Enhancing recognition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in six maternity units in Palestine: an interventional quality improvement study

Hadil Ali-Masri, Sahar Hassan, Khaled Ismail, Kaled Zimmo, Mohammed Zimmo, Erik Fosse, Åse Vikanes, Katariina Laine, Hadil Ali-Masri, Sahar Hassan, Khaled Ismail, Kaled Zimmo, Mohammed Zimmo, Erik Fosse, Åse Vikanes, Katariina Laine

Abstract

Objective: To explore the impact of a training intervention on obstetric anal sphincter injuries' (OASIS) detection rate.

Design: Prospective quality improvement interventional study.

Setting: Six secondary and tertiary maternity units in Palestine.

Population: Women having singleton vaginal births ≥23 weeks' gestation or babies weighing ≥500 g (n=22 922). Caesarean births (n=5431), multiple gestations (n=443) and vaginal births of unregistered perineum status (n=800) were excluded.

Interventions: Training programme for enhancing OASIS detection was conducted between 31 January and 31 December 2015. International experts delivered 2-day standardisation workshop teaching OASIS diagnosis and repair to each maternity unit. They also provided additional training to three research fellows employed in three of the maternity units. This was followed by 13-week period of data collection (phase 1). Research fellows then delivered training intervention over 15-week interval (phase 2), including theoretical teaching and 'onsite' training in perineal trauma assessment within the six maternity units. Finally, 13-week postintervention observation (phase 3) followed.

Primary outcome measure: OASIS rates were used as surrogate for OASIS recognition. OASIS rates were compared between different phases and between the two maternity unit groups (research fellow and non-research fellow based) using Pearson's χ² test.

Results: A total 22 922 women were included. Among primiparous women, OASIS rate was higher in phase 2 (2.8%, p<0.001) and phase 3 (3.1%, p<0.001) than phase 1 (0.5%). However, no significant differences were detected in the rates of severe OASIS (third-degree 3c and fourth-degree tears) between phase 1 and 2 (0.5% vs 0.3%), because this would have required at least 103 women with severe OASIS to be included in each phase. Among parous women, OASIS rate was significantly higher in phase 2 (0.6%, p=0.002) but not in phase 3 (0.4%, p=0.071) compared with phase 1 (0.2%). Research fellows' maternity units showed higher OASIS rates among primiparous women in phase 2 (3.6% vs 1.4%, p=0.001) and phase 3 (4.3% vs 0.8%, p<0.001) than non-research fellows' maternity units.

Conclusions: This work is basically an epidemiological study which has identified the prevalence of perineal lacerations and their severity on a large sample of women representative of an entire geographical ethnic region. The quality improvement intervention improved OASIS detection mainly in the research fellows' maternity units. Regular mandatory national programmes in obstetric perineal trauma assessment and management by local champions are essential to mitigate the risk of missing significant degrees of trauma.

Keywords: obstetrics; urogynaecology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart describing inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study population.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart demonstrating sequence and timeline of the study phases. OASIS, obstetric anal sphincter injuries.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Graph demonstrating trends of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) rate among primiparous women in research fellows’ maternity units and non-research fellows’ maternity units during the three study phases.

