Implementation of the external cephalic version in breech delivery. Dutch national implementation study of external cephalic version

BackgroundBreech presentation occurs in 3 to 4% of all term pregnancies. External cephalic version (ECV) is proven effective to prevent vaginal breech deliveries and therefore it is recommended by clinical guidelines of the Royal Dutch Organisation for Midwives (KNOV) and the Dutch Society for Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG). Implementation of ECV does not exceed 50 to 60% and probably less.We aim to improve the implementation of ECV to decrease maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality due to breech presentations. This will be done by defining barriers and facilitators of implementation of ECV in the Netherlands. An innovative implementation strategy will be developed based on improved patient counselling and thorough instructions of health care providers for counselling.Method/designThe ultimate purpose of this implementation study is to improve counselling of pregnant women and information of clinicians to realize a better implementation of ECV.The first phase of the project is to detect the barriers and facilitators of ECV. The next step is to develop an implementation strategy to inform and counsel pregnant women with a breech presentation, and to inform and educate care providers. In the third phase, the effectiveness of the developed implementation strategy will be evaluated in a randomised trial. The study population is a random selection of midwives and gynaecologists from 60 to 100 hospitals and practices. Primary endpoints are number of counselled women. Secondary endpoints are process indicators, the amount of fetes in cephalic presentation at birth, complications due to ECV, the number of caesarean sections and perinatal condition of mother and child. Cost effectiveness of the implementation strategy will be measured.DiscussionThis study will provide evidence for the cost effectiveness of a structural implementation of external cephalic versions to reduce the number of breech presentations at term.Trial RegistrationDutch Trial Register (NTR): 1878

[1]  M. Cabana,et al.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. , 1999, JAMA.

[2]  Y. Yogev,et al.  Changing attitudes toward mode of delivery and external cephalic version in breech presentations , 2002, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[3]  R. Grol,et al.  Personal paper: Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice , 1997 .

[4]  S. Bewley,et al.  The introduction of external cephalic version at term into routine clinical practice. , 1993, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[5]  Andrew R. Willan,et al.  Planned Caesarean Section Versus Planned Vaginal Birth for Breech Presentation at Term: A Randomised Multicentre Trial , 2001 .

[6]  G. Visser,et al.  Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33,824 infants , 2003, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  T. Peters,et al.  Factors associated with change in pain and disability over time: a community-based prospective observational study of hip and knee osteoarthritis. , 2005, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  T. Leung,et al.  A survey of pregnant women's attitude towards breech delivery and external cephalic version , 2000, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[9]  W Lorenz,et al.  Optimal Methods for Guideline Implementation: Conclusions From Leeds Castle Meeting , 2001, Medical care.

[10]  P. Kyle,et al.  Women's attitudes towards management of breech presentation at term , 2002, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[11]  J. Daling,et al.  The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study. , 1992, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care , 2003, The Lancet.

[13]  M. Smink,et al.  Outcome of subsequent delivery after a previous early preterm cesarean section , 2007, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[14]  B Sibbald,et al.  Indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility, and reliability. , 1998, Quality in health care : QHC.

[15]  N Freemantle,et al.  When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals? , 2001, JAMA.

[16]  R. Grol,et al.  The effect of small peer group continuous quality improvement on the clinical practice of midwives in The Netherlands. , 2003, Midwifery.

[17]  A. Barratt,et al.  Pregnant women's preferences and knowledge of term breech management, in an Australian setting. , 2004, Midwifery.

[18]  R. Johanson,et al.  Informed choice? Evidence of the persuasive power of professionals. , 2000, Journal of public health medicine.

[19]  M. Fleuren,et al.  Guidelines on anaemia: effect on primary-care midwives in The Netherlands. , 2005, Midwifery.