Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37349751›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework.

Sarah Neal, Lucy Stone, Gill Moncrieff, Zoë Matthews, Carol Kingdon, Anastasia Topalidou, Marie-Clare Balaam, Sarah Cordey, Nicola Crossland, Claire Feeley and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah NealDepartment of Social Statistics and Demography, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. S.Neal@soton.ac.uk.
Lucy StoneFaculty of Medicine, Health & Life Sciences, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Gill MoncrieffReaCH Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Zoë MatthewsDepartment of Social Statistics and Demography, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Carol KingdonReaCH Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Anastasia TopalidouReaCH Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Marie-Clare BalaamReaCH Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Sarah CordeyReaCH Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Nicola CrosslandMAINN Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Claire FeeleyNursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Methodologies Division, King's College London, London, UK.
Deborah PowneySchool of Justice, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1, UK.
Arni SarianSchool of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Alan FentonNewcastle Neonatal Service, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Alexander E P HeazellMaternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ank de JongeDepartment of Midwifery Science, AVAG/Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Alexandra SevernsLancashire And South Cumbria Cardiac Network, Preston, UK.
Gill ThomsonMAINN Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Soo DowneReaCH Group, School of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
University of Lancashire · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBKing's College London · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSwansea University · GBVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts.

methodsWe undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care.

resultsThe ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured.

conclusionsThe COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care.

Indexed as

COVID-19Maternal Health ServicesEnglandFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPandemicsParturitionPregnancyASPIRE COVID-19Case studyCOVID-19CrisesMaternal health servicesMidwiferyOrganisational evaluation framework

Identifiers

PMID37349751
PMCPMC10288742
OpenAlexW4381612533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.