Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
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

e0239311

Subventions

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

Auteurs

Ceri Glenister (C)

Oxford School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Ethel Burns (E)

Oxford School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Rachel Rowe (R)

Nuffield Department of Population Health, NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH