Evaluation of 280 000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study
Corresponding Author
MP Amelink-Verburg
TNO Quality of Life, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, the Netherlands
Dr MP Amelink-Verburg, TNO Quality of Life, Sector Reproduction and Perinatology, PO Box 2215, 2301 CE Leiden, the Netherlands. Email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSP Verloove-Vanhorick
Department of Pediatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorJ Bennebroek Gravenhorst
TNO Quality of Life, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, the Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorSE Buitendijk
TNO Quality of Life, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, the Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
MP Amelink-Verburg
TNO Quality of Life, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, the Netherlands
Dr MP Amelink-Verburg, TNO Quality of Life, Sector Reproduction and Perinatology, PO Box 2215, 2301 CE Leiden, the Netherlands. Email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSP Verloove-Vanhorick
Department of Pediatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorJ Bennebroek Gravenhorst
TNO Quality of Life, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, the Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorSE Buitendijk
TNO Quality of Life, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, the Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Objective To assess the nature and outcome of intrapartum referrals from primary to secondary care within the Dutch obstetric system.
Design Descriptive study.
Setting Dutch midwifery database (LVR1), covering 95% of all midwifery care and 80% of all Dutch pregnancies (2001–03).
Population Low-risk women (280 097) under exclusive care of a primary level midwife at the start of labour either with intention to deliver at home or with a personal preference to deliver in hospital under care of a primary level midwife.
Methods Women were classified into three categories (no referral, urgent referral and referral without urgency) and were related to maternal characteristics and to neonatal outcomes.
Main outcome measures Distribution of referral categories, main reasons for urgent referral, Apgar score at 5 minutes, perinatal death within 24 hours and referral to a paediatrician within 24 hours.
Results In our study, 68.1% of the women completed childbirth under exclusive care of a midwife, 3.6% were referred on an urgency basis and 28.3% were referred without urgency. Of all referrals, 11.2% were on an urgency basis. The main reasons for urgent referrals were fetal distress and postpartum haemorrhage. The nonurgent referrals predominantly took place during the first stage of labour (73.6% of all referrals). Women who had planned a home delivery were referred less frequently than women who had planned a hospital delivery: 29.3 and 37.2%, respectively (P < 0.001).On average, the mean Apgar score at 5 minutes was high (9.72%) and the peripartum neonatal mortality was low (0.05%) in the total study group. No maternal deaths occurred. Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred most frequently in the urgent referral group, followed by the group of referrals without urgency and the nonreferred group.
Conclusions Risk selection is a crucial element of the Dutch obstetric system and continues into the postpartum period. The system results in a relatively small percentage of intrapartum urgent referrals and in overall satisfactory neonatal outcomes in deliveries led by primary level midwives.
References
- 1 Anthony S, Amelink-Verburg MP, Jacobusse GW, Van Der Pal-de Bruin KM. De thuisbevalling in Nederland 1995-2002. Leiden, the Netherlands: St Perinatale Registratie Nederland en TNO Kwaliteit van Leven, 2005.
- 2 Coffie DSV, Wiegers TA, Schellevis FG. Verloskunde uit de eerste lijn. Verschuiving in taakopvatting van huisartsen. Medisch Contact 2003; 58: 803–4.
- 3
Wiegers TA.
Steeds minder huisartsen verloskundig actief.
Huisarts en wetenschap
2003; 46: 432–4.
10.1007/BF03083363 Google Scholar
- 4 Commissie Verloskunde van het CVZ. Verloskundig Vademecum 2003. Diemen, the Netherlands: College voor Zorgverzekeringen, 2003.
- 5 Obstetric Manual. Final Report of the Obstetric Working Group of the National Health Insurance Board of The Netherlands (abridged version). 1999 [www.europe.obgyn.net/nederland/default.asp?page=nederland/richtlijnen/vademecum_eng].
- 6 Bais JMJ. Obstetric outcome in nulliparous and multiparous women with singleton pregnancies, according to risk selection. Risk selection and detection. A critical appraisal of the Dutch obstetric system. Thesis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Academisch Medisch Centrum, 2004, pp 59–112.
- 7 Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, Van Der Zee J, Berghs GAH. Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. BMJ 1996; 313: 1309–13.
