Adherence to screening and management guidelines of maternal Group B Streptococcus colonization in pregnancy.
Sabine Pangerl, Deborah Sundin, Sadie Geraghty
PMID 35429021WHAT IT FOUND
Pregnant women in midwifery-led care were screened for Group B Streptococcus far less often than those in other models, and those who tested positive were less likely to receive antibiotics during labour.
This gap was widest in community and private midwifery settings.
Key findings
01Adherence to antenatal GBS screening was significantly lower in the midwifery-led model (68.76%) compared to the non-midwifery-led model (90.49%).
02Among women with a positive GBS result, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 65.51% in midwifery-led care versus 78.62% in non-midwifery-led care.
03Screening adherence varied drastically by setting, with the lowest rates found in Community Midwifery Programme (48.51%) and Private Midwife (44.05%) groups.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study relied on administrative data, which may not capture the reasons for non-adherence. It did not examine correlations between specific demographic characteristics and adherence rates. The quality of swab collection and laboratory techniques was not assessed. The data were from Western Australia, so findings may not generalize to other regions with different healthcare models.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that midwifery-led care is inherently unsafe or that midwives are negligent. The lower adherence rates may reflect differing philosophies on medicalization and informed consent rather than a lack of competence, but the gap in screening and prophylaxis remains a patient safety concern that requires standardized education and protocol adherence.