References

    1. Harvey MA, Pierce M, Alter JE, et al. . Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): prevention, recognition, and repair. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37:1131–48. 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30081-0
    1. Sundquist JC. Long-term outcome after obstetric injury: a retrospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:715–8. 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01398.x
    1. Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sanda B, et al. . Prevalence and risk factors for anal incontinence after obstetric anal sphincter rupture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:319–24. 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2010.01057.x
    1. Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sandvik L, et al. . Prevalence and risk indicators for anal incontinence among pregnant women. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2013;2013:1–8. 10.1155/2013/947572
    1. Soerensen MM, Buntzen S, Bek KM, et al. . Complete obstetric anal sphincter tear and risk of long-term fecal incontinence: a cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:992–1001. 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318299c209
    1. Ampt AJ, Ford JB, Roberts CL, et al. . Trends in obstetric anal sphincter injuries and associated risk factors for vaginal singleton term births in New South Wales 2001-2009. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;53:9–16. 10.1111/ajo.12038
    1. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, et al. . Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. BJOG 2013;120:1516–25. 10.1111/1471-0528.12363
    1. Laine K, Gissler M, Pirhonen J. Changing incidence of anal sphincter tears in four Nordic countries through the last decades. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;146:71–5. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.033
    1. Laine K, Rotvold W, Staff AC. Are obstetric anal sphincter ruptures preventable? Large and consistent rupture rate variations between the Nordic countries and between delivery units in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:94–100. 10.1111/aogs.12024
    1. Pirhonen JP, Grenman SE, Haadem K, et al. . Frequency of anal sphincter rupture at delivery in Sweden and Finland--result of difference in manual help to the baby’s head. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998;77:974–7. 10.1080/j.1600-0412.1998.771005.x
    1. Prager M, Andersson KL, Stephansson O, et al. . The incidence of obstetric anal sphincter rupture in primiparous women: a comparison between two European delivery settings. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:209–15. 10.1080/00016340701832661
    1. Räisänen S, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Gissler M, et al. . Up to seven-fold inter-hospital differences in obstetric anal sphincter injury rates- A birth register-based study in Finland. BMC Res Notes 2010;3:345 10.1186/1756-0500-3-345
    1. Baghestan E, Irgens LM, Børdahl PE, et al. . Trends in risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries in Norway. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:25–34. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e2f50b
    1. Andrews V, Shelmeridine S, Sultan AH, et al. . Anal and urinary incontinence 4 years after a vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:55–60. 10.1007/s00192-012-1835-7
    1. Faltin DL, Boulvain M, Floris LA, et al. . Diagnosis of anal sphincter tears to prevent fecal incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:6–13. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000165273.68486.95
    1. Sultan AH, Fernando R. injury Mobstetric. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2001;11:279–84.
    1. Zimmo K, Laine K, Vikanes Å, et al. . Diagnosis and repair of perineal injuries: knowledge before and after expert training-a multicentre observational study among Palestinian physicians and midwives. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014183 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014183
    1. Fernando RJ, Sultan AH, Freeman RM, et al. . The management of third- and fourth- degree perineal tears Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) green top guidelines. London, 2015:No. 29.
    1. Anderson B, Attwood B, Baird G, et al. . Intrapartum care: management and delivery of care to women in labour National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines. London, 2015:No. 55.
    1. Hassan S, Vikanes A, Laine K, et al. . Building a research registry for studying birth complications and outcomes in six Palestinian governmental hospitals. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:112 10.1186/s12884-017-1296-6
    1. Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, et al. . The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 2010;88:500–59. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x
    1. Guzmán Rojas RA, Shek KL, Langer SM, et al. . Prevalence of anal sphincter injury in primiparous women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:n/a–6. 10.1002/uog.12481
    1. Andrews V, Sultan AH, Thakar R, et al. . Occult anal sphincter injuries-myth or reality? BJOG 2006;113:195–200. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00799.x
    1. Fynes M, Donnelly V, Behan M, et al. . Effect of second vaginal delivery on anorectal physiology and faecal continence: a prospective study. Lancet 1999;354:983–6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)11205-9
    1. Tucker J, Clifton V, Wilson A. Teetering near the edge; women’s experiences of anal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injury: an interpretive phenomenological research study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;54:377–81. 10.1111/ajo.12230
    1. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Palestinians at the end of 2015. 2015. (Retrieved 30 Dec 2015).
    1. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN. Obstetric perineal trauma: An audit of training. J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;15:19–23. 10.3109/01443619509007724
    1. Hirayama F, Koyanagi A, Mori R, et al. . Prevalence and risk factors for third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations during vaginal delivery: a multi-country study. BJOG 2012;119:340–7. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03210.x
    1. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. . Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458–65.
    1. Fernando RJ, Sultan AH, Radley S, et al. . Management of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review & national practice survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2002;2:9 10.1186/1472-6963-2-9
    1. Bick DE, Ismail KM, Macdonald S, et al. . How good are we at implementing evidence to support the management of birth related perineal trauma? A UK wide survey of midwifery practice. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012;12:57 10.1186/1471-2393-12-57

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa