J K Bray1, D R Gorman, K Dundas, J Sim. 1. NHS Lothian, Waverley Gate, 2-4 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3EG, UK. jbray2@nhs.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There has been a twelve-fold increase in the number of New European migrants giving birth in Lothian between 2004 and 2007. The objective of this study was to audit obstetric care standards in Lothian for new migrants and recommend service improvements. METHODS: A retrospective audit of 114/136 (84%) obstetric case records of new European migrants giving birth in Lothian hospitals in 2006 was conducted. Assessment was against care standards for antenatal booking, antenatal attendance and interpretation. Obstetric outcomes were audited against the general population. RESULTS: Eighty percent were primiparous. Fifty five percent had booked by the end of week 14. Mean birth weights and lengths of stay were similar to the general population. Intervention rates were 23% for Caesarean Sections (C/S) and 17% for instrumental deliveries (versus 27% and 19% respectively in the general population). Epidural or spinal anaesthesia was used for 57% compared to 50% of the general population. The interpretation services (ITS) were used infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: Full compliance with antenatal and interpretation standards was not achieved for this population. ITS was most commonly used to meet the needs of healthcare professionals, rather than as a routine. While there were no significant differences in maternity outcomes, poor communication did affect care.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There has been a twelve-fold increase in the number of New European migrants giving birth in Lothian between 2004 and 2007. The objective of this study was to audit obstetric care standards in Lothian for new migrants and recommend service improvements. METHODS: A retrospective audit of 114/136 (84%) obstetric case records of new European migrants giving birth in Lothian hospitals in 2006 was conducted. Assessment was against care standards for antenatal booking, antenatal attendance and interpretation. Obstetric outcomes were audited against the general population. RESULTS: Eighty percent were primiparous. Fifty five percent had booked by the end of week 14. Mean birth weights and lengths of stay were similar to the general population. Intervention rates were 23% for Caesarean Sections (C/S) and 17% for instrumental deliveries (versus 27% and 19% respectively in the general population). Epidural or spinal anaesthesia was used for 57% compared to 50% of the general population. The interpretation services (ITS) were used infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: Full compliance with antenatal and interpretation standards was not achieved for this population. ITS was most commonly used to meet the needs of healthcare professionals, rather than as a routine. While there were no significant differences in maternity outcomes, poor communication did affect care.