UNASSIGNED: To explore the effect of dural puncture epidural (DPE) block technique on fetal heart rate variability (HRV) during labor analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: Sixty full-term primiparas who were in our hospital from April 2021 to October 2021 were selected and randomized into epidural analgesia (CEA) and dural puncture epidural analgesia (DPEA) groups (n = 30). After a successful epidural puncture, routine epidural catheter (EC) was performed in CEA group, and spinal anesthesia needle (as an EC) was used to puncture the dura mater to subarachnoid space in DPE group. Anesthetics were injected through EC. The time when the temperature sensation plane reached T10 (W1) and visual analog pain score (VAS), baseline heart rate score, amplitude variation score, cycle variation score, acceleration score, deceleration score, and total score of the first contraction after W1 were recorded. Apgar scores at 1 min, 5 min, and 10 min of neonates after delivery were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: The onset time of anesthesia in CEA group was significantly longer than that in DPEA group (p < .05). However, there are no significant differences in W1, VAS, baseline heart rate score, amplitude variation score, cycle variation score, acceleration score, deceleration score, and total score of the first contraction after W1 between the two groups (p > .05). Moreover, the Apgar scores at 1 min, 5 min and 10 min of neonates after delivery were not notably different between the two groups (p > .05).
UNASSIGNED: Compared with CEA, DPE block technique in labor analgesia relieves maternal pain without adverse effects on fetal HRV and newborns.

Background and Objectives: Labor epidural analgesia can be maintained through programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), continuous epidural infusion (CEI), or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Our department changed from CEI+PCEA to PIEB+PCEA as the maintenance method. The higher hourly dose setting in the current regimen brought to our concern that side effects would increase with proportional staff workloads. This study aimed to investigate the validity of our proposal that PIEB+PCEA may function as a feasible tool in reducing the amount of work in the obstetrics anesthesia units. Materials and methods: This 2-year retrospective review included parturients with vaginal deliveries under epidural analgesia. We compared the staff burden before and after the switch from CEI (6 mL/h, PCEA 6 mL lockout 15 min, group A) to PIEB (8 mL/h, PCEA 8 mL lockout 10 min, group B). The primary outcome was the difference of proportion of parturients requiring unscheduled visits between groups. Side effects and labor and neonatal outcomes were compared. Results: Of the 694 parturients analyzed, the proportion of those requiring unscheduled visits were significantly reduced in group B (20.8% vs. 27.7%, chi-square test, p = 0.033). The multivariate logistic regression showed that PIEB was associated with fewer unscheduled visits than CEI (OR = 0.53, 95% CI [0.36-0.80], p < 0.01). Group B exhibited a significantly lower incidence of asymmetric blockade, as well as motor blockade. In nulliparous subjects, obstetric anal sphincter injury occurred less frequently when PIEB+PCEA was used. Significantly more multiparous women experienced vacuum extraction delivery in group B than in group A, and they had a longer second stage of labor. Conclusions: The PIEB+PCEA protocol in our study reduced workloads in labor epidural analgesia as compared to CEI+PCEA, despite that a higher dose of analgesics was administered. Future studies are warranted to investigate the effect of manipulating the PIEB settings on the labor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences of registered nurses and certified nurse midwives who provided labor support and care in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: A descriptive, qualitative approach was used to explore nurses\' and midwives\' perceptions via in-depth interviews. Data were analyzed via thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Thirteen nurses, four of whom were also midwives, participated in semi-structured interviews. All provided care during the first 9 months of the pandemic and represented seven states across the United States. The analysis revealed an overarching theme, A New World but still a Celebration. This overarching theme encompasses participants\' accounts of trying to provide the same support, presence, and celebration while dealing with constant policy changes, the impact of limited family presence in labor, and their own fears and risks. Four sub-themes were identified: The Impact of Nursing during COVID-19; Challenges, Changes, and Consequences; Unexpected Benefits; and The Cost.
CONCLUSIONS: The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw unprecedented challenges for nurses. Practice changes due to these changing policies had negative and positive effects. Negative practices affected family support, decreased interprofessional collaboration, and caused shorter hospital stays for new mothers. Some positive aspects of practice changes included additional time for mother-newborn bonding due to restrictive visitation policies, increased initiation of breastfeeding, and focused patient education. Nurses across the United States are still coping with practice changes from the pandemic. Our study highlights the need to support nurses in adapting care in the midst of practice changes.

Pregnancy dating is determined by the patient\'s last menstrual period or an ultrasound measurement. A full-term pregnancy is considered 37 weeks\' gestation or more. Spontaneous labor begins when regular painful uterine contractions result in a cervical change. Active labor begins at 6 cm dilation and is marked by more predictable, accelerated cervical change. In the absence of pregnancy complications, intermittent fetal auscultation may be considered as an alternative to continuous electronic fetal monitoring, which is associated with a high false-positive rate. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated in patients with group B streptococcus colonization or those at high risk to prevent newborn early-onset group B streptococcus. The likelihood of vaginal delivery is increased by providing continuous nonmedical support during labor, encouraging mobility, and using a peanut ball with epidural analgesia. Neuraxial analgesia is more effective for pain control than systemic opioids and is associated with fewer adverse effects. Delayed pushing during the second stage of labor has risks but does not affect the mode of delivery. Routine oropharyngeal suctioning of the newborn is not recommended, even with meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Delayed cord clamping reduces newborn anemia. Prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in patients at risk includes prophylactic uterotonic administration and controlled cord traction. Perineal lacerations that alter anatomy or are not hemostatic should be repaired. (Am Fam Physician. 2024;109(6):525-532.

The article aims to verify the influence of MNFs on the duration of the birth process. A systematic review was carried out in the MEDLINE, Web of Science and LILACS databases, through a combination of terms that cover the topic addressed, from 1996 to 2021/April. The Excel spreadsheet was used to collect data to extract information regarding each selected article, in turn, data analysis included the evaluation and classification of quality, reliability and risk of bias, thus, the following tools were used: Cochrane RoB 2, Checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Warm bath, walking, exercises with a birthing ball, breathing techniques, supine position, acupuncture, acupressure and water birth reduced labor time. While spontaneous pushing, massage and immersion baths prolonged labor. Non-pharmacological methods capable of reducing the duration of labor were hot/warm shower, walking, birth ball exercises, breathing techniques, maternal mobility, dorsal position, acupuncture, acupressure and water birth, as well. associated applied techniques such as hot/warm bath, ball exercises and lumbosacral massage, as well as immersion bath, ball exercises, aromatherapy, vertical postures and maternal mobility with alternating vertical postures, shortened the birth time.

BACKGROUND: Ethiopia has one of the highest maternal mortality ratios in Africa. Few have examined the quality of labour and delivery (L&D) care in the country. This study evaluated the quality of routine L&D care and identified patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with the quality of care in a subset of government hospitals.
METHODS: This was a facility-based, cross-sectional study using direct non-participant observation carried out in 2016. All mothers who received routine L&D care services at government hospitals (n = 20) in one of the populous regions of Ethiopia, Southern Nations Nationalities and People\'s Region (SNNPR), were included. Mixed effects multilevel linear regression modeling was employed in two stages using hospital as a random effect, with quality of L&D care as the outcome and selected patient and hospital characteristics as independent variables. Patient characteristics included woman\'s age, number of previous births, number of skilled attendants involved in care process, and presence of any danger sign in current pregnancy. Hospital characteristics included teaching hospital status, mean number of attended births in the previous year, number of fulltime skilled attendants in the L&D ward, whether the hospital had offered refresher training on L&D care in the previous 12 months, and the extent to which the hospital met the 2014 Ethiopian Ministry of Health standards regarding to resources available for providing quality of L&D care (measured on a 0-100% scale). These standards pertain to availability of human resource by category and training status, availability of essential drugs, supplies and equipment in L&D ward, availability of laboratory services and safe blood, and availability of essential guidelines for key L&D care processes.
RESULTS: On average, the hospitals met two-thirds of the standards for L&D care quality, with substantial variation between hospitals (standard deviation 10.9 percentage points). While the highest performing hospital met 91.3% of standards, the lowest performing hospital met only 35.8% of the standards. Hospitals had the highest adherence to standards in the domain of immediate and essential newborn care practices (86.8%), followed by the domain of care during the second and third stages of labour (77.9%). Hospitals scored substantially lower in the domains of active management of third stage of labour (AMTSL) (42.2%), interpersonal communication (47.2%), and initial assessment of the woman in labour (59.6%). We found the quality of L&D care score was significantly higher for women who had a history of any danger sign (β = 5.66; p-value = 0.001) and for women who were cared for at a teaching hospital (β = 12.10; p-value = 0.005). Additionally, hospitals with lower volume and more resources available for L&D care (P-values < 0.01) had higher L&D quality scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of L&D care provided to labouring mothers at government hospitals in SNNPR was limited. Lack of adherence to standards in the areas of the critical tasks of initial assessment, AMTSL, interpersonal communication during L&D, and respect for women\'s preferences are especially concerning. Without greater attention to the quality of L&D care, regardless of how accessible hospital L&D care becomes, maternal and neonatal mortality rates are unlikely to decrease substantially.

