Search

Background: In 2015, the stillbirth rate after 28 weeks (late gestation) in Australia was 35% higher than countries with the lowest rates globally. Reductions in late gestation stillbirth rates have steadily improved in Australia. However, to amplify and sustain reductions, more needs to be done to reduce practice variation and address sub-optimal care. Implementing bundles for maternity care improvement in the UK have been associated with a 20% reduction in stillbirth rates. A similar approach is underway in Australia; the Safer Baby Bundle (SBB) with five elements: 1) supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy, 2) improving detection and management of fetal growth restriction, 3) raising awareness and improving care for women with decreased fetal movements, 4) improving awareness of maternal safe going-to-sleep position in late pregnancy, 5) improving decision making about the timing of birth for women with risk factors for stillbirth.Methods: This is a mixed-methods study of maternity services across three Australian states; Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. The study includes evaluation of 'targeted' implementer sites (combined total approximately 113,000 births annually, 50% of births in these states) and monitoring of key outcomes state-wide across all maternity services. Progressive implementation over 2.5 years, managed by state Departments of Health, commenced from mid-2019. This study will determine the impact of implementing the SBB on maternity services and perinatal outcomes, specifically for reducing late gestation stillbirth. Comprehensive process, impact, and outcome evaluations will be conducted using routinely collected perinatal data, pre- and post- implementation surveys, clinical audits, focus group discussions and interviews. Evaluations explore the views and experiences of clinicians embedding the SBB into routine practice as well as women's experience with care and the acceptability of the initiative.Discussion: This protocol describes the evaluation of the SBB initiative and will provide evidence for the value of a systematic, but pragmatic, approach to strategies to reduce the evidence-practice gaps across maternity services. We hypothesise successful implementation and uptake across three Australian states (amplified nationally) will be effective in reducing late gestation stillbirths to that of the best performing countries globally, equating to at least 150 lives saved annually.Trial Registration: The Safer Baby Bundle Study was retrospectively registered on the ACTRN12619001777189 database, date assigned 16/12/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes following induction of labour (IOL) using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) as an inpatient.Design: Randomised controlled trial.Setting: Eight Australian maternity hospitals.Population: Women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies undergoing IOL for low-risk indications including post-term, advanced maternal age and 'social' reasons.Methods: Between September 2015 and October 2018, 347 women were randomised to a balloon outpatient group and 348 to a PG inpatient group. The PG group received Dinoprostone, either 2 mg gel or 10 mg controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure comprising nursery admission, intubation/cardiac compressions, acidaemia, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth or death. Clinical and process outcomes are reported.Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcome comparing balloon with PG (18.6% versus 25.8%; relative risk = 0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.02; P = 0.070), cord arterial pH <7.10 (3.5% versus 9.2%; P = 0.072), nursery admissions (12.6% versus 15.5%; P = 0.379), neonatal antibiotic use (12.1% versus 17.6%; P = 0.103), or mode of birth. Nulliparous women in the balloon group had lower rates of the primary outcome (20.4% versus 31.0%;P = 0.032); Parous women were less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (77.6% versus 92.3%; P = 0.045).Conclusions: Balloon catheters may be a superior method of cervical priming for nulliparous women, whereas this may not be the case for parous women. It is feasible that nulliparous women go home after commencing balloon catheter IOL, and the likelihood of adverse outcomes is low.Tweetable Abstract: Multicentre trial shows outpatient induction using balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stillbirth has a profound impact on women, families, and healthcare workers. The burden is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need for respectful and supportive care for women, partners, and families after bereavement.Objective: To perform a qualitative meta-summary of parents' and healthcare professionals' experiences of care after stillbirth in LMICs.Search Strategy: Search terms were formulated by identifying all synonyms, thesaurus terms, and variations for stillbirth. Databases searched were AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, BNI, CINAHL.Selection Criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies that addressed parents' or healthcare professionals' experience of care after stillbirth in LMICs.Data Collection and Analysis: Studies were screened, and data extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed using the Sandelowski meta-summary technique that calculates frequency and intensity effect sizes (FES/IES).Main Results: In all, 118 full texts were screened, and 34 studies from 17 countries were included. FES range was 15-68%. Most studies had IES 1.5-4.5. Women experience a broad range of manifestations of grief following stillbirth, which may not be recognised by healthcare workers or in their communities. Lack of recognition exacerbates negative experiences of stigmatisation, blame, devaluation, and loss of social status. Adequately developed health systems, with trained and supported staff, are best equipped to provide the support and information that women want after stillbirth.Conclusions: Basic interventions could have an immediate impact on the experiences of women and their families after stillbirth. Examples include public education to reduce stigma, promoting the respectful maternity care agenda, and investigating stillbirth appropriately.Tweetable Abstract: