Rachel E Rowe1. 1. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK. rachel.rowe@npeu.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A proportion of women planning to give birth in a midwifery unit will experience complications during labour that necessitate transfer to an obstetric unit. Local guidelines for the transfer of women in labour have the potential to impact on quality of care and the safety of the transfer process. OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the quality of local NHS guidelines on the transfer of women from midwifery unit to obstetric unit during labour. METHODS: Guidelines were requested from all 52 NHS hospital trusts in England with midwifery units. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines received. RESULTS: Relevant guidelines were received from 34 (65%) trusts. No guidelines scored on the 'editorial independence' domain. The mean score on 'scope and purpose' (56.2%), concerned with the aims, clinical questions and target patient population of the guideline, was higher than for other domains: 'clarity and presentation' (language and format) 45.3%, 'stakeholder involvement' (representation of users' views) 15.3%, 'rigour of development' (process used to develop guideline) 15.0%, 'applicability' (organisational, behavioural and cost implications of applying guideline) 7.1%. Only three guidelines were recommended for use in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this to be the first systematic appraisal of the quality of local NHS guidelines. Overall these local guidelines were of poor quality. It is not clear whether the quality of these midwifery guidelines is typical of local guidelines in other clinical areas, but this study raises fundamental questions about the appropriate development of high-quality local clinical guidelines.
BACKGROUND: A proportion of women planning to give birth in a midwifery unit will experience complications during labour that necessitate transfer to an obstetric unit. Local guidelines for the transfer of women in labour have the potential to impact on quality of care and the safety of the transfer process. OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the quality of local NHS guidelines on the transfer of women from midwifery unit to obstetric unit during labour. METHODS: Guidelines were requested from all 52 NHS hospital trusts in England with midwifery units. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines received. RESULTS: Relevant guidelines were received from 34 (65%) trusts. No guidelines scored on the 'editorial independence' domain. The mean score on 'scope and purpose' (56.2%), concerned with the aims, clinical questions and target patient population of the guideline, was higher than for other domains: 'clarity and presentation' (language and format) 45.3%, 'stakeholder involvement' (representation of users' views) 15.3%, 'rigour of development' (process used to develop guideline) 15.0%, 'applicability' (organisational, behavioural and cost implications of applying guideline) 7.1%. Only three guidelines were recommended for use in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this to be the first systematic appraisal of the quality of local NHS guidelines. Overall these local guidelines were of poor quality. It is not clear whether the quality of these midwifery guidelines is typical of local guidelines in other clinical areas, but this study raises fundamental questions about the appropriate development of high-quality local clinical guidelines.
Authors: Nils Chaillet; Eric Dubé; Marylène Dugas; François Audibert; Caroline Tourigny; William D Fraser; Alexandre Dumont Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Rachel Voellinger; Alexandre Berney; Pierre Baumann; Jean Marie Annoni; Christian Bryois; Thierry Buclin; Christophe Büla; Vincent Camus; Laurent Christin; Jacques Cornuz; Pierre de Goumoëns; Olivier Lamy; Jindrich Strnad; Bernard Burnand; Frederic Stiefel Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Rachel E Rowe; John Townend; Peter Brocklehurst; Marian Knight; Alison Macfarlane; Christine McCourt; Mary Newburn; Maggie Redshaw; Jane Sandall; Louise Silverton; Jennifer Hollowell Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Yu Zhen Lau; Kate Widdows; Stephen A Roberts; Sheher Khizar; Gillian L Stephen; Saima Rauf; Alexander E P Heazell Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2020-04
Authors: Jessica Reszel; Dana Sidney; Wendy E Peterson; Elizabeth K Darling; Vicki Van Wagner; Bobbi Soderstrom; Judy Rogers; Erin Graves; Bushra Khan; Ann E Sprague Journal: J Midwifery Womens Health Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 2.388