Jennifer M Hunt1, Judith Lumley. 1. Centre for the Study of Mothers' and Children's Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC. jennymh@bigpond.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the variability and evidence base of recommendations in Australian protocols and national policies about six aspects of routine antenatal care. DESIGN: Comparison of recommendations from local protocols, national guidelines and research about number of visits, screening for gestational diabetes (GDM), syphilis, hepatitis C (HCV), and HIV, and advice on smoking cessation. SETTING: Australian public hospitals with more than 200 births/year, some smaller hospitals in each State and Territory, and all Divisions of General Practice were contacted in 1999 and 2000. We reviewed 107 protocols, which included 80% of those requested from hospitals and 92% of those requested from Divisions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and consistency of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations about syphilis testing were notable in demonstrating consistency between local protocols, national policies and research evidence. Most protocols recommended screening for GDM, despite lack of good evidence of its effectiveness in improving outcomes. Specific approaches to screening for GDM varied widely. Coverage and specific recommendations about testing for HIV and HCV were also highly variable. Smoking-cessation information and advice was rarely included, despite good evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in improving outcomes. No national policies about the number of routine visits and smoking cessation could be identified. There were inconsistent national policies for both HIV and GDM screening. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal care recommended in protocols used in Australia varies, and is not always consistent with national policies or research evidence. Producing and disseminating systematic reviews of research evidence and national guidelines might reduce this variability and improve the quality of Australian antenatal care.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the variability and evidence base of recommendations in Australian protocols and national policies about six aspects of routine antenatal care. DESIGN: Comparison of recommendations from local protocols, national guidelines and research about number of visits, screening for gestational diabetes (GDM), syphilis, hepatitis C (HCV), and HIV, and advice on smoking cessation. SETTING: Australian public hospitals with more than 200 births/year, some smaller hospitals in each State and Territory, and all Divisions of General Practice were contacted in 1999 and 2000. We reviewed 107 protocols, which included 80% of those requested from hospitals and 92% of those requested from Divisions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and consistency of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations about syphilis testing were notable in demonstrating consistency between local protocols, national policies and research evidence. Most protocols recommended screening for GDM, despite lack of good evidence of its effectiveness in improving outcomes. Specific approaches to screening for GDM varied widely. Coverage and specific recommendations about testing for HIV and HCV were also highly variable. Smoking-cessation information and advice was rarely included, despite good evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in improving outcomes. No national policies about the number of routine visits and smoking cessation could be identified. There were inconsistent national policies for both HIV and GDM screening. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal care recommended in protocols used in Australia varies, and is not always consistent with national policies or research evidence. Producing and disseminating systematic reviews of research evidence and national guidelines might reduce this variability and improve the quality of Australian antenatal care.
Authors: Alice R Rumbold; Ross S Bailie; Damin Si; Michelle C Dowden; Catherine M Kennedy; Rhonda J Cox; Lynette O'Donoghue; Helen E Liddle; Ru K Kwedza; Sandra C Thompson; Hugh P Burke; Alex D H Brown; Tarun Weeramanthri; Christine M Connors Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.007