Search

Background: In 2018, the Dutch government initiated the Solid Start program to provide each child the best start in life. The program focuses on the crucial first thousand days of life, which span from preconception to a child's second birthday, and has a specific focus towards (future) parents and young children in vulnerable situations. A key program element is improving collaboration between the medical and social sector by creating Solid Start coalitions. This study aimed to describe the implementation of the Dutch Solid Start program, in order to learn for future practice and policy. Specifically, this paper describes to what extent Solid Start is implemented within municipalities and outlines stakeholders' experiences with the implementation of Solid Start and the associated cross-sectoral collaboration., Methods: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 2019 until 2021. Questionnaires were sent to all 352 Dutch municipalities and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions(n = 6) and semi-structured interviews(n = 19) with representatives of care and support organizations, knowledge institutes and professional associations, Solid Start project leaders, advisors, municipal officials, researchers, clients and experts-by-experience. Qualitative data were analyzed using the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care., Results: Findings indicated progress in the development of Solid Start coalitions(n = 40 in 2019, n = 140 in 2021), and an increase in cross-sectoral collaboration. According to the stakeholders, initiating Solid Start increased the sense of urgency concerning the importance of the first thousand days and stimulated professionals from various backgrounds to get to know each other, resulting in more collaborative agreements on cross-sectoral care provision. Important elements mentioned for effective collaboration within coalitions were an active coordinator as driving force, and a shared societal goal. However, stakeholders experienced that Solid Start is not yet fully incorporated into all professionals' everyday practice. Most common barriers for collaboration related to systemic integration at macro-level, including limited resources and collaboration-inhibiting regulations. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of ensuring Solid Start and mentioned various needs, including sustainable funding, supportive regulations, responsiveness to stakeholders' needs, ongoing knowledge development, and client involvement., Conclusion: Solid Start, as a national program with strong local focus, has led to various incremental changes that supported cross-sectoral collaboration to improve care during the first thousand days, without major transformations of systemic structures. However, to ensure the program's sustainability, needs such as sustainable funding should be addressed., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: The Dutch Solid Start program aims to improve the collaboration between the medical and social sector to offer every child the best start in life. Municipalities form local coalitions of partners within the medical and social sector to support parents and children during the first thousand days. The aim of this study was to develop an indicator set for coalitions to monitor their local Solid Start program., Methods: A modified Delphi study with three rounds was carried out among Dutch experts in Solid Start practice, policy and research (n = 39) to reach consensus., Results: The indicator set included 19 indicators covering the three phases of the Solid Start program: preconception, pregnancy and after birth (up to two years). Prioritized indicators included both social and medical topics, among which poverty, psychological/psychiatric problems, stress, smoking, cumulation of risk factors, preconception care, low literacy, premature birth, and intellectual disability. Additionally, a development agenda was established with topics and indicators that lacked data or clear operationalization (e.g. stress, unintended pregnancy, loneliness)., Discussion and Conclusion: The developed indicator set enhances the conversation between policymakers, managers, professionals and other stakeholders about the local situation and developments in order to prioritize interventions and policies. Next, the indicator set needs evaluation to assess its usefulness., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s).)