- 8 Treffers PE. Selection as the basis of obstetric care in the Netherlands. In: E Abraham-van der Mark, editor. Successful Home Birth and Midwifery; The Dutch Model. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Het Spinhuis Publishers; 1996: 97–113.
- 9 Buitendijk SE. How safe are Dutch home births? In: E Abraham-van der Mark, editor. Successful Home Birth and Midwifery. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Het Spinhuis; 1996, pp 115–28.
- 10 Eskes M, Van Alten D, Treffers PE. The Wormerveer study; perinatal mortality and non-optimal management in a practice of independent midwives. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 51: 91–5.
- 11 Eskes M. Het Wormerveer onderzoek. Meerjarenonderzoek naar de kwaliteit van de verloskundige zorg rond een vroedvrouwenpraktijk. Thesis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1989.
- 12 Berghs GAH, Spanjaards EWM. De normale zwangerschap: bevalling en beleid. Thesis, Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 1988.
- 13 Nijhuis JG. De foetus verdient meer. Inaugurele rede. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Universitair Medisch Centrum Maastricht, 2000.
- 14 Merkus JMWM. Het einde van de thuisbevalling. Afscheidsrede. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Universitair Medisch Centrum Nijmegen, 2000.
- 15 Reuwer PJHM, Bruinse HW. Preventive Support of Labour. Een uitdaging voor verloskundigen, gynaecologen en beleidsmakers. Alphen aan de Rijn, the Netherlands: Van Zuiden Communications BV, 2002.
- 16 Lems AA, Borkent-Polet M, Van Hemel OJS, Verwey RA, De Boer MG, Buitendijk SE, et al. Obstetrics in The Netherlands, Trends 1989-1993. Utrecht, the Netherlands: SIG Zorginformatie, 1996.
- 17 Borkent-Polet M, Van Der Schoot F, Swenne-van Ingen MME, School M, Linden HHW. Obstetrics in The Netherlands, Trends 1995-1999. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, 2005.
- 18 Davies J, Hey E, Reid W, Young G. Prospective regional study of planned home births. Home Birth Study Steering Group. BMJ 1996; 313: 1302–6.
- 19 Ackermann-Liebrich U, Voegeli T, Gunter-Witt K, Kunz I, Zullig M, Schindler C et al. Home versus hospital deliveries: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures and outcome. Zurich Study Team. BMJ 1996; 313: 1313–18.
- 20 Olsen O, Jewell MD. Home versus hospital birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD000352.
- 21 Janssen PA, Lee SK, Ryan EM, Etches DJ, Farquharson DF, Peacock D et al. Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia. CMAJ 2002; 166: 315–23.
- 22 Johnson KC, Daviss BA. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ 2005; 330:1416.
- 23 Hildingsson I, Waldenstrom U, Radestad I. Swedish women’s interest in home birth and in-hospital birth center care. Birth 2003; 30: 11–22.
- 24 Pang JW, Heffelfinger JD, Huang GJ, Benedetti TJ, Weiss NS. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989-1996. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 253–9.
- 25 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA, Winbladh B. The Stockholm birth centre trial: maternal and infant outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 410–8.
- 26 Reddy K, Reginald PW, Spring JE, Nunn L, Mishra N. A free-standing low-risk maternity unit in the United Kingdom: does it have a role? J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 24: 360–6.
- 27 Morano S, Cerutti F, Mistrangelo E, Pastorino D, Benussi M, Costantini S et al. Outcomes of the first midwife-led birth centre in Italy: 5 years’ experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007; 276: 333–7.
- 28 Stewart M, McCandlish R, Henderson J, Brocklehurst P. Review of Evidence About Clinical, Psychosocial and Economic Outcomes for Women with Straightforward Pregnancies Who Plan to Give Birth in an Midwife-led Birth Centre, and Outcomes for Their Babies. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, 2005.
- 29 Hodnett ED, Downe S, Edwards N, Walsh D. Home-like versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;CD000012.
- 30 Kateman H, Herschderfer K. Multidisciplinary Collaborative Primary Maternity Care Project. Current Practice in Europe and Australia. Den Haag, the Netherlands: International Confederation of Midwives, 2005.
- 31 The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. Perinatal Care in The Netherlands 2001. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, 2005.
- 32 Pel M, Heres MHB. OBINT. A study of obstetric intervention. Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1995.
