Search

Abstract Background Maternal-newborn care does not always align with the best available evidence. Applying implementation science to change initiatives can help move evidence-informed practices into clinical settings. However, it remains unknown to what extent current implementation practices in maternal-newborn care align with recommendations from implementation science, and how confident nurses, other health professionals, and leaders are completing steps in the implementation process. We aimed to understand Ontario maternal-newborn teams’ (1) approaches to implementing practice changes and the extent to which their implementation processes aligned with an implementation science planned-action framework; and (2) perceptions of importance and confidence completing implementation activities. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey between September–November 2023. Using purposive sampling, we invited Ontario maternal-newborn nurses, other healthcare professionals, and leaders who had experience participating in or leading implementation projects to complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was informed by an implementation science framework, which includes three core phases (identify issue; build solutions; implement, evaluate, sustain). The questions probed respondents’ perceptions of frequency of completion, importance, and confidence for each of the 28 implementation activities. We used descriptive statistics for the closed-ended questions and grouped the written responses into categories. Results We received 73 responses from 57 Ontario maternal-newborn hospitals, the majority being nurses in point-of-care and leadership roles. Nearly all respondents agreed that each of the 28 implementation activities were important. Respondents reported always completing a median of 8 out of 28 activities, with the number of activities completed declining from phase 1 through to 3. Most respondents indicated they were somewhat confident completing the implementation activities and agreed their teams would benefit from increasing their knowledge and skills to use an evidence-informed approach to implementing practice changes. Conclusions Despite viewing implementation activities as important, many teams are not consistently doing them and lack confidence, particularly in later phases of the implementation process. These findings inform where further capacity-building and supports may be needed to enable maternal-newborn nurses, other healthcare professionals, and leaders to apply implementation science to their change initiatives.

Background/Objectives: Despite strong evidence that breastfeeding, skin-to-skin care, and sucrose reduce pain in newborns during minor painful procedures, these interventions remain underutilized in practice. To address this knowledge-to-practice gap, we produced a five-minute parent-targeted video demonstrating the analgesic effects of these strategies and examined whether the use of newborn pain treatment increased in maternal–newborn care settings following the introduction of the video by nurses. Methods: The design was a pre–post outcome evaluation. The participants were infants born in eight maternal–newborn hospital units in Ontario, Canada. Data on newborn pain treatment were obtained from a provincial birth registry. Descriptive statistics and chi square tests were used to compare the before-and-after changes in the use of pain treatment. Results: Data on 15,524 infants were included. Overall, there was an increase in the proportion of newborns receiving any pain treatment comparing before (49%) and after (54%) the video intervention (p < 0.0001) and a decrease in the proportion of newborns receiving no pain treatment pre- (17.6%) and post-intervention (11.5%) (p < 0.0001). Most of the change aligned with increased sucrose use (35% to 47%, p < 0.0001) in three of the larger units. Nevertheless, considerable increases in the use of breastfeeding and/or skin-to-skin care (24% to 38%, p < 0.0001) were also observed in three of the smaller units. Conclusions: The video intervention was effective at increasing the use of pain treatment for newborns. Though the overall increases were modest, there were some large increases for specific methods of pain treatment in certain maternal–newborn units, reflecting the diversity in practice and context across different sites.

Abstract Background Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals’ and teams’ ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. Methods We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives’ content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. Results Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. Conclusions This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice.

Abstract Background Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams’ approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science. Methods We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014–2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step. Results Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3–7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools. Conclusions We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Abstract Background COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for pregnant and lactating individuals, and there is substantial evidence for their safety and effectiveness. As the pandemic continues, information on worries and beliefs surrounding perinatal COVID-19 vaccination remains important to inform efforts aimed at improving vaccine uptake. Our objectives were to assess factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among perinatal individuals; and to explore motivational factors associated with willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated perinatal individuals. Methods This was a cross-sectional web-based survey of preconception, pregnant, and lactating individuals in Canada. The outcomes of interest were vaccination with at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated individuals. Sample characteristics were summarized using frequencies and percentages. The association between eight prespecified risk factors and two outcomes (vaccination status and willingness to be vaccinated) was assessed by logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the total sample, and across perinatal sub-groups. Results Among 3446 survey respondents, there were 447 (13.0%) preconception, 1832 (53.2%) pregnant, and 1167 (42.4%) lactating. There were 1460 (42.4%) and 1982 (57.5%) who were vaccinated and unvaccinated, respectively. Factors positively associated with COVID-19 vaccine status were speaking to a healthcare provider about vaccination during the perinatal period (aOR:2.35, 95% CI:1.97–2.80) and believing that the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:1.91, 95% CI:1.46–2.48). Factors negatively associated with vaccine status included worries about fetal growth and development (aOR:0.55, 95% CI:0.43–0.70) and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.59, 95% CI:0.46–0.75). Among unvaccinated individuals specifically, characteristics positively associated with willingness to vaccinate were speaking to a healthcare provider (aOR:1.67, 95% CI:1.32–2.12) and believing the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:3.56, 95% CI:2.70–4.69). Factors negatively associated with willingness were concerns over infertility (aOR:0.66, 95% CI:0.49–0.88), fetal growth and development (aOR:0.33, 95% CI:0.24–0.46), and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.64, 95% CI:0.48–0.84). Conclusions In this Canadian perinatal population, approximately 42% reported COVID-19 vaccination. Among unvaccinated individuals, willingness to receive vaccination was high (73%). Factors enhancing vaccine willingness included discussions with healthcare providers and believing the vaccine was effective. Concerns regarding vaccine safety, particularly with respect to fetal/child development, were the greatest barriers to vaccine uptake.

