Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40404210›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

Improving the quality of induction of labour in maternity services.

Mohamed Elnasharty, Raweya Al-Dabbagh, Iman Makramallah, Abdelhameed Ismail

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Mohamed ElnashartyObstetrics and Gynecology, Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Abercynon, UK dr.nisho@live.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7367-3028
Raweya Al-DabbaghPrince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, UK.
Iman MakramallahPrince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, UK.
Abdelhameed IsmailGreat Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Academy, Swindon, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5916-1286

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is the most common obstetric intervention with an incidence up to 30%. It can have a major impact on a woman's birth experience. A common cause of women's dissatisfaction with care is the discrepancy between their expectations and actual birth experience. LOCAL PROBLEM: High rates of IOL, which were associated with a considerable number of complaints as a result of women's dissatisfaction with increased referrals to debrief clinics. Staff feedback showed inconsistencies with the service provided. Feedback from staff and women showed avoidable delays, stress and anxiety. Inadequate patient information leaflets provided the women with unrealistic expectations about the IOL process.

aimImproving the quality of the IOL process from the point women are offered IOL till delivery, reducing the avoidable delays, standardising the process and ultimately improving women's experience between July 2020 and July 2021.

methodsWe followed the quality improvement methodology; Plan, Do, Study, Act. The project started with baseline data collection with multidisciplinary engagement with stakeholders and service users, including pregnant women, asking for their experience and expectations. This identified the root causes and drivers for change. We identified inconsistencies in the labour induction process as it was not in line with the national guideline, resulting in avoidable delays. Then we started implementing the required changes with continuous engagement with staff and service users, followed by an evaluation of the services.Quality improvement is a continuous process. Hence, the induction of labour working group evaluates the process monthly through the maternity dashboard, women's feedback and satisfaction survey with the help of the quality improvement team.

intervention(1) Multidisciplinary IOL working group was established, including a consultant obstetrician, deputy head of midwifery, consultant midwife, senior midwife and senior registrar. (2) Engagement with stakeholders and service users. (3) Develop IOL guidelines to standardise the process. (4) Develop IOL booking pro forma. (5) Update the patient information leaflets and use of technology to help easy access to information and develop a dedicated team for booking of pregnant patients for IOL. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionA high rate of IOL is associated with a higher rate of women's dissatisfaction as a result of the difference between women's expectations and their experience. This occurred due to a lack of standardisation and avoidable delays. Implementation of service changes can be challenging; however, listening and engaging with service users is essential to overcome these challenges. The main keys for improvement were developing standard guidelines, pathways, IOL packs and multidisciplinary team engagement. Providing the women with adequate patient information leaflets helps them to have a shared understanding of the process.

Indexed as

Labor, InducedMaternal Health ServicesQuality ImprovementAdultFemaleHumansPatient SatisfactionPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesContinuous quality improvementHealthcare quality improvementMaternal Health ServicesObstetrics and gynecologyQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID40404210
PMCPMC12097002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.