Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).
Adult
Birthing Centers
/ statistics & numerical data
Body Mass Index
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Guidelines as Topic
Hospitalization
Humans
Midwifery
/ standards
Parity
Pregnancy
Prenatal Care
Streptococcal Infections
/ diagnosis
Streptococcus agalactiae
/ isolation & purification
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
24
01
2020
accepted:
04
09
2020
entrez:
20
10
2020
pubmed:
21
10
2020
medline:
21
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women. National cross-sectional survey. All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019. Alignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women. Admission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies. The variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33079940
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239311
pii: PONE-D-20-02225
pmc: PMC7575094
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0239311Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2014-07-006
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PR-PRU-1217-21202
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;(8):CD000012
pubmed: 22895914
BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1204-9
pubmed: 19459862
Birth. 2017 Sep;44(3):209-221
pubmed: 28332220
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 17;4(1):e004026
pubmed: 24441052
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 14;16:77
pubmed: 27080858
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 28;4:CD004667
pubmed: 27121907
CMAJ. 2006 Oct 24;175(9):1033, 1035
pubmed: 17060643
Qual Health Care. 1995 Dec;4(4):250-5
pubmed: 10156394
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jan 8;18(1):12
pubmed: 29310599
Sociol Health Illn. 2011 Nov;33(7):987-1001
pubmed: 21668457
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Mar 14;16:53
pubmed: 26975299
J Med Ethics. 2014 Dec;40(12):813-6
pubmed: 24742881
Midwifery. 2016 Jul;38:12-3
pubmed: 27313004
BJOG. 2009 Dec;116(13):1822-3; author reply 1823
pubmed: 19906024
Midwifery. 2010 Oct;26(5):488-96
pubmed: 20719418
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007 Oct;276(4):339-43
pubmed: 17522882
BMJ Open. 2011 Jan 1;1(2):e000262
pubmed: 22021892
BMJ. 2011 Nov 23;343:d7400
pubmed: 22117057
BJOG. 2014 Feb;121(3):343-55
pubmed: 24034832
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 11;14(4):e0215098
pubmed: 30973919
Midwifery. 2018 Jul;62:240-255
pubmed: 29727829
Midwifery. 2018 Jan;56:9-16
pubmed: 29024869
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Jun;106(6):550-6
pubmed: 10426612
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 17;13(4):e0194906
pubmed: 29664907
CMAJ. 2010 Feb 9;182(2):E78-84
pubmed: 19969563
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):18-23
pubmed: 12571340
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 4;13(12):e0208041
pubmed: 30513088
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Mar 21;17(1):95
pubmed: 28320352
Qual Health Res. 2012 Jul;22(7):897-910
pubmed: 22427456
Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Jun;31(3):552-4
pubmed: 12055151
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 12;(11):CD007372
pubmed: 24222365