A Survey of Obstetric Anaesthesia Services and Practices in the United Kingdom.

Background Variability in obstetric anaesthetia practice and care delivered within the UK is under-explored. The ObsQoR study explored structures, processes, and outcomes of obstetric anaesthesia in 107 hospitals within the UK's National Health Service, and the results of the hospital-level survey are reported here. Methods Hospitals were surveyed to assess obstetric anaesthesia provision, practice, and care delivery. Questions explored staffing, service provision and training, facilities present, clinical practices, outcome measurement, and key indicators of quality in obstetric anaesthesia. Results We received responses from 106 participating hospitals, representing 69% of all UK obstetric units. One hundred (94%) hospitals had a dedicated consultant obstetric anaesthetist within working hours, with 27 (25%) of hospitals' duty anaesthetists having additional clinical responsibilities outside the care of obstetric patients outside of working hours. Around 102 hospitals (98%) offer multidisciplinary team training, of which 95 (93%) use a simulation-based method. Dedicated high-risk antenatal clinics were present in 50 (47%) hospitals. The majority of hospitals provide written patient information in multiple languages for discussing obstetric anaesthesia options (77, 82%). Seventy-three hospitals (69%) use point-of-care testing to estimate haemoglobin concentration. Labour epidural analgesia is most commonly delivered via patient-controlled epidural analgesia in 80 (76%) hospitals, and the incidence of post-dural puncture headaches was recorded by 80 (76%) hospitals. Conclusions These results demonstrate variation in the provision of staffing, facilities, clinical practices, and outcome measurements across the UK. To deliver safe and equitable care across the UK, there needs to be standardisation of anaesthetic peripartum care based on national recommendations and the benchmarking and measurement of appropriate markers of quality.
Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. UK National Research Ethics Service (South Central - Berkshire B REC) issued approval 19/SC/0333. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
(Copyright © 2024, O'Carroll et al.)