IntroductionChoice of birth setting is important and it is valuable to know how reconfiguring available settings may affect midwifery staffing needs. COVID-19-related health system pressures have meant restriction of community births. We aimed to model the potential of service reconfigurations to offset midwifery staffing shortages.MethodsWe adapted the Birthrate Plus method to develop a tool that models the effects on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing requirements of changing service configurations for low-risk births. We tested our tool on two hypothetical model trusts with different baseline configurations of hospital and community low-risk birth services, representing those most common in England, and applied it to scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages of 15%, 25% and 35%. In scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages above 15%, we modelled restricting community births in line with professional guidance on COVID-19 service reconfiguration. For shortages of 15%, we modelled expanding community births per the target of the Maternity Transformation programme.ResultsExpanding community births with 15% shortages required 0.0 and 0.1 whole-time equivalent more midwives in our respective trusts compared with baseline, representing 0% and 0.1% of overall staffing requirements net of shortages. Restricting home births with 25% shortages reduced midwifery staffing need by 0.1 midwives (–0.1% of staffing) and 0.3 midwives (–0.3%). Suspending community births with 35% shortages meant changes of –0.3 midwives (–0.3%) and –0.5 midwives (–0.5%) in the two trusts. Sensitivity analysis showed that our results were robust even under extreme assumptions.ConclusionOur model found that reconfiguring maternity services in response to shortages has a negligible effect on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing needs. Given this, with lower degrees of shortage, managers can consider increasing community birth options where there is demand. In situations of severe shortage, reconfiguration cannot recoup the shortage and managers must decide how to modify service arrangements.

ObjectivesTo compare neonatal mortality in English hospitals by time of day and day of the week according to care pathway.DesignRetrospective cohort linking birth registration, birth notification and hospital episode data.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England.Participants6 054 536 liveborn singleton births from 2005 to 2014 in NHS maternity units in England.Main outcome measuresNeonatal mortality.ResultsAfter adjustment for confounders, there was no significant difference in the odds of neonatal mortality attributed to asphyxia, anoxia or trauma outside of working hours compared with working hours for spontaneous births or instrumental births. Stratification of emergency caesareans by onset of labour showed no difference in mortality by birth timing for emergency caesareans with spontaneous or induced onset of labour. Higher odds of neonatal mortality attributed to asphyxia, anoxia or trauma out of hours for emergency caesareans without labour translated to a small absolute difference in mortality risk.ConclusionsThe apparent ‘weekend effect’ may result from deaths among the relatively small numbers of babies who were coded as born by emergency caesarean section without labour outside normal working hours. Further research should investigate the potential contribution of care-seeking and community-based factors as well as the adequacy of staffing for managing these relatively unusual emergencies.