- 33 The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. Perinatal Care in The Netherlands 2002. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, 2005.
- 34 The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. Perinatal Care in The Netherlands 2003. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, 2006.
- 35 Anthony S, Van Der Pal-de Bruin KM, Graafmans WC, Dorrepaal CA, Borkent-Polet M, Van Hemel OJS, et al. The reliability of perinatal and neonatal mortality rates: differential under-reporting in linked professional registers vs Dutch civil registers. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001; 15: 306–14.
- 36 Anthony S. The Dutch Perinatal and Neonatal Registers: applications in perinatal epidemiology. Thesis, Leiden, the Netherlands: Universiteit, Leiden, 2005.
- 37 Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Committee on Obstetric Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Use and abuse of the Apgar score. Pediatrics 1996; 98: 141–2.
- 38 ACOG Committee Opinion #303. Inappropiate use of the terms fetal distress and birth asphyxia. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104:903.
- 39 Leeman LD, Waelput AJM, Eskes M, Achterberg PW. Op weg naar de landelijke invoering van perinatale audit. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: RIVM, 2007.
- 40 Van Der Hulst LAM, Van Teijlingen ER, Bonsel GJ, Eskes M, Bleker OP. Does a pregnant woman’s intended place of birth influence her attitudes toward and occurrence of obstetric interventions? Birth 2004; 31: 28–33.
- 41 Damstra-Wijmenga SMI. Veilig bevallen. Een vergelijkende studie tusasen de thuisbevalling en de klinische bevalling. Groningen, the Netherlands: Universiteit van Groningen, 1982.
- 42 Kleiverda G, Steen AM, Andersen I, Treffers PE, Everaerd W. Place of delivery in The Netherlands: actual location of confinement. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 39: 139–46.
- 43 Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie. Nota Normpraktijk Gynaecologie 2000. Utrecht, the Netherlands: NVOG, 2000.
- 44 KNMG. Voorstel voor normstelling aanrijtijd hulpverleners bij het verlenen van noodzakelijke medische hulp. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij tot bevordering van de Geneeskunst, 2004.
- 45 Chardon AJ, Wildschut HI, Stolwijk AJ, Deckers CM, Relyveld RM, Van Der Meulen JH. Duur van ambulancevervoer van verloskundige patiënten. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1994; 138: 2053–7.
- 46 Nijhuis JG. Epiduraal analgesie tijdens de bevalling. Bepaald geen luxe. Medisch Contact 2005; 60: 611–3.
- 47 Groenen C, Van Der Stouwe R. Reanimatie van de pasgeborenen in de thuissituatie of vergelijkbare omstandigheden (KNOV-standpunt). Bilthoven, Utrecht, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Nederlandse Organisatie van Verloskundigen, 2005.
- 48 NVK Werkgroep. ‘Ontwikkeling evidence based Nederlandse richtlijn reanimatie van pasgeborenen’. Richtlijn reanimatie van pasgeborenen. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Kindergeneeskunde, 2004.
- 49 Kleiverda G, Steen AM, Andersen I, Treffers PE, Everaerd W. Confinement in nulliparous women in the Netherlands: subjective experiences related to actual events and post-partum well-being. Transition to parenthood. Thesis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 89–116.
- 50 Wiegers TA, Van Der Zee J, Keirse MJ. Transfer from home to hospital: what is its effect on the experience of childbirth? Birth 1998; 25: 19–24.
- 51 Richardus JH, Graafmans WC, Bergsjo P, Lloyd DJ, Bakketeig LS, Bannon EM et al. Suboptimal care and perinatal mortality in ten European regions: methodology and evaluation of an international audit. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 14: 267–76.
- 52 Richardus JH, Graafmans WC, Van Der Pal-de Bruin KM, Amelink-Verburg MP, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Mackenbach JP. An European concerted action investigating the validity of perinatal mortality as an outcome indicator for the quality of antenatal and perinatal care. J Perinat Med 1997; 25: 313–24.
- 53 Amelink-Verburg MP, Van Roosmalen J, Roelofsen JM, Verloove-Vanhorick SP. Evaluatie en validatie van perinatale-sterfte-audit door terugkoppeling naar zorgverleners [Evaluation and validation of a perinatal death audit by means of feedback to the caregivers]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003; 147: 2333–7.
Citing Literature
