this vaginal birth CIS., Methods and Analysis: We will develop the CIS by: (1) Compiling a 'long-list' of information points about vaginal birth by: undertaking a scoping review of studies and patient information leaflets; interviews with antenatal/postnatal women, an online survey of stakeholders. (2) Collating the 'long-list' of information points and developing the Delphi survey. Think-aloud interviews will refine the survey. (3) Conducting a two-round Delphi survey. 200 stakeholder participants will be recruited. Items rated critically important by ≥80% of participants in one stakeholder group, or with no consensus, will be carried through to a stakeholder consensus meeting to decide the final CIS. Planned start date is 1 June 2022. Planned end date is 31 August 2023., Ethics and Dissemination: This project has been given a favourable ethics opinion by the University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10530). Approval from the ethics committee will be sought for any protocol amendments, and the principal investigator will be responsible for these changes. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a high-impact journal. We will disseminate the CIS, via Policy Bristol, to clinical policy and guideline developers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers., Methods and Analysis: The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018087748., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AW has received consulting fees from the Sillbirth CRE., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: When a formal review of care takes places after the death of a baby, parents are largely unaware it takes place and are often not meaningfully involved in the review process. Parent engagement in the process is likely to be essential for a successful review and to improve patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate an intervention process of parental engagement in perinatal mortality review (PNMR) and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation., Design: Mixed-methods study of parents' engagement in PNMR., Setting: Single tertiary maternity unit in the UK., Participants: Bereaved parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs)., Interventions: Parent engagement in the PNMR (intervention) was based on principles derived through national consensus and qualitative research with parents, HCPs and stakeholders in the UK., Outcomes: Recruitment rates, bereaved parents and HCPs' perceptions., Results: Eighty-one per cent of bereaved parents approached (13/16) agreed to participate in the study. Two focus groups with bereaved parents (n=11) and HCP (n=7) were carried out postimplementation to investigate their perceptions of the process.Overarching findings were improved dialogue and continuity of care with parents, and improvements in the PNMR process and patient safety. Bereaved parents agreed that engagement in the PNMR process was invaluable and helped them in their grieving. HCP perceived that parent involvement improved the review process and lessons learnt from the deaths; information to understand the impact of aspects of care on the baby's death were often only found in the parents' recollections., Conclusions: Parental engagement in the PNMR process is achievable and useful for parents and HCP alike, and critically can improve patient safety and future care for mothers and babies. To learn and prevent perinatal deaths effectively, all hospitals should give parents the option to engage with the review of their baby's death., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors include the chair and members of the national Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) group., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Engaging bereaved parents in the review process that examines their care before and after a perinatal death might help parents deal with their grief more effectively and drive improvements in patient safety. The objective of this study is to explore whether healthcare professionals would accept or support parent engagement in the perinatal mortality review process., Design: Qualitative focus group interviews. Transcripts were analysed with an inductive thematic approach., Setting: Two geographically distinct tertiary maternity hospitals in the UK., Participants: Five focus groups were conducted with clinical staff including midwives, obstetricians, neonatologists, nursing staff and chaplaincy services., Results: Twenty-seven healthcare professionals unanimously agreed that parents' involvement in the perinatal mortality review process is useful and necessary. Six key themes emerged including: parental engagement; need for formal follow-up; critical structure of perinatal mortality review meeting; coordination and streamlining of care; advocacy for parents including role of the bereavement care lead; and requirement for training and support for staff to enable parental engagement., Conclusions: Healthcare professionals strongly advocated engaging bereaved parents in the perinatal mortality review: empowering parents to ask questions, providing feedback on care, helping generate lessons and providing them with the opportunity to discuss a summary of the review conclusions with their primary healthcare professional contact. The participants agreed it is time to move on from 'a group of doctors reviewing notes' to active learning and improvement together with parents, to enable better care and prevention of perinatal death., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The perinatal mortality review meeting that takes place within the hospital following a stillbirth or neonatal death enables clinicians to learn vital lessons to improve care for women and their families for the future. Recent evidence suggests that parents are unaware that a formal review following the death of their baby takes place. Many would welcome the opportunity to feedback into the meeting itself. Parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review meeting has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, drive improvements in patient safety and promote an open culture within healthcare. Yet evidence on the feasibility of involving bereaved parents in the review process is lacking. This paper describes the protocol for the Parents' Active Role and Engangement iN the review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death study (PARENTS 2) , whereby healthcare professionals' and stakeholders' perceptions of parental involvement will be investigated, and parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review will be piloted and evaluated at two hospitals., Methods and Analysis: We will investigate perceptions of parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process by conducting four focus groups. A three-round modified Delphi technique will be employed to gain a consensus on principles of parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process. We will use three sequential rounds, including a national consensus meeting workshop with experts in stillbirth, neonatal death and bereavement care, and a two-stage anonymous online questionnaire. We will pilot a new perinatal mortality review process with parental involvement over a 6-month study period. The impact of the new process will be evaluated by assessing parents' experiences of their care and parents' and staff perceptions of their involvement in the process by conducting further focus groups and using a Parent Generated Index questionnaire., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has ethical approval from the UK Health Research Authority. We will disseminate the findings through national and international conferences and international peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

The aim was to create an environment where doctors at all levels felt like an important part of the education team. Two teaching fellows were appointed to deliver teaching, encourage participation, and quality-assure teaching. An innovative electronic logbook named Teaching Log (T-Log) was developed to reliably "record and reward" teaching occurring at all career levels. A mentor scheme for medical students was established. Mentor training was provided for junior doctors. A near-peer teaching programme was developed for final year medical students on important skills required to be a safe junior doctor. Between September 2013 and January 2014, 83 doctors at our institution logged 657 teaching episodes using the electronic T-Log. 23% were F1s, 14% were F2s, 24% CT1-2s. 36% of sessions were delivered to 3rd year medical students and 36% were delivered to 5th year students. 24% were small group seminars, 26% were bedside teaching sessions, 12% were lectures, 5% were simulation sessions and 9% were clinical skills. 20% of sessions were delivered to a single student. 100% of respondents (15) agreed that T-Log was easy to use. 100% agreed that T-Log was useful. 100% agreed that they would continue to use T-Log. A survey found the mean score for usefulness of the mentor scheme to be 9.1 (1=not useful, 10=very useful). Students saw their mentors on average 6.5 times during a 10 week period. Confidence scores for all key areas of the curriculum were increased following implementation of the scheme. 100% of students would recommend this scheme to next year's final year students and 100% of mentor respondents (n=8) would participate in the scheme again. Rewarding those who contribute to teaching provides incentive to further increase the quality of education provided to students. T-Log rewards teaching activity. It also provides useful data at an individual level or at institutional level.