Skilled birth attendance (SBA) and essential obstetric care (EOC) are key strategies for reducing maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity globally. Lack of adequately trained competent staff is a key barrier to achieving this. We assessed the effectiveness of a new package of 'Life Saving Skills - Essential Obstetric and Newborn Care Training' (LSS-EOC and NC) designed specifically around the UN signal functions in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Among 600 healthcare providers (nurse-midwives, doctors, clinical officers and specialists), knowledge about the diagnosis and management of complications of pregnancy and childbirth as well as newborn care significantly increased (p < 0.001). There was measurable improvement in skills (p < 0.001), and participants expressed a high level of satisfaction with the training. The training package was found to meet the needs of healthcare providers, increased awareness of the need for evidence-based care and encouraged teamwork.

Summary. Between 1970 and 1983, 519 pregnancies in 405 women with heart disease were managed at the Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, a rate of 1·3 per 100 deliveries. In 312 (60%) the heart disease was of rheumatic origin, in 161 (31%) congenital, and the remaining 46 (9%) were a miscellaneous group that included arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease and cardiomyopathies. The New York Heart Association (NHYA) grading was no greater than 1–2 in 445 (86%) pregnancies antenatally. Three maternal deaths occurred, all in the group whose antenatal NYHA grade was 3–4. Heart failure was present in 96 (18%) pregnancies antenatally, and six others developed failure during labour or in the puerperium. Prophylactic antibiotics were not used routinely and infective endocarditis did not occur. The perinatal mortality rate was 19/1000, and the rate of congenital malformations was not raised in the reviewed group.

No abstract

Objective To demonstrate similarities and differences between the various instruments used by clinical trialists for measurement of premenstrual syndrome to encourage development of consensus of measurement to aid future research.Design Computer and manual searches of all trials of drugs used for premenstrual syndrome supplemented by retrieval of all questionnaires and scales cited. Letters were sent to the main manufacturers to identify trials not in the public domain.Main outcome measures Number of scales in current use for classifying premenstrual syndrome; the symptoms included within them; their organisation of symptoms into clusters; the numerical values used in the scaling; the most frequently used items; and the extent of overlap in the criteria used.Results Three hundred and fifty clinical trials of 115 different drugs were identified. The most common symptoms or signs used in the scales were (frequency in square brackets) irritability [44], headache or migraine [40], depression [37], tearfulness [34], tension [31], anxiety [31], breast tenderness [31], mood swings or lability [30], back pain [30], weight gain [29], abdominal bloating [28], lack of concentration [28], food craving [28], and increased appetite [26]. Sixty‐five different questionnaires or scales were used to classify premenstrual syndrome and for assessing entry eligibility and treatment outcomes; of these 65, 47 included sufficient details for a formal analysis and 18 scales grouped the symptoms or items into clusters or subgroups.Conclusion There is wide diversity in the scales used for assessing entry eligibility and treatment outcomes in premenstrual syndrome. This makes comparative evaluation of possible treatments extremely complex and difficult. It is recommended that authorities and organisations involved in conducting trials of treatments for premenstrual syndrome develop a consensus statement about the best instrument to be used. Regulatory authorities could perhaps provide guidance to which scales they would accept when clinical trials of drugs for premenstrual syndrome are submitted to them for assessment. This would ensure that industry‐sponsored trials provide objective data. Consensus is required given the poor performance of most current treatments of premenstrual syndrome.

No abstract