Professor of Evidence Based Midwifery Practice Kings College London, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA, UK.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Jun 25;12:57. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-57.
The accurate assessment and appropriate repair of birth related perineal trauma require high levels of skill and competency, with evidence based guideline recommendations available to inform UK midwifery practice. Implementation of guideline recommendations could reduce maternal morbidity associated with perineal trauma, which is commonly reported and persistent, with potential to deter women from a future vaginal birth. Despite evidence, limited attention is paid to this important aspect of midwifery practice. We wished to identify how midwives in the UK assessed and repaired perineal trauma and the extent to which practice reflected evidence based guidance. Findings would be used to inform the content of a large intervention study.
A descriptive cross sectional study was completed. One thousand randomly selected midwives were accessed via the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and sent a questionnaire. Study inclusion criteria included that the midwives were in clinical practice and undertook perineal assessment and management within their current role. Quantitative and qualitative data were collated. Associations between midwife characteristics and implementation of evidence based recommendations for perineal assessment and management were examined using chi-square tests of association.
405 midwives (40.5%) returned a questionnaire, 338 (83.5%) of whom met inclusion criteria. The majority worked in a consultant led unit (235, 69.5%) and over a third had been qualified for 20 years or longer (129, 38.2%). Compliance with evidence was poor. Few (6%) midwives used evidence based suturing methods to repair all layers of perineal trauma and only 58 (17.3%) performed rectal examination as part of routine perineal trauma assessment. Over half (192, 58.0%) did not suture all second degree tears. Feeling confident to assess perineal trauma all of the time was only reported by 116 (34.3%) midwives, with even fewer (73, 21.6%) feeling confident to perform perineal repair all of the time. Two thirds of midwives (63.5%) felt confident to perform an episiotomy. Midwives qualified for 20 years or longer and those on more senior clinical grades were most likely to implement evidence based recommendations and feel confident about perineal management.
There are considerable gaps with implementation of evidence to support management of perineal trauma.
准确评估和适当修复分娩相关的会阴创伤需要高水平的技能和能力,现有的循证指南建议可用于指导英国的助产实践。实施指南建议可以降低与会阴创伤相关的产妇发病率,这种发病率通常很高且持续存在,可能会阻止女性未来进行阴道分娩。尽管有证据,但对助产实践的这一重要方面的关注有限。我们希望确定英国的助产士如何评估和修复会阴创伤,以及实践在多大程度上反映了循证指导。研究结果将用于为一项大型干预研究的内容提供信息。
完成了一项描述性的横断面研究。通过皇家助产士学院(RCM)随机抽取了 1000 名助产士,并向他们发送了一份问卷。研究纳入标准包括助产士处于临床实践中,并在其当前角色中进行会阴评估和管理。收集了定量和定性数据。使用卡方检验分析了助产士特征与实施会阴评估和管理循证建议之间的关联。
405 名助产士(40.5%)返回了问卷,其中 338 名(83.5%)符合纳入标准。大多数人在顾问主导的单位工作(235 名,69.5%),超过三分之一的人已经获得资格 20 年或更长时间(129 名,38.2%)。证据的依从性很差。很少有(6%)助产士使用循证缝合方法来修复所有会阴层的创伤,只有 58 名(17.3%)在常规会阴创伤评估中进行直肠检查。超过一半(192 名,58.0%)未缝合所有二度撕裂。只有 116 名(34.3%)助产士表示始终有信心评估会阴创伤,而只有更少的人(73 名,21.6%)始终有信心进行会阴修复。三分之二的助产士(63.5%)有信心进行会阴切开术。获得资格 20 年或更长时间以及处于更高临床级别助产士最有可能实施循证建议,并对会阴管理有信心。
在支持会阴创伤管理方面,实施证据存在很大差距。