During the rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, safety concerns may have led some pregnant individuals to postpone vaccination until after giving birth. This study aimed to describe temporal patterns and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine series initiation after recent pregnancy in Ontario, Canada. Using the provincial birth registry linked with the COVID-19 vaccine database, we identified all individuals who gave birth between January 1 and December 31, 2021, and had not yet been vaccinated by the end of pregnancy, and followed them to June 30, 2022 (follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 months). We used cumulative incidence curves to describe COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy and assessed associations with sociodemographic, pregnancy-related, and health behavioral factors using Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 137,198 individuals who gave birth in 2021, 87,376 (63.7%) remained unvaccinated at the end of pregnancy; of these, 65.0% initiated COVID-19 vaccination by June 30, 2022. Lower maternal age (

Abstract Background Breastfeeding is recognized as the gold standard of infant feeding and nutrition. The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) of infants for the first 6 months of life. A variety of factors may impact breastfeeding practices in-hospital which may continue after hospital discharge, such as the use of breastmilk substitutes (BMS). The Baby-Friendly Initiative (BFI), which aims to promote and support breastfeeding practices, established a target rate of 75% for EBF from birth to hospital discharge. Currently, this target is not being met at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH), indicating there is room for improvement in EBF rates. The purpose of this study is to explore health care professionals (HCP) decision-making around use of BMS and identify factors that drive the use of BMS with and without medical indications. Methods In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs within TOH from January to June 2022. All participants had experience in maternity or postpartum care and were probed on factors influencing use of BMS at this institution. Interview transcripts were coded using an inductive approach. Results A total of 18 HCPs were interviewed including physicians, midwives, lactation consultants, and registered nurses. Multilevel barriers influencing the use of BMS were categorized into patient, HCP, and institution-level factors. Subthemes that emerged ranged from parental preferences, training differences amongst HCPs, to budget and staffing issues. Over half of HCPs were prepared to answer questions on EBF and were familiar with the BFI. Although most were supportive of this institution receiving BFI designation, a few providers raised concerns of its impact on parents who would like to supplement. Conclusions Several modifiable factors influencing decision-making for use of BMS were identified. These findings will be used to inform unit leads, help identify effective strategies to address modifiable barriers, and develop tailored breastfeeding supports to improve EBF rates.

Objective To assess risk of adverse pregnancy, fetal, and neonatal outcomes after a third dose (first booster dose) of covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy among individuals who had completed both doses of primary covid-19 vaccine series before pregnancy.Design Population based, retrospective cohort study.Setting Ontario, Canada, from 20 December 2021 to 31 August 2022.Participants Individuals were included if they were pregnant with an expected date of delivery from 20 December 2021 (start date of third dose eligibility for everyone ≥18 years) to 31 August 2022, who had completed the two doses of primary covid-19 messenger RNA vaccine series before pregnancy, and became eligible for a third dose (≥six months since dose two) before the end of pregnancy.Main outcome measures Pregnancy outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placental abruption, caesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, and postpartum hemorrhage. Fetal and neonatal outcomes included stillbirth, preterm birth, admission to neonatal intensive care unit for >24 h, newborn 5 min Apgar score

Introduction Optimising the safety of obstetric patient care is a primary concern for many hospitals. Performance indicators measuring aspects of patient care processes can lead to improvements in health systems and the prevention of harm to the patient. We present our protocol for a scoping review to identify indicators for obstetric safety in low risk births. We aim to identify indicators addressing preventable hospital harms, to summarise the data and synthesise results.Methods and analysis We will use methods described by Arksey and O’Malley and further expanded by Levac et al. We will search electronic databases such as Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, and websites from professional bodies and other organisations, using an iterative search strategy.Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of search results to determine eligibility for inclusion. If eligibility is not clear, the reviewers will screen the full text version. If reviewers’ decisions regarding eligibility differ, a third reviewer will review the record. Two reviewers will independently extract data from records that meet our inclusion criteria using a standardised data collection form. We will narratively describe quantitative data, such as the frequency with which indicators are identified, and conduct a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. We will compile a comprehensive list of patient safety indicators and organise them according to concepts that best suit the data such as the Donabedian model or the Hospital Harm Framework. We will discuss the implications for future research, clinical practice and policy-making. We will report the conduct of the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist.Ethics and dissemination The sources of information included in this scoping review will be available to the public. Therefore, ethics approval is not warranted. We will disseminate results in a peer-reviewed publication, conference/event presentation(s) and stakeholder communications.