BackgroundEvidence-based practices that reduce childbirth-related morbidity and mortality are core processes to quality of care. In the BetterBirth trial, a matched-pair, cluster-randomised controlled trial of a coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) in Uttar Pradesh, India, we observed a significant increase in adherence to practices, but no reduction in perinatal mortality.MethodsWithin the BetterBirth trial, we observed birth attendants in a subset of study sites providing care to labouring women to assess the adherence to individual and groups of practices. We observed care from admission to the facility until 1 hour post partum. We followed observed women/newborns for 7-day perinatal health outcomes. Using this observational data, we conducted a post-hoc, exploratory analysis to understand the relationship of birth attendants’ practice adherence to perinatal mortality.FindingsAcross 30 primary health facilities, we observed 3274 deliveries and obtained 7-day health outcomes. Adherence to individual practices, containing supply preparation and direct provider care, varied widely (0·51 to 99·78%). We recorded 166 perinatal deaths (50·71 per 1000 births), including 56 (17·1 per 1000) stillbirths. Each additional practice performed was significantly associated with reduced odds of perinatal (OR: 0·82, 95% CI: 0·72, 0·93) and early neonatal mortality (OR: 0·78, 95% CI: 0·71, 0·85). Each additional practice as part of direct provider care was associated strongly with reduced odds of perinatal (OR: 0·73, 95% CI: 0·62, 0·86) and early neonatal mortality (OR: 0·67, 95% CI: 0·56, 0·80). No individual practice or single supply preparation was associated with perinatal mortality.InterpretationAdherence to practices on the WHO SCC is associated with reduced mortality, indicating that adherence is a valid indicator of higher quality of care. However, the causal relationships between practices and outcomes are complex.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1131-5647.

No abstract

Background Shared decision‐making (SDM) may improve communication, teamwork, patient experience, respectful maternity care, and safety during childbirth. Despite these benefits, SDM is not widely implemented, and strategies for implementing SDM interventions are not well described. We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of TeamBirth, an SDM solution that centers the birthing person in decision‐making through simple tools that structure communication among the care team. We identified and described implementation strategies that bridge the gap between knowledge and practice. Methods We conducted a qualitative study among four hospitals in the United States to understand the acceptability and feasibility of TeamBirth. We interviewed 103 clinicians and conducted 16 focus group discussions with 52 implementers between June 2018 and October 2019. We drew on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to understand acceptability and feasibility, and to identify and describe the underlying contextual factors that affected implementation. Results We found that clinicians and implementers valued TeamBirth for promoting clarity about care plans among the direct care team and for centering the birthing person in decision‐making. Contextual factors that affected implementation included strength of leadership, physician practice models, and quality improvement culture. Effective implementation strategies included regular data feedback and adapting “flexible” components of TeamBirth to the local context. Discussion By identifying and describing TeamBirth's contextual factors and implementation strategies, our findings can help bridge the implementation gap of SDM interventions. Our in‐depth analysis offers tangible lessons for other labor and delivery unit leaders as they seek to integrate SDM practices in their own settings.

No abstract

ObjectivesDespite global concern over the quality of maternal care, little is known about the time requirements to complete the essential birth practices. Using three microcosting data collection methods within the BetterBirth trial, we aimed to assess time use and the specific time requirements to incorporate the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist into clinical practice.SettingWe collected detailed survey data on birth attendant time use within the BetterBirth trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. The BetterBirth trial tested whether the peer-coaching-based implementation of the WHO Checklist was effective in improving the quality of facility-based childbirth care.ParticipantsWe collected measurements of time to completion for 18 essential birth practices from July 2016 through October 2016 across 10 facilities in five districts (1559 total timed observations). An anonymous survey asked about the impact of the WHO Checklist on birth attendants at every intervention facility (15 facilities, 83 respondents) in the Lucknow hub. Additionally, data collectors visited facilities to conduct a census of patients and birth attendants across 20 facilities in seven districts between June 2016 and November 2016 (six hundred and ten 2-hour facility observations).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure of this study is the per cent of staff time required to complete the essential birth practices included in the WHO Checklist.ResultsWhen birth attendants were timed, we found practices were completed rapidly (18 s to 2 min). As the patient load increased, time dedicated to clinical care increased but remained low relative to administrative and downtime. On average, WHO Checklist clinical care accounted for less than 7% of birth attendant time use per hour.ConclusionsWe did not find that a coaching-based implementation of the WHO Checklist was a burden on birth attendant’s time use. However, questions remain regarding the performance quality of practices and how to accurately capture and interpret idle and break time.Trial registration numberNCT02148952.