Reducing stigma, promoting respectful care and investigating stillbirth have a positive impact after stillbirth for women and families in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To apply the World Health Organization (WHO) Application of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) to deaths during the perinatal period: ICD-Perinatal Mortality (ICD-PM) to existing perinatal death databases.Design: Retrospective application of ICD-PM.Setting: South Africa, UK.Population: Perinatal death databases.Methods: Deaths were grouped according to timing of death and then by the ICD-PM cause of death. The main maternal condition at the time of perinatal death was assigned to each case.Main Outcome Measures: Causes of perinatal mortality, associated maternal conditions.Results: In South Africa 344/689 (50%) deaths occurred antepartum, 11% (n = 74) intrapartum and 39% (n = 271) in the early neonatal period. In the UK 4377/9067 (48.3%) deaths occurred antepartum, with 457 (5%) intrapartum and 4233 (46.7%) in the neonatal period. Antepartum deaths were due to unspecified causes (59%), chromosomal abnormalities (21%) or problems related to fetal growth (14%). Intrapartum deaths followed acute intrapartum events (69%); neonatal deaths followed consequences of low birthweight/ prematurity (31%), chromosomal abnormalities (26%), or unspecified causes in healthy mothers (25%). Mothers were often healthy; 53%, 38% and 45% in the antepartum, intrapartum and neonatal death groups, respectively. Where there was a maternal condition, it was most often maternal medical conditions, and complications of placenta, cord and membranes.Conclusions: The ICD-PM can be a globally applicable perinatal death classification system that emphasises the need for a focus on the mother-baby dyad as we move beyond 2015.Tweetable Abstract: ICD-PM is a global system that classifies perinatal deaths and links them to maternal conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the ICD-PM perinatal period deaths classification being developed by the World Health Organization based on existing International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) codes. Topics include reference to unrecognized stillbirths or neonatal deaths, unifying perinatal death classification system with the contributing maternal factors as well as convened groups of experts such as obstetricians and neonatologists. Also mentioned are ICD-MM codes and the epidemiologists.

Objective: We explore preterm-related neonatal deaths using the WHO application of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) to deaths during the perinatal period: ICD-PM as an informative case study, where ICD-PM can improve data use to guide clinical practice and programmatic decision-making.Design: Retrospective application of ICD-PM.Setting: South Africa, and the UK.Population: Perinatal death databases.Methods: Descriptive analysis of neonatal deaths and maternal conditions present.Main Outcome Measures: Causes of preterm neonatal mortality and associated maternal conditions.Results: We included 98 term and 173 preterm early neonatal deaths from South Africa, and 956 term and 3248 preterm neonatal deaths from the UK. In the South African data set, the main causes of death were respiratory/cardiovascular disorders (34.7%), low birthweight/prematurity (29.2%), and disorders of cerebral status (25.5%). Amongst preterm deaths, low birthweight/prematurity (43.9%) and respiratory/cardiovascular disorders (32.4%) were the leading causes. In the data set from the UK, the leading causes of death were low birthweight/prematurity (31.6%), congenital abnormalities (27.4%), and deaths of unspecified cause (26.1%). In the preterm deaths, the leading causes were low birthweight/prematurity (40.9%) and deaths of unspecified cause (29.6%). In South Africa, 61% of preterm deaths resulted from the maternal condition of preterm spontaneous labour. Among the preterm deaths in the data set from the UK, no maternal condition was present in 36%, followed by complications of placenta, cord, and membranes (23%), and other complications of labour and delivery (22%).Conclusions: ICD-PM can be used to appraise the maternal and newborn conditions contributing to preterm deaths, and can inform practice.Tweetable Abstract: ICD-PM can be used to appraise maternal and newborn contributors to preterm deaths to improve quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The WHO application of the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) to deaths during the perinatal period (ICD Perinatal Mortality, ICD-PM) captures the essential characteristics of the mother-baby dyad that contribute to perinatal deaths. We compare the capture of maternal conditions in the existing ICD-PM with the maternal codes from the WHO application of ICD-10 to deaths during pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium (ICD Maternal Mortality, ICD-MM) to explore potential benefits in the quality of data received.Design: Retrospective application of ICD-PM.Setting: South Africa and the UK.Population: Perinatal death databases.Methods: The maternal conditions were classified using the ICD-PM groupings for maternal condition in perinatal death, and then mapped to the ICD-MM groupings of maternal conditions.Main Outcome Measures: Main maternal conditions in perinatal deaths.Results: We reviewed 9661 perinatal deaths. The largest group (4766 cases, 49.3%) in both classifications captures deaths where there was no contributing maternal condition. Each of the other ICD-PM groups map to between three and six ICD-MM groups. If the cases in each ICD-PM group are re-coded using ICD-MM, each group becomes multiple, more specific groups. For example, the 712 cases in group M4 in ICD-PM become 14 different and more specific main disease categories when the ICD-MM is applied instead.Conclusions: As we move towards ICD-11, the use of the more specific, applicable, and relevant codes outlined in ICD-MM for both maternal deaths and the maternal condition at the time of a perinatal death would be preferable, and would provide important additional information about perinatal deaths.Tweetable Abstract: Improving the capture of maternal conditions in perinatal deaths provides important actionable information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]