Improving communication and teamwork during labor: A feasibility, acceptability, and safety study.
communication
labor and delivery
shared decision making
Journal
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)
ISSN: 1523-536X
Titre abrégé: Birth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8302042
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
21
10
2021
accepted:
15
02
2022
pubmed:
3
3
2022
medline:
11
11
2022
entrez:
2
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
TeamBirth was designed to promote best practices in shared decision making (SDM) among care teams for people giving birth. Although leading health organizations recommend SDM to address gaps in quality of care, these recommendations are not consistently implemented in labor and delivery. We conducted a mixed-methods trial of TeamBirth among eligible laboring patients and all clinicians (nurses, midwives, and obstetricians) at four high-volume hospitals during April 2018 to September 2019. We used patient and clinician surveys, abstracted clinical data, and administrative claims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of TeamBirth. A total of 2,669 patients (approximately 28% of eligible delivery volume) and 375 clinicians (78% response rate) responded to surveys on their experiences with TeamBirth. Among patients surveyed, 89% reported experiencing at least one structured full care team conversation ("huddle") during labor and 77% reported experiencing multiple huddles. There was a significant relationship between the number of reported huddles and patient acceptability (P < 0.001), suggestive of a dose response. Among clinicians surveyed, 90% would recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. There were no significant changes in maternal and newborn safety measures. Implementing a care process that aims to improve communication and teamwork during labor with high fidelity is feasible. The process is acceptable to patients and clinicians and shows no negative effects on patient safety. Future work should evaluate the effectiveness of TeamBirth in improving care experience and health outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
TeamBirth was designed to promote best practices in shared decision making (SDM) among care teams for people giving birth. Although leading health organizations recommend SDM to address gaps in quality of care, these recommendations are not consistently implemented in labor and delivery.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods trial of TeamBirth among eligible laboring patients and all clinicians (nurses, midwives, and obstetricians) at four high-volume hospitals during April 2018 to September 2019. We used patient and clinician surveys, abstracted clinical data, and administrative claims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of TeamBirth.
RESULTS
A total of 2,669 patients (approximately 28% of eligible delivery volume) and 375 clinicians (78% response rate) responded to surveys on their experiences with TeamBirth. Among patients surveyed, 89% reported experiencing at least one structured full care team conversation ("huddle") during labor and 77% reported experiencing multiple huddles. There was a significant relationship between the number of reported huddles and patient acceptability (P < 0.001), suggestive of a dose response. Among clinicians surveyed, 90% would recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. There were no significant changes in maternal and newborn safety measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Implementing a care process that aims to improve communication and teamwork during labor with high fidelity is feasible. The process is acceptable to patients and clinicians and shows no negative effects on patient safety. Future work should evaluate the effectiveness of TeamBirth in improving care experience and health outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35233810
doi: 10.1111/birt.12630
pmc: PMC9790687
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
637-647Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Birth published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017 Dec;44(4):667-678
pubmed: 29078948
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57817
pubmed: 23526952
Birth. 2022 Dec;49(4):637-647
pubmed: 35233810
BMJ Open. 2011 Dec 21;1(2):e000261
pubmed: 22189349
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120(5):1194-8
pubmed: 23090538
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120(5):995-7
pubmed: 23090514
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Jul;24(7):458-67
pubmed: 26002946
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;205(4):293-5
pubmed: 22083050
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;207(3):147-8
pubmed: 22939715
Birth. 2018 Sep;45(3):236-244
pubmed: 29934981
PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 21;11(10):e1001745
pubmed: 25333943
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;128(3):447-455
pubmed: 27500333
Birth. 2021 Dec;48(4):534-540
pubmed: 34245054
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Mar;32(3):527-35
pubmed: 23459732
Mil Med. 2017 Mar;182(3):e1762-e1766
pubmed: 28290956
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2021 Apr;70(2):1-51
pubmed: 33814033
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015 May-Jun;60(3):237-243
pubmed: 25857371
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;123(2 Pt 1):389-393
pubmed: 24451677
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018 Mar;63(2):235-244
pubmed: 29471583
J Perinat Educ. 2014 Winter;23(1):9-16
pubmed: 24453463
AWHONN Lifelines. 2003 Jun-Jul;7(3):224-35
pubmed: 12858686
Resuscitation. 2013 Sep;84(9):1192-6
pubmed: 23537699
Br J Anaesth. 2013 Apr;110(4):529-44
pubmed: 23454826
Sentinel Event Alert. 2004 Jul 21;(30):1-3
pubmed: 15270026
J Hosp Med. 2017 Nov;12(11):930-936
pubmed: 29091982
J Hosp Med. 2010 Apr;5(4):234-9
pubmed: 20394030
Reprod Health. 2019 Jun 11;16(1):77
pubmed: 31182118
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):444-451
pubmed: 31923056