Background and objective During the COVID-19 pandemic the organization of maternity care changed drastically; this study into the experiences of maternity care professionals with these changes provides suggestions for the organization of care during and after pandemics. Design An online survey among Dutch midwives, obstetricians and obstetric residents. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to investigate associations between the respondents’ characteristics and answers. Results Reported advantages of the changes were fewer prenatal and postpartum consultations (50.1%). The necessity and safety of medical interventions and ultrasounds were considered more critically (75.9%); 14.8% of community midwives stated they referred fewer women to the hospital for decreased fetal movements, whereas 64.2% of the respondents working in hospital-based care experienced fewer consultations for this indication. Respondents felt that women had more confidence in giving birth at home (57.5%). Homebirths seemed to have increased according to 38.5% of the community midwives and 65.3% of the respondents working in hospital-based care. Respondents appreciated the shift to more digital consultations rather than face-to-face consultations. Mentioned disadvantages were that women had appointments alone, (71.1%) and that the community midwife was not allowed to join a woman to obstetric-led care during labour and subsequently stay with her (56.8%). Fewer postpartum visits by family and friends led to more tranquility (59.8%). Overall, however, 48.0% of the respondents felt that the safety of maternity care was compromised due to policy changes. Conclusions Maternity care professionals were positive about the decrease in routine care and the increased confidence of women in home birth, but also felt that safety in maternity care was sometimes compromised. According to the respondents in a future crisis situation it should be possible for community midwives to continue to deliver a personal handover after the referral of women to the hospital, and to stay with them.

BackgroundExamining determinants of antenatal care (ANC) is important to stimulate equitable distribution of ANC across Europe. This study (1) compares ANC utilisation in Belgium and the Netherlands and (2) identifies predisposing, enabling and pregnancy-related determinants.MethodsSecondary data analysis is performed using data from Belgium, and the Netherlands. The content and timing of care during pregnancy (CTP) tool measured ANC use. Non-parametric tests and ordinal logistic regression are performed to gain insight in the determinants of health care use.ResultsDutch women receive appropriate ANC more often than Belgian women. Multivariate analysis showed that lower education, unemployment, lower continuity of care and non-attendance of antenatal classes are associated with a lower likelihood of having more appropriate ANC.ConclusionsPredisposing and pregnancy related variables are most important to influence the content and timing of ANC, irrespective of the country women live in. Lower health literacy in socially vulnerable women might explain the predisposing determinants of health care use in both countries. Stimulating accessibility to antenatal courses or organising public education are recommendations for practice. Regarding pregnancy-related determinants, improving continuity of care can optimise ANC use in both countries.

ObjectivesInsight into perspectives and values of care providers on episiotomy can be a first step towards reducing variation in its use. We aimed to gain insight into these perspectives and values.SettingMaternity care in the Netherlands.ParticipantsMidwives, obstetricians and obstetric registrars working in primary, secondary or tertiary care, purposively sampled, based on their perceived episiotomy rate and/or region of work.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPerspectives and values of care providers which were explored using semistructured in-depth interviews.ResultsThe following four themes were identified, using the evidence-based practice-model of Satterfield et al as a framework: ‘Care providers’ vision on childbirth’, ‘Discrepancy between restrictive perspective and daily practice’, ‘Clinical expertise versus literature-based practice’ and ‘Involvement of women in the decision’. Perspectives, values and practices regarding episiotomy were strongly influenced by care providers’ underlying visions on childbirth. Although care providers often emphasised the importance of restrictive episiotomy policy, a discrepancy was found between this vision and the large number of varying indications for episiotomy. Although on one hand care providers cited evidence to support their practice, on the other hand, many based their decision-making to a larger extent on clinical experience. Although most care providers considered women’s autonomy to be important, at the moment of deciding on episiotomy, the involvement of women in the decision was perceived as minimal, and real informed consent generally did not take place, neither during labour, nor prenatally. Many care providers belittled episiotomy in their language.ConclusionsCare providers’ underlying vision on episiotomy and childbirth was an important contributor to the large variations in episiotomy usage. Their clinical expertise was a more important component in decision-making on episiotomy than the literature. Women were minimally involved in the decision for performing episiotomy. More research is required to achieve consensus on indications for episiotomy.