Cargando…
Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS)
OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIG...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575094/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33079940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239311 |
_version_ | 1783597748710277120 |
---|---|
author | Glenister, Ceri Burns, Ethel Rowe, Rachel |
author_facet | Glenister, Ceri Burns, Ethel Rowe, Rachel |
author_sort | Glenister, Ceri |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: National cross-sectional survey. SETTING: All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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/m(2); selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m(2); 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7575094 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75750942020-10-26 Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) Glenister, Ceri Burns, Ethel Rowe, Rachel PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: National cross-sectional survey. SETTING: All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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/m(2); selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m(2); 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. Public Library of Science 2020-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7575094/ /pubmed/33079940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239311 Text en © 2020 Glenister et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Glenister, Ceri Burns, Ethel Rowe, Rachel Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) |
title | Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) |
title_full | Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) |
title_fullStr | Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) |
title_full_unstemmed | Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) |
title_short | Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) |
title_sort | local guidelines for admission to uk midwifery units compared with national guidance: a national survey using the uk midwifery study system (ukmidss) |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575094/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33079940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239311 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT glenisterceri localguidelinesforadmissiontoukmidwiferyunitscomparedwithnationalguidanceanationalsurveyusingtheukmidwiferystudysystemukmidss AT burnsethel localguidelinesforadmissiontoukmidwiferyunitscomparedwithnationalguidanceanationalsurveyusingtheukmidwiferystudysystemukmidss AT rowerachel localguidelinesforadmissiontoukmidwiferyunitscomparedwithnationalguidanceanationalsurveyusingtheukmidwiferystudysystemukmidss |