BACKGROUND: Birth is a normal physiological process, and many women want a natural birth. Women use a range of non-pharmacological pain relief methods to reduce labour pain intensity, to help manage labour pain and to induce relaxation. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of women using Virtual Reality as a non-pharmacological method of pain relief in labour. Virtual Reality has been shown to be an effective distraction technique in other acute pain settings which also reduces anxiety.
METHODS: This study conducted qualitative in-depth interviews postnatally with women who used Virtual Reality in labour. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data.
RESULTS: Nineteen women used Virtual Reality in labour. Results from interviews with nineteen women in the postnatal period identified three main themes: impact of virtual reality on experience of labour, managing the pain of labour and challenges of using virtual reality in labour.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that Virtual Reality was effective as a relaxation technique and helped in pain management by the use of self-efficacy techniques. Women in this study also identified preferred virtual environments specifically to use during labour and birth. This study provides a unique and original contribution to the field of Virtual Reality in labour and birth. It also identifies Virtual Reality as an acceptable and positive experience in the management of anxiety and labour pain.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to codesign, implement, evaluate acceptability and refine an optimised antenatal education session to improve birth preparedness.
METHODS: There were four distinct phases: codesign (focus groups and codesign workshops with parents and staff); implementation of intervention; evaluation (interviews, questionnaires, structured feedback forms) and systematic refinement.
METHODS: The study was set in a single maternity unit with approximately 5500 births annually.
METHODS: Postnatal and antenatal women/birthing people and birth partners were invited to participate in the intervention, and midwives were invited to deliver it. Both groups participated in feedback.
METHODS: We report on whether the optimised session is deliverable, acceptable, meets the needs of women/birthing people and partners, and explain how the intervention was refined with input from parents, clinicians and researchers.
RESULTS: The codesign was undertaken by 35 women, partners and clinicians. Five midwives were trained and delivered 19 antenatal education (ACE) sessions to 142 women and 94 partners. 121 women and 33 birth partners completed the feedback questionnaire. Women/birthing people (79%) and birth partners (82%) felt more prepared after the class with most participants finding the content very helpful or helpful. Women/birthing people perceived classes were more useful and engaging than their partners. Interviews with 21 parents, a midwife focus group and a structured feedback form resulted in 38 recommended changes: 22 by parents, 5 by midwives and 11 by both. Suggested changes have been incorporated in the training resources to achieve an optimised intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Engaging stakeholders (women and staff) in codesigning an evidence-informed curriculum resulted in an antenatal class designed to improve preparedness for birth, including assisted birth, that is acceptable to women and their birthing partners, and has been refined to address feedback and is deliverable within National Health Service resource constraints. A nationally mandated antenatal education curriculum is needed to ensure parents receive high-quality antenatal education that targets birth preparedness.

This work compared the effects of dural puncture epidural (DPE), combined spinal epidural analgesia (CSEA) and epidural analgesia (EA) on labor analgesia for primiparae and their impacts on maternal and infant safety. A total of 204 primiparae in need of labor analgesia for vaginal delivery were allocated to DPE, CSEA and EA groups. At 10 min, 30 min and 1 h after analgesia, the DPE and CSEA groups showed lower VAS scores and quicker onset of action than EA group. There was no significant difference in the duration of analgesia and labor and fetal decelerations among the 3 groups. At 1 min and 5 min after childbirth, the neonatal Apgar scores showed no significant difference between the 3 groups. The Bromage scores of DPE and EA groups were lower than those of CSEA group. The incidence of pruritus, hypotension, and postpartum headache in DPE and EA groups were lower than those in CSEA group. To sum up, the efficacy of DPE in labor analgesia for primiparae is similar to that of CSEA, with no obvious effect on labor stage and neonatal Apgar score, no additional complications and less LLMB, pruritus, hypotension and postpartum headache.

BACKGROUND: The practice of intrapartum use of oxytocin for induction and augmentation of labour is increasing worldwide with documented wide variations in clinical use, especially dose administrations. There is also evidence of intrapartum use by unauthorized cadre of staff.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the patterns - frequency of intrapartum use of oxytocin, the doses and routes of administration for induction and augmentation of labour, and identified the predictors of oxytocin use for induction and augmentation of labour by healthcare providers in Nigeria.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among healthcare providers - doctors, nurses/midwives and community health workers (CHWs) in public and private healthcare facilities across the country\'s six geopolitical zones. A multistage sampling technique was used to select 6,299 eligible healthcare providers who use oxytocin for pregnant women during labour and delivery. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect relevant data and analysed using STATA 17 statistical software. Summary and inferential statistics were done and further analyses using multivariable regression models were performed to ascertain independent predictor variables of correct patterns of intrapartum oxytocin usage. The p-value was set at < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of the 6299 respondents who participated in the study, 1179 (18.7%), 3362 (53.4%), and 1758 (27.9%) were doctors, nurses/midwives and CHWs, respectively. Among the respondents, 4200 (66.7%) use oxytocin for augmentation of labour while 3314 (52.6%) use it for induction of labour. Of the 1758 CHWs, 37.8% and 49% use oxytocin for induction and augmentation of labour, respectively. About 10% of the respondents who use oxytocin for the induction or augmentation of labour incorrectly use the intramuscular route of administration and about 8% incorrectly use intravenous push. Being a doctor, and a healthcare provider from government health facilities were independent positive predictors of the administration of correct dose oxytocin for induction and augmentation of labour. The CHWs were most likely to use the wrong route and dose administration of oxytocin for the induction and augmentation of labour.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study unveiled a concerning clinical practice of intrapartum oxytocin use by healthcare providers in Nigeria - prevalence of intrapartum use of oxytocin, inappropriate routes of administration for induction and augmentation of labour, varied and inappropriately high start dose of administration including unauthorized and high intrapartum use of oxytocin among CHWs.