Advertisement

Red flags for episiotomy in a midwife-led birth: Using co-production with midwives to capture clinical experience

Published:August 05, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2022.06.009

      Abstract

      Background

      One of four key points in the Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury Care Bundle, first piloted in the UK in 2016, was the directive to perform episiotomy when clinically indicated. Midwives are the primary health care professional for straightforward births in the UK and there is very little published literature that relates to their practice in this area.

      Aim

      The aim of the study was to explore experienced midwives’ decision-making processes in their assessments for episiotomy during birth.

      Methods

      43 midwives self-identifying as confident in performing episiotomy were sampled across 8 NHS Trusts in England and Wales. Data collection was via online focus groups and 1:1 interviews. Primary thematic analysis was undertaken by the research team. Preliminary themes were used to structure a co-production analysis workshop where eight experienced midwives undertook a secondary analysis of the data resulting in four overall themes.

      Findings

      Four themes were identified, ‘Optimising Perineal Function’, ‘Red Flags to Stimulate Decision-Making’, ‘The Midwives’ Episiotomy’ and ‘Infiltration as a Catalyst for Birth’.

      Discussion

      Midwives use a number of visual, auditory and touch cues to inform their assessments for episiotomy during birth.

      Conclusion

      This study provides valuable insight into the cues that guide experienced midwives’ decision-making in relation to episiotomy and contributes evidence related to performing episiotomy when clinically indicated in spontaneous vaginal birth.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Women and Birth
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. RCOG 2018. OASI Care Bundle: Implementation guide for maternity sites in roll out phase. RCOG: London.

      2. Bidwell P., Thakar R., Gurol-Urganci I., Silverton L., Hellyer A., Novis V., Sevdalis N. 2019. Barriers and enablers to implementing change within maternity services—lessons learned from the OASI Care Bundle Quality Improvement Project. RCOG World Congress. 〈https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471–0528.11_15703〉. 2019.

        • Jurczuk M.
        • Bidwell P.
        • Gurol-Urganci I.
        • van der Meulen J.
        • Sevdalis N.
        • Silverton L.
        • Thakar R.
        The OASI care bundle quality improvement project: lessons learned and future direction.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021; 32: 1989-1995
        • Webb S.S.
        • Skene E.R.
        • Manresa M.
        • Percy E.K.
        • Freeman R.M.
        • Tincello D.G.
        Evaluation of midwifery pelvic floor education and training across the UK and Spain.
        Eur. J. Obs. Gynaecol. Reprod. Biol. 2020; 256: 140-144https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.10.065
        • MacLellan J.
        • Gould J.
        • Lewis-Tulett S.
        • Fourie S.
        Is a tolerance of ambiguity emphasising an episiotomy skills gap?.
        MIDIRS Midwifery Dig. 2020; 30: 228
        • Ebell M.H.
        • Siwek J.
        • Weiss B.D.
        • et al.
        Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centred approach to grading evidence in the medical literature.
        Am. Fam. Physician. 2004; 69: 548-556
        • Hardy D.
        • Smith B.
        Decision making in clinical practice.
        Br. J. Anaesth. Recover. Nurs. 2008; 9: 19-21https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742645608000028
        • Kienle G.S.
        • Kiene H.
        Clinical judgement and the medical profession.
        J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011; 17: 621-627
        • Knottnerus J.A.
        • Tugwell P.
        Basic science, evidence, and clinical judgement.
        J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 359-360https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.005
      3. N.H.S. England2020. A co-production model. 〈https://coalitionforpersonalisedcare.org.uk/resources/a-co-production-model/〉.

      4. Krippendorff,K., 2004. Content Analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks,Ca: Sage Publications.

        • Braun V.
        • Clarke V.
        Using thematic analysis in psychology.
        Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006; 3: 77-101https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
        • Van der Meijden O.
        • Schijven M.
        The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review.
        Surg. Endosc. 2009; 23: 1180-1190
        • King T.L.
        • Pinger W.
        Evidence-based practice for intrapartum care: the pearls of midwifery.
        J. Midwifery Women’s Health. 2014; 09: 1526-9523https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12261
        • He S.
        • Jiang H.
        • Qian X.
        • Garner P.
        Women’s experience of episiotomy: a qualitative study from China.
        BMJ Open. 2020; 10e033354https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033354
        • Quoc Huy N.V.
        • Phuc An L.S.
        • Phuong L.S.
        • Tam L.M.
        Pelvic floor and sexual dysfunction after vaginal birth with episiotomy in vietnamese women.
        Sex. Med. 2019; 7: 514-521https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2019.09.002
        • Singh S.
        • Thakur T.
        • Chandhiok N.
        • Dhillon B.S.
        Pattern of episiotomy use & its immediate complications among vaginal deliveries in 18 tertiary care hospitals in India.
        Indian J. Med. Res. 2016; 143 (PMID: 27377504; PMCID: PMC4928554.): 474-480https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-5916.184304
        • Woretaw E.
        • Teshome M.
        • Alene M.
        Episiotomy practice and associated factors among mothers who gave birth at public health facilities in Metema district, northwest Ethiopia.
        Reprod. Health. 2021; 18: 142https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01194-9
        • Jiang H.
        • Qian X.
        • Carroli G.
        • et al.
        Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth.
        Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017; 2: CD000081https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub3
        • Smith V.
        • Guilliland K.
        • Dixon L.
        • Reilly M.
        • Keegan C.
        • McCann C.
        • Begley C.
        Irish and New Zealand Midwives’ expertise at preserving the perineum intact (the MEPPI study): Perspectives on preparations for birth.
        Midwifery. 2017; 55 (Epub 2017 Sep 20): 83-89https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.09.011
        • MacLellan J.
        • Gould J.
        • Lewis-Tulett S.
        Midwifery assessment of the perineum after childbirth: An exploration of competence and confidence.
        Pract. Midwife. 2021; 24: 27
        • Aasheim V.
        • Nilsen A.B.V.
        • Reinar L.M.
        • Lukasse M.
        Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma.
        Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017 13; 6 (10.1002/14651858.CD006672.pub3. PMID: 28608597; PMCID: PMC6481402): CD006672
        • Thornton J.G.
        • Dahlen H.G.
        The UK obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) care bundle: a critical review.
        Midwifery. 2020; 90102801