Background A core outcome set could address inconsistent outcome reporting and improve evidence for stillbirth care research, which has been identified as an important research priority. Objectives To identify outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported by studies evaluating interventions after the diagnosis of a stillbirth. Search strategy Amed, BNI, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP from 1998 to August 2021. Selection criteria Randomised and non-randomised comparative or non-comparative studies reporting a stillbirth care intervention. Data collection and analysis Interventions, outcomes reported, definitions and outcome measurement tools were extracted. Main results 40 randomised and 200 non-randomised studies were included. 58 different interventions were reported, labour and birth care (52 studies), hospital bereavement care (28 studies), clinical investigations (116 studies), care in a multiple pregnancy (2 studies), psychosocial support (28 studies) and care in a subsequent pregnancy (14 studies). 391 unique outcomes were reported and organised into 14 outcome domains: labour and birth; postpartum; delivery of care; investigations; multiple pregnancy; mental health; emotional functioning; grief and bereavement; social functioning; relationship; whole person; subsequent pregnancy; subsequent children and siblings and economic. 242 outcome measurement instruments were used, with 0-22 tools per outcome. Conclusions Heterogeneity in outcome reporting, outcome definition and measurement tools in care after stillbirth exists. Considerable research gaps on specific intervention types in stillbirth care were identified. A core outcome set is needed to standardise outcome collection and reporting for stillbirth care research.

A document by Sarah Cordey. Click on the document to view its contents.

  Sarah Cordey RM, School of Community Health and Midwifery, THRIVE Centre, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK   Gill Moncrieff RM, Research in Childbirth and Health Group, THRIVE Centre, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK   Joanne Cull RM, School of Community Health and Midwifery, THRIVE Centre, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK   Arni Sarian, School of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK Deborah Powney, MSc, Research in Childbirth and Health Group, THRIVE Centre, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK  Dr Carol Kingdon, PhD, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Wirral, UK Dr Claire Feeley, PhD, Research in Childbirth and Health Group, THRIVE Centre, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK  Professor Soo Downe PhD, Research in Childbirth and Health Group, THRIVE Centre, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK  On behalf of the ASPIRE Covid-19 Team (see Appendix A1) Corresponding Author: Sarah CordeyOver the past two decades there has been a developing staffing crisis in British maternity services (1). A 2021 Health and Social Care Committee Expert Panel report described “persistent gaps in all maternity professions” and proposed that “current recruitment initiatives do not consider the serious problem of attrition in a demoralised and overstretched workforce and do not adequately value professional experience and wellbeing” (2). Reduced staff capacity and excessive workload can have a profoundly detrimental impact on safety for women and babies (3,4). The ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the National Health Service (NHS) has led to discussion around the long-term effects on staff from acute staffing shortages, the moral distress of being unable to provide the desired level of care, and the heavy emotional labour of being a front-line healthcare worker during a pandemic. (5)This commentary explores the impact of these factors on maternity staff during the COVID-19 pandemic and reflects on the implications for the future of maternity services design and delivery. The discussion relates to a thematic analysis (6) and NVivo word frequency analysis of in-depth interviews with 28 maternity staff (20 midwives, seven medical staff and one student midwife), 28 heads of service, and 26 women who gave birth during the pandemic, from seven NHS trusts across England. The interviews took place between November 2020 and October 2021 and were collected as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE COVID-19) study. The overall aim of ASPIRE COVID-19 is to determine what worked to provide safe and personalised care maternity during the pandemic, both to optimise care under usual circumstances, and to improve the response to future crises. The analysis resulted in one overarching theme, and three sub-themes, as illustrated in Figure 1. Supporting quotes are shown in Figure 2 and Table S1.

Background: The national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises. Aim: To compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations. Method: A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders. Findings: Both countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised. Conclusion: We recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events.

Sir,We welcome Gurol‐Urganci I and Bidwell et al’s evaluation of the impact of the care bundle to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) published in your August edition last year.[1] The article reports much needed evidence on the efficacy of an intervention that has already taken hold in many maternity services across the country.Despite the article’s timely nature, we would like to voice our disappointment in the quality of the evidence of support for the care bundle Meulen and Thakar et al provide, and the recommendations made. The article fails to consider important evidence in this area of maternity care prompting this response. In particular, the authors miss the opportunity to contextualise the relatively low-level evidence they take from five articles – reporting three Scandinavian cohort studies and one educational intervention study on manual assistance during the final part of the second stage of labour (including gripping the baby’s chin through the perineum) - with the compelling findings from the Cochrane review on Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma. [2] This omission is important because the Cochrane review indicates that warm compresses have a bigger positive effect on OASI than the OASI care bundle reported by Meulen and Thakar et al’s. Furthermore, the Cochrane review provides evidence suggesting that hands off the perineum may protect women from episiotomy; an outcome which Meulen and Thakar et al acknowledge remained unchanged despite the third component in the care bundle aiming to ‘use of episiotomy when clinically indicated’. The selective nature of the evidence quoted, undermines the credibility of inferences that can be made from the findings. We suggest therefore, that caution should be taken when reading the authors conclusions.Our second concern rests upon the authors failure to account for the surprisingly small positive effect of the care bundle compared with the Scandinavian studies they quote. Meulen and Thakar et al report a 0.3% decrease in OASI compared with a 3.6% reduction;[3]3% reduction;[4] a 2.6% reduction for low risk women;[5] and a 2.1% reduction in the various observational studies [6] Such a small effect in an open trial could easily be caused by ascertainment bias. Again, the quality of the previous Scandinavian studies make interpretation difficult but the marked difference in results between Scandinavia and England suggests caution should be taken when reading the authors conclusions.Our final concern pertains to women’s experience of the care bundle. Not only is the acceptability of the intervention not considered in this evaluation – a significant oversight given the conspicuous lack of evidence on this – there are ethical issues within the evaluation that deserve attention. The intervention description in figure 1 claims that women were informed about what could be done to reduce OASI. This does not appear to be entirely true given the lack of consideration of warm compresses and hands off to protect against episiotomy. Even more unsettling is the statement ‘MPP should be used unless the woman objects’, implying little consideration for autonomy and informed consent.For the above reasons, we are not only disappointed with the BJOG article but with the professional stakeholder investment in the intervention which seems to have been widely and uncritically supported, with some support even being somewhat evangelical, despite the limited evidence for support.Signatures,

A document by Joan Lalor. Click on the document to view its contents.

Objective To explore and describe what women who have given birth in Norway emphasise as important aspects of care during childbirth. Design The study is based on data from the Babies Born Better survey, version 2, a mixed-method online survey. Setting The maternity care system in Norway. Study population Women who gave birth in Norway between 2013 and 2018. Method Descriptive statistics were used to describe sample characteristics and to compare data from the B3 survey with national data from the MBRN, using SPSS® software (version 20). The open-ended questions were analysed with an inductive thematic analysis, using NVIVO 12® software. Main outcome measures Themes developed from two open-ended questions. Results The final sample included 8,401 women. There were no important differences between the sample population and the national population with respect to maternal age, marital status, parity, mode of birth and place of birth, except for the proportion of planned homebirths. Four themes and one overarching theme were identified; Compassionate and Respectful Care, A Family Focus, Continuity and Consistency, and Sense of Security, and the overarching theme Coherence in Childbearing. Conclusions Socio-cultural and psychological aspects of care are significant for women in childbirth, alongside physical and clinical factors. Caring for the woman implies caring for her partner and having a baby is about ‘becoming a family or expanding the family’. Childbirth is a continuous experience in women’s lives and continuity and consistency are important for women to maintain and promote a coherent experience.