Relatively high perinatal mortality rates in the Netherlands have required a critical assessment of the national obstetric system. Policy evaluations emphasized the need for organizational improvement, in particular closer collaboration between community midwives and obstetric caregivers in hospitals. The leveled care system that is currently in place, in which professionals in midwifery and obstetrics work autonomously, does not fully meet the needs of pregnant women, especially women with an accumulation of non-medical risk factors. This article provides an overview of the advantages of greater interdisciplinary collaboration and the current policy developments in obstetric care in the Netherlands. In line with these developments we present a model for shared care embedded in local 'obstetric collaborations'. These collaborations are formed by obstetric caregivers of a single hospital and all surrounding community midwives. Through a broad literature search, practical elements from shared care approaches in other fields of medicine that would suit the Dutch obstetric system were selected. These elements, focusing on continuity of care, patient centeredness and interprofessional teamwork form a comprehensive model for a shared care approach. By means of this overview paper and the presented model, we add direction to the current policy debate on the development of obstetrics in the Netherlands. This model will be used as a starting point for the pilot-implementation of a shared care approach in the 'obstetric collaborations', using feedback from the field to further improve it.

ObjectiveTo assess the implementation and first results of a term perinatal internal audit by a standardised method.DesignPopulation-based cohort study.SettingAll 90 Dutch hospitals with obstetric/paediatric departments linked to community practices of midwives, general practitioners in their attachment areas, organised in perinatal cooperation groups (PCG).PopulationThe population consisted of 943 registered term perinatal deaths occurring in 2010–2012 with detailed information, including 707 cases with completed audit results.Main outcome measuresParticipation in the audit, perinatal death classification, identification of substandard factors (SSF), SSF in relation to death, conclusive recommendations for quality improvement in perinatal care and antepartum risk selection at the start of labour.ResultsAfter the introduction of the perinatal audit in 2010, all PCGs participated. They organised 645 audit sessions, with an average of 31 healthcare professionals per session. Of all 1102 term perinatal deaths (2.3/1000) data were registered for 86% (943) and standardised anonymised audit results for 64% (707). In 53% of the cases at least one SSF was identified. Non-compliance to guidelines (35%) and deviation from usual professional care (41%) were the most frequent SSF. There was a (very) probable relation between the SSF and perinatal death for 8% of all cases. This declined over the years: from 10% (n=23) in 2010 to 5% (n=10) in 2012 (p=0.060). Simultaneously term perinatal mortality decreased from 2.3 to 2.0/1000 births (p<0.00001). Possibilities for improvement were identified in the organisation of care (35%), guidelines or usual care (19%) and in documentation (15%). More pregnancies were antepartum selected as high risk, 70% in 2010 and 84% in 2012 (p=0.0001).ConclusionsThe perinatal audit is implemented nationwide in all obstetrical units in the Netherlands in a short time period. It is possible that the audit contributed to the decrease in term perinatal mortality.

BackgroundPromotion of healthy pregnancies has gained high priority in the Netherlands because of the relatively unfavourable perinatal health outcomes. In response a nationwide study Healthy Pregnancy 4 All was initiated. This study combines public health and epidemiologic research to evaluate the effectiveness of two obstetric interventions before and during pregnancy: (1) programmatic preconception care (PCC) and (2) systematic antenatal risk assessment (including both medical and non-medical risk factors) followed by patient-tailored multidisciplinary care pathways. In this paper we present an overview of the study setting and outlines. We describe the selection of geographical areas and introduce the design and outline of the preconception care and the antenatal risk assessment studies.Methods/designA thorough analysis was performed to identify geographical areas in which adverse perinatal outcomes were high. These areas were regarded as eligible for either or both sub-studies as we hypothesised studies to have maximal effect there. This selection of municipalities was based on multiple criteria relevant to either the preconception care intervention or the antenatal risk assessment intervention, or to both. The preconception care intervention was designed as a prospective community-based cohort study. The antenatal risk assessment intervention was designed as a cluster randomised controlled trial – where municipalities are randomly allocated to intervention and control.DiscussionOptimal linkage is sought between curative and preventive care, public health, government, and social welfare organisations. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which these elements are combined.

No abstract