Objective To examine the roles and experiences of labor and delivery (LD) nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Online distribution between the beginning of July and end of August 2020 Participants Labor and delivery nurses (N = 757) responded to an open-ended question about changes to their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic as part of a larger national survey. Methods We calculated descriptive statistics on respondents’ characteristics and their hospitals’ characteristics. We applied conventional content analysis to free text comments. Results We derived four major categories from the responses: Changes in Roles and Responsibilities, Adaptations to Changes, Psychological Changes, and Perceived Effects on Labor Support. Nearly half (n = 328) of respondents reported changes in their roles and responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. They described adaptations and responses to these changes and perceived effects on patient care. Infection control policies and practices and the stress of a rapidly changing work environment affected the provision of labor support and personal well-being. Conclusion The experiences described by respondents conveyed considerable changes in their roles and subsequent direct and indirect effects on quality of patient care and personal well-being. Policies and practices that can facilitate the ability of LD nurses to safely and securely remain at the bedside and provide high-touch, hands-on labor support are needed. The findings of our study can help facilitate the provision of labor support during times of disruption and foster the resiliency of the nursing workforce.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of prenatal care, quality measurement efforts have focused on the number of prenatal visits, or prenatal care adequacy, rather than the services received. It is unknown whether attending more prenatal visits is associated with receiving more guideline-based prenatal care services. The relationship between guideline-based prenatal care and patients' clinical and sociodemographic characteristics has also not been studied. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the receipt of guidelinebased prenatal care among pregnant patients and to describe the association between guideline-based prenatal care and the number of prenatal visits and other patient characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective descriptive cohort study of 176,092 pregnancy episodes between 2016 and 2019. We used deidentified administrative claims data on commercial enrollees across the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. We identified the following 8 components of prenatal care that are universally recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other guideline-issuing organizations: testing for sexually transmitted infections, obstetric laboratory test panel, urine culture, urinalysis, anatomy scan ultrasound, oral glucose tolerance test, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccine, and group B Streptococcus test. We measured the proportion of pregnant patients who received each of these guidelinebased services at the appropriate gestational age. We measured the association between guideline-based services and the number of prenatal visits and prenatal care adequacy. We described variation of guidelinebased care according to patient age, comorbidities, high deductible health plan enrollment, and their county's rurality, health professional shortage area status, racial composition, median income, and educational attainment. RESULTS: The 176,092 pregnancy episodes were mostly among patients aged 25 to 34 years (63%) with few pregnancy comorbidities (81%) and living in urban areas (92%). Guideline-based care varied by service, from 51% receiving a timely urinalysis to 90% receiving an anatomy scan and 91% completing testing for sexually transmitted infections. Patients with at least 4 prenatal visits received, on average, 6 of the 8 guideline-based services. Guideline-based care did not increase with additional prenatal visits and varied by patient characteristics. Rates of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccination were lower in counties with high proportions of minoritized populations, lower education, and lower income. CONCLUSION: In this commercially insured population, receipt of guideline-based care was not universal, did not increase with the number of prenatal visits, and varied by patient-and area-level characteristics. Measuring guideline-based care is feasible and may capture quality of prenatal care better than visit count or adequacy alone.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic provoked sweeping changes in practice to care for pregnant and birthing people, and highlighted inequities that threaten to exacerbate racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Moreover, social distancing measures have made it harder for pregnant people to access support. Assessment Prioritizing widespread access to COVID-19 testing and vaccination for pregnant people is critical to ensuring they receive safe and equitable care. Transparency in reporting outcomes including race and pregnancy status is key. Expanding telemedicine services to provide mental healthcare and labor support is necessary to maintain access to critical social networks. Additionally, resources must be allocated to pregnant people with complex social needs and are the most vulnerable. Conclusion Policy centered on maintaining equity and agency in the care of pregnant people is imperative now and should continue as the standard moving forward to narrow racial disparities in maternal health outcomes.

Background Reducing cesarean rates is a public health priority. To help pregnant people select hospitals with lower cesarean rates, numerous organizations publish publically hospital cesarean rate data. Few pregnant people use these data when deciding where to deliver. We sought to determine whether making cesarean rate data more accessible and understandable increases the likelihood of pregnant people selecting low-cesarean rate hospitals. Methods We conducted a 1:1 randomized controlled trial in 2019–2021 among users of a fertility and pregnancy mobile application. Eligible participants were trying to conceive for fewer than five months or were 28–104 days into their pregnancies. Of 189,456 participants approached and enrolled, 120,621 participants met entry criteria and were included in analyses. The intervention group was offered an educational program explaining the importance of hospital cesarean rates and an interactive tool presenting hospital cesarean rates as 1-to-5-star ratings. Control group users were offered an educational program about hospital choice and a hospital choice tool without cesarean rate data. The primary outcome was the star rating of the hospital selected by each patient during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were the importance of cesarean rates in choosing a hospital and delivery method (post-hoc secondary outcome). Results Of 120,621 participants (mean [SD] age, 27.8 [7.9]), 12,284 (10.2%) reported their choice of hospital during pregnancy, with similar reporting rates in the intervention and control groups. Intervention group participants selected hospitals with higher star ratings (2.52 vs 2.16; difference, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.43] p < 0.001) and were more likely to believe that the hospitals they chose would impact their chances of having cesarean deliveries (38.5% vs 33.1%, p < 0.001) but did not assign higher priority to cesarean delivery rates when choosing their hospitals (76.2% vs 74.3%, p = 0.05). There was no difference in self-reported cesarean rates between the intervention and control groups (31.4% vs 31.4%, p = 0.98). Conclusion People offered an educational program and interactive tool to compare hospital cesarean rates were more likely to use cesarean data in selecting a hospital and selected hospitals with lower cesarean rates but were not less likely to have a cesarean. Clinical Trial Registration Registered December 9, 2016 at clinicaltrials.gov, First enrollment November 2019. ID NCT02987803, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987803