No abstract

ObjectiveTo examine the birth outcomes for women and babies following water immersion for labour only, or for labour and birth.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingMaternity hospital, Ireland, 2016–2019.ParticipantsA cohort of 190 low-risk women who used water immersion; 100 gave birth in water and 90 laboured only in water. A control group of 190 low-risk women who received standard care.MethodsLogistic regression analyses examined associations between water immersion and birth outcomes adjusting for confounders. A validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire was completed.Main outcome measuresPerineal tears, obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI), postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), neonatal unit admissions (NNU), breastfeeding and birth experiences.ResultsCompared with standard care, women who chose water immersion had no significant difference in perineal tears (71.4% vs 71.4%, adj OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.39) or in OASI (3.3% vs 3.8%, adj OR 0.91; 0.26–2.97). Women who chose water immersion were more likely to have a PPH ≥500 mL (10.5% vs 3.7%, adj OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.57), and to exclusively breastfeed at discharge (71.1% vs 45.8%, adj OR 2.59; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.05). There was no significant difference in NNU admissions (3.7% vs 3.2%, adj OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.33 to 3.42). Women who gave birth in water were no more likely than women who used water for labour only to require perineal suturing (64% vs 80.5%, adj OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.33), to experience OASI (3.0% vs 3.7%, adj OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 8.79) or PPH (8.0% vs 13.3%, adj OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.09). Women using water immersion reported more positive memories than women receiving standard care (p<0.01).ConclusionsWomen choosing water immersion for labour or birth were no more likely to experience adverse birth outcomes than women receiving standard care and rated their birth experiences more highly.

Background A series of changes in maternity care provision were implemented internationally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on maternal clinical outcomes, resulting from these changes to care provision. Methods A before and during comparative study of maternal pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum clinical outcomes was conducted at a maternity hospital in Ireland. Inferential statistics were used to compare datasets with significance set at P<0.05. Results Overall, no difference in caesarean section rates between the two study periods was observed, although more caesarean sections were observed in multiparous women during the pandemic (30% vs 35%, P=0.01). The rate of elective compared to emergency caesarean section was also higher during the pandemic, from a proportionate difference of 3.6% pre-pandemic to 13.6% during the pandemic. Rates of induction of labour for post-dates (post-maturity induction) were also increased during the pandemic. Conclusions The changes to maternity care because of the COVID-19 pandemic appear to have affected some maternal clinical outcomes, and thus, potentially, women's overall intrapartum and postnatal health and wellbeing.

No abstract

With the aim of enhancing dietetics education in Nova Scotia, key stakeholders were engaged in identifying current practice issues along with opportunities for collaboration to address them. A survey containing five open-ended questions was distributed by email to a purposive sample of 24 participants affiliated with three universities with dietetics programs. Participants fell into five categories: internship coordinators, dietetics educators, recent internship graduates, current interns, and prospective interns. The response rate was 58%. Data were thematically analyzed through a process of constant comparison. Primary themes emerged, which reflected survey participants' concerns about three current practice issues: province-wide standards, internship placement availability, and the overall educational experience. Additional comments suggested that overall dietetic educational experiences could be improved if relevant clinical experiences were offered and preceptor workloads were accommodated. The creation of province-wide standards for assessing interns' level of competency was perceived to offer multiple benefits, including decreased preceptor workloads. Participants believed that collaborative actions might increase internship placements and improve the overall dietetic internship experience for interns and preceptors.

A provincial focus on immigration and improved foreign credential recognition has led to an investigation of best practices and subsequent recommendations for the development and implementation of a sustainable university-based bridging program for internationally educated dietitians in Atlantic Canada. Data were collected from various sources and used to inform program decisions and direction. An advisory framework was established through a core group representing dietetics education and regulation and internationalization. Subsequently, a key stakeholder group was formed. As a result of this collaboration and research, a dietetics bridging framework was developed and a program pilot tested. Lessons learned may inform similar endeavours and highlight the importance of collaborative leadership and collaboration among multiple stakeholders, and of creatively addressing program sustainability issues while keeping learners (internationally educated dietitians) at the centre.