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.)

Background: Sub-optimal medication adherence in pregnant women with chronic disease and pregnancy-related indications has the potential to adversely affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. Adherence to appropriate medications is advocated during and when planning pregnancy to reduce risk of adverse perinatal outcomes relating to chronic disease and pregnancy-related indications. We aimed to systematically identify effective interventions to promote medication adherence in women who are pregnant or planning to conceive and impact on perinatal, maternal disease-related and adherence outcomes., Methods: Six bibliographic databases and two trial registries were searched from inception to 28th April 2022. We included quantitative studies evaluating medication adherence interventions in pregnant women and women planning pregnancy. Two reviewers selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, effectiveness, intervention description (TIDieR) and risk of bias (EPOC). Narrative synthesis was performed due to study population, intervention and outcome heterogeneity., Results: Of 5614 citations, 13 were included. Five were RCTs, and eight non-randomised comparative studies. Participants had asthma (n = 2), HIV (n = 6), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n = 2), diabetes (n = 2) and risk of pre-eclampsia (n = 1). Interventions included education +/- counselling, financial incentives, text messaging, action plans, structured discussion and psychosocial support. One RCT found an effect  of the tested intervention on self-reported antiretroviral adherence but not objective adherence. Clinical outcomes were not evaluated. Seven non-randomised comparative studies found an association between the tested intervention and at least one outcome of interest: four found an association between receiving the intervention and both improved clinical or perinatal outcomes and adherence in women with IBD, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and asthma. One study in women with IBD reported an association between receiving the intervention and maternal outcomes but not for self-reported adherence. Two studies measured only adherence outcomes and reported an association between receiving the intervention and self-reported and/or objective adherence in women with HIV and risk of pre-eclampsia. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. Intervention reporting was adequate for replication in two studies according to the TIDieR checklist., Conclusions: There is a need for high-quality RCTs reporting replicable interventions to evaluate medication adherence interventions in pregnant women and those planning pregnancy. These should assess both clinical and adherence outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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.)

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI., Objective: To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds., Design: Phase A - semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B - pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved., Setting: Usual NHS care., Participants: Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section., Interventions: Phase A - none. Phase B - simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or 'no dressing'., Main Outcome Measures: Phase A - pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B - participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers., Data Sources: Phase A - interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B - participants and HCPs in five hospitals., Results: Phase A - we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted 'dressing' variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a 'no dressing' group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B - from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, n  = 133; glue, n  = 129; no dressing, n  = 132); non-adherence was 3 out of 133, 8 out of 129 and 20 out of 132, respectively. SSI occurred in 51 out of 281 participants. We interviewed 55 participants. All dressing strategies were acceptable to stakeholders, with no indication that adherence was problematic. Adherence aids and patients' understanding of their allocated dressing appeared to be key. The SSI questionnaire response rate overall was 67.2%. Items in the SSI questionnaire fitted a single scale, which had good reliability (test-retest and Cronbach's alpha of > 0.7) and diagnostic accuracy ( c -statistic = 0.906). The key cost drivers were hospital appointments, dressings and redressings, use of new medicines and primary care appointments., Limitations: Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres., Conclusions: A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4-8 weeks., Trial Registration: Phase A - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub (reference number MR/K025643/1)., Competing Interests: Chris A Rogers reports grants from the British Heart Foundation to April 2017, outside the submitted work. Chris A Rogers is a member of Clinical Trials Units funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board. Melanie J Calvert reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Saint-Prex, Switzerland), outside the submitted work. Rhiannon C Macefield has a patent Wound Healing Questionnaire pending to the University of Bristol. Stephen O’Brien reports grants from Saving Lives at Birth Partners, outside the submitted work. Tim Draycott reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Barnaby C Reeves reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Board (up to 31 March 2016), the Systematic Reviews Programme Advisory Group (up to 5 July 2017) and Interventional Procedures Panel Methods Group, the HTA Efficient Study Designs Board, SRP – Cochrane Programme Grant Funding Meeting and Systematic Reviews NIHR Cochrane Incentive Awards (all current).

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.)

Background: Following a perinatal death, a formal standardised multi-disciplinary review should take place, to learn from the death of a baby and facilitate improvements in future care. It has been recommended that bereaved parents should be offered the opportunity to give feedback on the care they have received and integrate this feedback into the perinatal mortality review process. However, the MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Confidential Enquiry (2015) found that only one in 20 cases parental concerns were included in the review. Although guidance suggests parental opinion should be sought, little evidence exists on how this may be incorporated into the perinatal mortality review process. The purpose of the PARENTS study was to investigate bereaved parents' views on involvement in the perinatal mortality review process., Methods: A semi-structured focus group of 11 bereaved parents was conducted in South West England. A purposive sampling technique was utilised to recruit a diverse sample of women and their partners who had experienced a perinatal death more than 6 months prior to the study. A six-stage thematic analysis was followed to explore parental perceptions and expectations of the perinatal mortality review process., Results: Four over-arching themes emerged from the analysis: transparency; flexibility combined with specificity; inclusivity; and a positive approach. It was evident that the majority of parents were supportive of their involvement in the perinatal mortality review process and they wanted to know the outcome of the meeting. It emerged that an individualised approach should be taken to allow flexibility on when and how they could contribute to the process. The emotional aspects of care should be considered as well as the clinical care. Parents identified that the whole care pathway should be examined during the review including antenatal, postnatal, and neonatal and community based care. They agreed that there should be an opportunity for parents to give feedback on both good and poor aspects of their care., Conclusion: Parents were unaware that a review of their baby's death took place in the hospital. Parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process would promote an open culture in the healthcare system and learning from adverse events including deaths. Further research should focus on designing and evaluating a perinatal mortality review process where parental feedback will be integral.

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.