Objective: to determine the usability of a recently developed set of 30 structure and process birth centre quality indicators., Design: an explorative study using mixed-methods including literature, a survey, interviews and observations. The study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study. We first determined the measurability of birth centre quality indicators by describing them in detail. Next, we assessed the birth centres in the Netherlands according to these indicators using data derived from the Dutch Birth Centre General Questionnaire, the Dutch Birth Centre Integration Questionnaire, interviews, and policy documents., Setting and Participants: representatives of 23 birth centres in the Netherlands., Measurements and Findings: 28 of the 30 quality indicators could be used to assess birth centres in the Netherlands, one had no optimal value defined, another could not be scored because the information was not available. Each quality indicator could be scored 0 or 1. Differences between birth centres were shown: the scores ranged from 7 to 22. Some of the quality indicators can be combined or made more specific so that they are easier to assess. Some quality indicators need adaptation because they are only applicable for some birth centres (e.g. only for freestanding or alongside birth centres)., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: 28 of the 30 quality indicators are usable to assess structure and process quality of birth centres. With the findings of this study the set of structure and process quality indicators for birth centres in the Netherlands can be reduced to 22 indicators. This set of quality indicators can contribute to the development of a quality system for birth centres. Further research is necessary to formulate standards or minimum quality requirements for birth centres and to improve the set of birth centre quality indicators., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Handovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements., Methods: This case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study., Results: Solutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face-to-face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres., Conclusions: Ensuring quality during handovers requires a case-specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter-organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Birth centres are described as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth in a home-like environment assisted by midwives and maternity care assistants. If complications arise or threaten, the woman is referred to a maternity unit of a hospital where an obstetrician will take over responsibility. In the last decade, a number of new birth centres have been established in the Netherlands, based on the assumption that birth centres provide better quality of care since they offer a better opportunity for more integrated care than the existing system with independent primary and secondary care providers. At present, there is no evidence for this assumption. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to present evidence-based recommendations for organization and functioning of future birth centres in the Netherlands. A necessary first step in this evaluation is the development of indicators for measuring the quality of the care delivered in birth centres in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to identify a comprehensive set of structure and process indicators to assess quality of birth centre care., Methods: We used mixed methods to develop a set of structure and process quality indicators for evaluating birth centre care. Beginning with a literature review, we developed an exhaustive list of determinants. We then used a Delphi study to narrow this list, calling on experts to rate the determinants for relevance and feasibility. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 63 experts, directly or indirectly involved with birth centre care, was invited to participate., Results: A panel of 42 experts completed two Delphi rounds rating determinants of the quality of birth centre care based on their relevance (to the setting) and feasibility (of use). A set of 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators was identified to assess the quality of birth centre care in the Netherlands., Conclusions: We identified 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators concerning birth centre care. This set will be validated during the evaluation of birth centres in the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Background: During the last decade, a rapid increase of birth locations for low-risk births, other than conventional obstetric units, has been seen in the Netherlands. Internationally some of such locations are called birth centres. The varying international definitions for birth centres are not directly applicable for use within the Dutch obstetric system. A standard definition for a birth centre in the Netherlands is lacking. This study aimed to develop a definition of birth centres for use in the Netherlands, to identify these centres and to describe their characteristics., Methods: International definitions of birth centres were analysed to find common descriptions. In July 2013 the Dutch Birth Centre Questionnaire was sent to 46 selected Dutch birth locations that might qualify as birth centre. Questions included: location, reason for establishment, women served, philosophies, facilities that support physiological birth, hotel-facilities, management, environment and transfer procedures in case of referral. Birth centres were visited to confirm the findings from the Dutch Birth Centre Questionnaire and to measure distance and time in case of referral to obstetric care., Results: From all 46 birth locations the questionnaires were received. Based on this information a Dutch definition of a birth centre was constructed. This definition reads: "Birth centres are midwifery-managed locations that offer care to low risk women during labour and birth. They have a homelike environment and provide facilities to support physiological birth. Community midwives take primary professional responsibility for care. In case of referral the obstetric caregiver takes over the professional responsibility of care." Of the 46 selected birth locations 23 fulfilled this definition. Three types of birth centres were distinguished based on their location in relation to the nearest obstetric unit: freestanding (n = 3), alongside (n = 14) and on-site (n = 6). Transfer in case of referral was necessary for all freestanding and alongside birth centres. Birth centres varied in their reason for establishment and their characteristics., Conclusions: Twenty-three Dutch birth centres were identified and divided into three different types based on location according to the situation in September 2013. Birth centres differed in their reason for establishment, facilities, philosophies, staffing and service delivery.

Background: The goal of integrated care is to offer a continuum of care that crosses the boundaries of public health, primary, secondary, and tertiary care. Integrated care is increasingly promoted for people with complex needs and has also recently been promoted in maternity care systems to improve the quality of care. Especially when located near an obstetric unit, birth centres are considered to be ideal settings for the realization of integrated care. At present, however, we know very little about the degree of integration in these centres and we do not know if increased levels of integration improve the quality of the care delivered. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to evaluate birth centres and their contribution to the Dutch maternity care system. The aim of this particular sub-study is to classify birth centres in clusters with similar characteristics based on integration profiles, to support the evaluation of birth centre care., Methods: This study is based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. We used a survey followed by qualitative interviews in 23 birth centres in the Netherlands to determine which integration profiles can be distinguished and to describe their discriminating characteristics. Cluster analysis was used to classify the birth centres., Results: Birth centres were classified into three clusters: 1)"Mono-disciplinary-oriented birth centres" (n = 10): which are mainly owned by primary care organizations and established as physical facilities to provide an alternative birthplace for low risk births; 2) "Multi-disciplinary-oriented birth centres" (n = 6): which are mainly multi-disciplinary oriented and can be regarded as facilities to give birth, with a focus on integrated birth care; 3) "Mixed Cluster of birth centres" (n = 7): which have a range of organizational forms that differentiate them from centres in the other clusters., Conclusion: We identified a recognizable classification, with similar characteristics between birth centres in the clusters. The results of this study can be used to relate integration profiles of birth centres to quality of care, costs, and perinatal outcomes. This assessment makes it possible to develop recommendations with regard to the type and degree of integration of Dutch birth centres in the future.

