Lamppa, Julie A.

Introduction Out‐of‐hospital community births account for 1.6% to 2% of births in the United States and are associated with fewer obstetric interventions but increased neonatal risk. Little is known about how maternity care providers’ characteristics, values, and prior exposure to community birth influence attitudes toward community birth. Methods We conducted an observational cross‐sectional survey using a 40 to 43 item Research Electronic Data Capture questionnaire distributed October 2 to 30, 2024. Eligible participants (“providers”) included in‐hospital physicians, midwives, community birth providers, and registered nurses. The survey assessed demographics, practice characteristics, provider values, prior community birth experience, and attitudes toward community birth. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics. Group comparisons between in‐hospital and community birth providers were conducted using analysis of variance and χ 2 or Fisher exact tests. Associations between attitudes and provider values were evaluated using linear models with Bonferroni correction. Results Sixty‐seven providers completed the survey (51 in hospital, 16 community based). Most respondents were female (89.6%) and White (77.6%), with a median of 7 years in practice (IQR, 3‐14.5). Attitudes significantly differed by role ( P = .007) and credentials ( P = .002). In‐hospital providers reported safety concerns about community birth and perceived antenatal counseling to be inadequate. Perceived patient distrust during transfer was common among both in‐hospital and community‐based providers (69% and 81%, respectively). After adjustment for provider role and multiple comparisons, no significant differences in personal values were noted by attitude group; however, providers with positive attitudes toward community birth were more likely to believe that patients value compassion (β = 2.3, P = .004). Discussion Provider attitudes toward community birth appear to be shaped more by professional role and clinical experience than by differences in underlying value systems. High levels of perceived patient distrust during transfer highlight the need for interventions that strengthen compassion across maternity care settings.

Abstract Early pregnancy loss can have a profound impact on the lives of women and their families, but the experience is often underacknowledged, with the diverse and complex needs of these women not always being met. Health care providers are in a unique position to provide support, helping each woman navigate through what is often a significant event in her lifetime. In response to these gaps, a large academic medical center in the upper Midwest established the Early Pregnancy Care (EPC) Clinic in 2019 as a subclinic of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The goal of the EPC Clinic is to standardize the management of early pregnancy loss and related concerns to ensure each woman receives timely, holistic, and patient‐centered care that fully encompasses the physical and emotional needs of the patient and her family. The EPC Clinic is run by a small, dedicated team of certified nurse‐midwives and registered nurses in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team, providing comprehensive care to women with a confirmed early pregnancy loss, first trimester bleeding, pregnancy of unknown location, inconclusive viability, or a history of a prior early pregnancy loss, including ectopic and molar pregnancies. Team members coordinate timely visits and evaluation, offer comprehensive management options, and provide bereavement care and resources. Follow‐up care is arranged to monitor each woman's physical and emotional recovery following a loss, including check‐ins with consistent members of the team to maintain continuity of care. Anecdotal evidence as well as Press‐Ganey surveys obtained from patients and their families have demonstrated the exceptional value of the EPC Clinic. In this article, we outline our EPC Clinic's components and processes and discuss strategies that may benefit other health care systems aspiring to develop similar programs to improve early pregnancy loss care and the patient experience.

Abstract Introduction: Iron deficiency (ID) is a global epidemic with discrepant definitions of both ID and anemia in pregnancy. Iron requirements increase during pregnancy and deficiencies should be corrected to avoid adverse maternal-fetal outcomes. Current guidelines recommend only screening for ID during pregnancy in the presence of anemia despite the global epidemic of ID in reproductive-age females and availability of ferritin as a high-value biomarker. To address this unmet need and gap in care, we implemented a standardized approach to screening and treating ID in pregnancy. Methods: In March 2024 at the ASH Quality Improvement Training Institute, our multidisciplinary team with representatives from hematology, obstetrics, anesthesiology, and patient blood management developed a quality improvement (QI) initiative to standardize an approach to screening and treating ID in pregnancy. After local dissemination and education of the standardized care pathway via patient/provider handouts and divisional presentations, obstetric providers paired ferritin testing with two standard hemoglobin assessments in early (8-12 weeks gestation) and late (24-28 weeks gestation) pregnancy to minimize lab draws and optimize logistics. The process was facilitated by modifying prenatal order sets in the electronic medical record. ID was defined as a ferritin <50 mcg/L and anemia was defined as a hemoglobin <11 g/dL. If ID was present in early pregnancy, oral iron supplementation was offered; if ID was present in late pregnancy, an IV iron infusion (low molecular weight iron dextran, 1 gram) was offered regardless of anemia status. Results: Obstetric data were captured pre-intervention from January 2023 – February 2024 (n=2097 pregnancies) and post-intervention from March 2024 – June 2025 (n=2429 pregnancies). Ferritin screening rates improved from 10% (205/2097) to 63% (1534/2429). Of those ferritin tests, 66% demonstrated ID in the pre-intervention cohort and 69% demonstrated ID in the post-intervention cohort. Anemia rates by measured hemoglobin during pregnancy were 25% in both the pre-intervention and post-intervention cohorts despite 92% having documentation of prenatal vitamins containing iron (PNV). Iron dextran infusion rates improved from 0.9% (18/2097) to 21% (507/2429). Of those receiving IV iron dextran, 39% had documentation of both PNV as well as additional oral iron supplementation. Overall, the median hemoglobin improved from 10.7 to 11.8 g/dL in those receiving IV iron dextran. This included increases from 12.0 to 12.8 g/dL in those without anemia and from 11.2 to 12.1 g/dL in those with ferritin 30-50 mcg/L after IV iron. Prior to initiation of this QI project, 3.1% of pregnancies (65/2097) required a blood transfusion during admission for delivery. After initiation of this project, 2.7% of pregnancies (65/2429) required a blood transfusion, of which 46 did not receive IV iron and 33 did not have a ferritin checked. Conclusions: ID in pregnancy is underrecognized and undertreated. Through a multidisciplinary QI initiative, screening for ID improved from 10% to over 60% of pregnancies within one year of project initiation. Over the same period, there was a 20-fold increase in the number of IV iron dextran infusions resulting in an increase in median hemoglobin by over 1 g/dL and a signal for decreased transfusion requirements. This occurred despite almost universal supplementation with a PNV. This standardized approach to screening and treating ID was performed by the obstetrics teams and could be implemented within varied practice models. Given the potential implications for reevaluation of appropriate reference ranges and equitable prenatal care globally, additional studies are warranted to better characterize ID in pregnancy as well as clinical sequelae for both mothers and infants. Simultaneously, discussions are needed around current guidelines and recommendations for both screening and treating ID in pregnancy.

Abstract Obstetric training programs typically offer limited formal education on placental pathology; yet, in practice, obstetric providers are expected to incorporate placental pathology findings into the overall evaluation of obstetric complications. In this narrative review, we briefly review pathology classifications and then delve deeper into pathology findings that may change clinical decision‐making, specifically highlighting pathologic lesions with a recurrence risk and recommended management for subsequent pregnancies. Last, we present specific recommendations on how to improve clinical interpretability and utility of placental pathology reports for obstetrical practice.