Doug Cronie

Background Studies indicate unwarranted variation in a wide range of neonatal care practices, contributing to preventable morbidity and mortality. Unwarranted variation is the result of complex interactions and multiple determinants. One of the determinants contributing to unwarranted variation in care may be variation in local hospital protocols. The purpose of this study was to examine variation in the content of obstetric and neonatal protocols for six common indications for neonatal referral to the pediatrician: large for gestational age/macrosomia, small for gestational age/fetal growth restriction, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, vacuum extraction, forceps extraction, and cesarean birth. Methods We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study examining protocols for neonatal referral to the pediatrician in the obstetric and neonatal departments of all Dutch hospitals. Variation in protocols was analyzed between regions, between neonatal and obstetrics departments located in the same hospital, and within neonatal and obstetrics departments. Results There was considerable variation in protocols between regions, between neonatal and obstetrics departments, and within neonatal and obstetrics departments. The results of this study showed considerable variation in recommendations for type of referral, admission, screening/diagnostic tests, treatment, and discharge. Furthermore, results generally showed lower referral thresholds in neonatal departments compared with obstetric departments, and higher referral thresholds in the eastern region of the Netherlands. We also found variation in local hospital protocols, which could not be explained by population characteristics but which may be explained by varying recommendations in existing national and international guidelines and/or lack of adherence to these guidelines. Conclusions To reduce unwarranted variation in local protocols, evidence-based, multidisciplinary guidelines should be developed in the Netherlands. Further research addressing knowledge gaps is needed to inform these guidelines. Attention should be paid to the implementation of evidence, and only where evidence is lacking or inconclusive should agreements be based on multidisciplinary consensus. Where protocols deviate from evidence-based guidelines because of specific local circumstances, clearer, more transparent justifications should be made. Uniformity in guidance will offer clear standards for care evaluation and provide opportunities to reduce inappropriate care.

Background and Aims: It is difficult to overestimate the importance of safe staffing levels within the context of effective, quality healthcare. Poor staffing has been cited as a contributory factor in the number of unnecessary hospital deaths. This is particularly so in maternity care, where poor staffing has been inexorably linked to avoidable perinatal and maternal mortality. In the Netherlands, maternity service provision (MSP) is stratified into primary (community)‐ and secondary (hospital)‐based care. While most midwives (71%) work in primary care, the majority are self‐employed or work in small group practices. Where women birth at home, one‐to‐one care during labor is the norm. However, despite the existence of a national standard for birth‐related care, which states unequivocally that women birthing in hospitals should (also) receive one‐to‐one care, while in labor this is not always the case. The extent of compliance with the national care standard has until now not been the subject of scrutiny. We aim to identify evidence for the use of patient‐acuity measurement tools (PAMTs) in MSP to explore the extent of one‐to‐one care for women birthing in hospitals in the Netherlands and select and/or modify a valid PAMT suitable for use in maternity units in hospitals in the Netherlands to assess to what extent the quality standard of one‐to‐one care for birthing women is being met.Methods: In this systematic literature review, all citations are first screened for title and abstract, then full text for suitability of inclusion.Results: Three studies were identified for inclusion in the review. One PAMT is recommended.Conclusion: One PAMT suitable for use in maternity service was identified. However, the evidence level for use is low. Nevertheless, in view of the unique nature of midwifery service provision, a PAMT specifically developed for use in maternity service is preferable.

Background: Job satisfaction is generally considered to be an important element of work quality and workplace relations. Little is known about levels of job satisfaction among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. Proposed changes to the maternity care system in the Netherlands should consider how the working conditions of midwives affect their job satisfaction. Aim: We aimed to measure and compare job satisfaction among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. Methods: Online survey of all practising midwives in the Netherlands using a validated measure of job satisfaction (the Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire) to analyze the attitudes of hospital and primary-care midwives about their work. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to assess differences between the two groups. Results: Approximately one in six of all practising midwives in the Netherlands responded to our survey (hospital midwives n = 103, primary-care midwives n = 405). All midwives in our survey were satisfied with their work (n = 508). However, significant differences emerged between hospital and primary-care midwives in terms of what was most important to them in relation to their job satisfaction. For hospital midwives, the most significant domains were: working hours per week, workplace agreements, and total years of experience. For primary-care midwives, social support at work, work demands, job autonomy, and the influence of work on their private life were most significant. Conclusion: Although midwives were generally satisfied, differences emerged in the key predictors of job satisfaction between hospital and primary-care midwives. These differences could be of importance when planning workforce needs and should be taken into consideration by policymakers in the Netherlands and elsewhere when planning new models of care.

Aims: To examine the experiences of inter-professional collaboration of maternity service providers in the Netherlands and to identify potential enhancing and inhibiting factors for inter-professional collaboration within maternity care in the Netherlands. Background: Good collaboration between health care professionals is a key element of safe, effective care, but creating a collaborative culture can be challenging. Good collaboration requires, among other things, negotiating different professional orientations and the organizational constraints of hierarchies and scheduling. Good collaboration is especially important in maternity care. In the Netherlands, suboptimal collaboration has been cited as a significant factor in maternal deaths and in adverse incidents occurring in hospitals during evenings, nights, and weekends. In spite of its importance for effective maternity care, little is known about the nature and quality of collaboration between maternity care professionals. In order to fill this gap, we examined the inter-professional collaboration within multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) providing maternity services in the Netherlands. Methods: Online survey of MDTs (consisting of hospital and PCMs, doctors, and carers) involved in the provision of maternity services in the Netherlands. We used a validated measure of collaboration (the Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire) to analyze the attitudes of those involved in the provision of maternity services about multi-disciplinary collaboration in their work. We used descriptive and inferential statistics to assess differences between the groups. Results: 40% of all respondents were not satisfied with collaboration within their MDT. Overall, mean collaboration scores (MCS) were low. We found significant differences in MCS between professional groups. Midwives – community and hospital based – were pessimistic about collaboration in future models of maternity care. Discussion: In the Netherlands, collaboration in maternity care is less than optimal. Poor collaboration is associated with negative consequences for patient safety and quality of care. Strategies to address suboptimal collaboration exist; however, no one-size-fits-all approach is identified in the literature. Conclusion: Suboptimal collaboration exists within the midwifery model of care in the Netherlands and the relationship between care providers is under pressure. This could affect patient safety and quality of care, according to the literature. Précis: This paper presents an in-depth examination of the nature of, and attitudes about, collaboration between members of the MDT involved in the provision of maternity services in the Netherlands.