Search

Background Multi-country studies assessing the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by WHO Standards, are lacking. Methods Women who gave birth in 12 countries of the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020 - March 15, 2021 answered an online questionnaire, including 40 WHO Standard-based Quality Measures. Findings 21,027 mothers were included in the analysis. Among those who experienced labour (N=18,063), 41·8% (26·1%- 63·5%) experienced difficulties in accessing antenatal care, 62% (12·6%-99·0%) were not allowed a companion of choice, 31·1% (16·5%-56·9%) received inadequate breastfeeding support, 34·4% (5·2%-64·8%) reported that health workers were not always using protective personal equipment, and 31·8% (17·8%-53·1%) rated the health workers’ number as “insufficient”. Episiotomy was performed in 20·1% (6·1%-66·0%) of spontaneous vaginal births and fundal pressure applied in 41·2% (11·5% -100%) of instrumental vaginal births. In addition, 23·9% women felt they were not treated with dignity (12·8%-59·8%), 12·5% (7·0%-23·4%) suffered abuse, and 2·4% (0·1%-26·2%) made informal payments. Most findings were significantly worse among women with prelabour caesarean birth (N=2,964). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant differences among countries, with Croatia, Romania, Serbia showing significant lower QMNC Indexes and Luxemburg showing a significantly higher QMNC Index than the total sample. Younger women and those with operative births also reported significantly lower QMNC Indexes. Interpretation Mothers reports revealed large inequities in QMNC across countries of the WHO European Region. Quality improvement initiatives to reduce these inequities and promote evidence-based, patient-centred respectful care for all mothers and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond are urgently needed. Funding The study was financially supported by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336 This research was funded by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste Italy.

The nature of hospital activity is changing in many countries, with some experiencing a broad trend towards the creation of hospital groups or chains and multi-hospital networks. This study seeks to contribute to the understanding of experiences in other countries about the extent to which different hospital “models” may provide lessons for hospital provision in England by means of a review of four countries: France, Germany, Ireland and the United States, with England included for comparison. We find that there has been a trend towards privatisation and the formation of hospital groups in France, Germany, and the United States although it is important to understand the underlying market structure in these countries explaining the drivers for hospital consolidation. Thus, and in contrast to the NHS, in France, Germany, and the United States, private hospitals contribute to the delivery of publicly funded healthcare services. There is limited evidence suggesting that different forms of hospital cooperation, such as hospital groups, networks or systems, may have different impacts on hospital performance. Available evidence suggests that hospital consolidation may lead to quality improvements as increased size allows for more costly investments and the spreading of investment risk. There is also evidence that a higher volume of certain services such as surgical procedures is associated with better quality of care. However, the association between size and efficiency is not clear–cut and there is a need to balance “quality risk” associated with low volumes and “access risk” associated with the closure of services at the local level.

Choice of healthcare provider has become an increasingly important feature of healthcare policy in many countries. Much of the debate has focused on choice of secondary provider, while choice in relation to primary care has received less attention. In England, following the introduction of increased choice of secondary care provider in the early 2000s, recent reform efforts foresee the implementation of free choice of GP practice following a 12-month pilot scheme during 2012 and 2013. In light of the proposed changes in England, we sought to understand\ud choice of primary care provider as a policy issue in different health systems in Europe. A literature review was undertaken, complemented by country case studies involving document review and key informant interviews. We examined\ud three countries, Finland, Norway and Sweden, on the basis that these had\ud recently introduced changes to choice of primary care provider.

This report seeks to help inform the further development of medical education and training for primary care in Germany. It explores approaches to medical education and training in a small number of high-income countries and how these seek to address shortages of doctors practising in primary or ambulatory care through reforming their education and training systems. It does so by means of an exploratory analysis of the experiences of three countries: England, France and the Netherlands, with Germany included for comparison. Data collection involved a review of the published and grey literature, using a structured template, complemented by information provided by key informants in the selected countries. The report sets out the general context within which the medical education and training systems in the four countries operate, and describe the education and training pathways for general practice for each. We highlight options for medical education and training in Germany that arise from this study by placing our observations in the context of ongoing reform activity. This study will be of relevance for decisionmakers and practitioners concerned with ensuring a medical workforce that is prepared for the demands in a changing healthcare environment.

More than ten years ago, in March 2002, a meeting of the European Council in Barcelona established a set of targets known as the ‘Barcelona targets’. Member States adopted targets to improve the rate of employment of parents of young children and, in particular, women in an effort to achieve greater gender equality in the workforce. This initiative and the material in this report can also be seen in the context of the EU’s social inclusion objective, as parental employment, and particularly maternal employment, has been shown to be the main safeguard against child poverty (Lichter & Eggebeen 1994).