Introduction: Integrated care is considered to be a means to reduce costs, improve the quality of care and generate better patient outcomes. At present, little is known about integrated care in maternity care systems. We developed questionnaires to examine integrated care in two different settings, using the taxonomy of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of these questionnaires., Methods: We used data collected between 2013 and 2015 from two studies: the Maternity Care Network Study (634 respondents) and the Dutch Birth Centre Study (56 respondents). We assessed the feasibility, discriminative validity, and reliability of the questionnaires., Results: Both questionnaires showed good feasibility (overall missing rate < 20%) and reliability (Cronbach's Alpha coefficient > 0.70). Between-subgroups post-hoc comparisons showed statistically significant differences on integration profiles between regional networks (on all items, dimensions of integration and total integration score) and birth centres (on 50% of the items and dimensions of integration)., Discussion: Both questionnaires are feasible and can discriminate between sites with different integration profiles in The Netherlands. They offer an opportunity to better understand integrated care as one step in understanding the complexity of the concept.

Objective: to assess the experiences with maternity care of women who planned birth in a birth centre and to compare them to alternative planned places of birth, by using the responsiveness concept of the World Health Organization., Design: this study is a cross-sectional study using the ReproQ questionnaire filled out eight to ten weeks after birth. The primary outcome was responsiveness of birth care. Secondary outcomes included overall grades for birth care and experiences with the birth centre services. Regression analyses were performed to compare experiences among the planned places of birth. The study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study., Setting: the women were recruited by 82 midwifery practices in the Netherlands, within the study period 1 August 2013 and 31 December 2013., Participants: a total of 2162 women gave written consent to receive the questionnaire and 1181 (54.6%) women completed the questionnaire., Measurements and Findings: women who planned to give birth at a birth centre: (1) had similar experiences as the women who planned to give birth in a hospital receiving care of a community midwife. (2) had significantly less favourable experiences than the women who planned to give birth at home. Differences during birth were seen on the domains dignity (OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.09-2.27) and autonomy (OR=1.77, 95% CI=1.25-2.51), during the postpartum period on the domains social considerations (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.06-2.25) and choice and continuity (OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.00-2.03). (3) had significantly better experiences than the women who planned to give birth in a hospital under supervision of an obstetrician. Differences during birth were seen on the domains dignity (OR=0.51, 95% CI=0.31-0.81), autonomy (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.35-1.00), confidentiality (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.36-0.92) and social considerations (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.28-0.79). During the postpartum period differences were seen on the domains dignity (OR=0.61, 95% CI=0.38-0.98), autonomy (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.31-0.85) and basic amenities (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.30-0.88). More than 80% of the women who received care in a birth centre rated the facilities, the moment of arrival/departure and the continuity in the birth centre as good., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: in the last decades, many birth centres have been established in different countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden and the Netherlands. For women who do not want to give birth at home a birth centre is a good choice: it leads to similar experiences as a planned hospital birth. Emphasis should be placed on ways to improve autonomy and prompt attention for women who plan to give birth in a birth centre as well as on the improvement of care in case of a referral., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Birth centres are regarded as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth, assisted by a midwife and a maternity care assistant. In case of (threatening) complications referral to a maternity unit of a hospital is necessary. In the last decade up to 20 different birth centres have been instituted in the Netherlands. This increase in birth centres is attributed to various reasons such as a safe and easy accessible place of birth, organizational efficiency in integration of care and direct access to obstetric hospital care if needed, and better use of maternity care assistance. Birth centres are assumed to offer increased integration and quality of care and thus to contribute to better perinatal and maternal outcomes. So far there is no evidence for this assumption as no previous studies of birth centres have been carried out in the Netherlands., Design: The aims are 1) Identification of birth centres and measuring integration of organization and care 2) Measuring the quality of birth centre care 3) Effects of introducing a birth centre on regional quality and provision of care 4) Cost-effectiveness analysis 5) In depth longitudinal analysis of the organization and processes in birth centres. Different qualitative and quantitative methods will be used in the different sub studies. The design is a multi-centre, multi-method study, including surveys, interviews, observations, and analysis of registration data and documents., Discussion: The results of this study will enable users of maternity care, professionals, policy makers and health care financers to make an informed choice about the kind of birth location that is appropriate for their needs and wishes.

Introduction: Building integrated services in a primary care setting is considered an essential important strategy for establishing a high-quality and affordable health care system. The theoretical foundations of such integrated service models are described by the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care, which distinguishes six integration dimensions (clinical, professional, organisational, system, functional and normative integration). The aim of the present study is to refine the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care by developing a taxonomy that specifies the underlying key features of the six dimensions., Methods: First, a literature review was conducted to identify features for achieving integrated service delivery. Second, a thematic analysis method was used to develop a taxonomy of key features organised into the dimensions of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Finally, the appropriateness of the key features was tested in a Delphi study among Dutch experts., Results: The taxonomy consists of 59 key features distributed across the six integration dimensions of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Key features associated with the clinical, professional, organisational and normative dimensions were considered appropriate by the experts. Key features linked to the functional and system dimensions were considered less appropriate., Discussion: This study contributes to the ongoing debate of defining the concept and typology of integrated care. This taxonomy provides a development agenda for establishing an accepted scientific framework of integrated care from an end-user, professional, managerial and policy perspective.