Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland.

Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health care team and the parents have to recognise that in the light of a very poor prognosis the burden of the currently used therapies has become disproportionate, intensive care measures are no longer justified and other aspects of care (e.g., relief of pain and suffering) are the new priorities (i.e., redirection of care). If a decision is made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies, the health care team should focus on comfort care for the dying infant and support for the parents.

'Doctor, what would you do in my position?' Health professionals and the decision-making process in pregnancy monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Routine prenatal screening for Down syndrome challenges professional non-directiveness and patient autonomy in daily clinical practices. This paper aims to describe how professionals negotiate their role when a pregnant woman asks them to become involved in the decision-making process implied by screening. METHODS: Forty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with gynaecologists-obstetricians (n=26) and midwives (n=15) in a large Swiss city. RESULTS: Three professional profiles were constructed along a continuum that defines the relative distance or proximity towards patients' demands for professional involvement in the decision-making process. The first profile insists on enforcing patient responsibility, wherein the healthcare provider avoids any form of professional participation. A second profile defends the idea of a shared decision making between patients and professionals. The third highlights the intervening factors that justify professionals' involvement in decisions. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate various applications of the principle of autonomy and highlight the complexity of the doctor-patient relationship amidst medical decisions today.

Risk perception by healthcare professionals related to drug use during pregnancy: a Swiss survey.

PRINCIPLE: Healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perception of risk associated with drug use in pregnancy may have an impact on the pharmacological treatment of some women. The aim of this study was to examine this risk perception in a sample of Swiss HCPs with a special focus on their knowledge and use of available specialised information sources. METHOD: An online, French and German, questionnaire was e-mailed to 7,136 members of four Swiss professional societies (gynaecologists, paediatricians, midwives and pharmacists). The questionnaire was designed (a) to collect demographic characteristics, (b) to evaluate the frequency of use of several specialised sources of information on drugs in pregnancy in their daily practice, and (c) to examine the perception of risk associated with drug use during pregnancy. RESULTS: A total of 1,310 questionnaires were collected (response rate of 18.4%). More than 80% of the respondent HCPs use the Swiss Drug Reference Book (Compendium) to assess the risk associated with drugs during pregnancy and are not aware of available specialised information sources (books, websites or information centres). Despite some disparities between HPCs, the risk related to drug intake was overall highly misperceived. Blinded reading of three product monographs in the Compendium was associated with an overestimated perception of risk (e.g., after reading the "paracetamol" monograph, 38% of the participants stated they would probably not advise the use of this drug to a pregnant patient). CONCLUSION: Overall, an overestimation of the risk associated with drug use during pregnancy has been observed in our sample of HCPs, which might be related to the underuse of specialised information source among other factors. These findings evidenced the need for increased training for HCPs in order to optimise medication use during pregnancy. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and identify causes.

Termination of pregnancy among teenagers - why more surgical terminations?

Introduction: In 2012, a study by K. Chatziioannidou and S-C. Renteria showed that teenagers chose to undergo a surgical termination of pregnancy (TOP) more often than a medical TOP (mifepristone followed by misoprostol) when they decided to terminate a pregnancy. It also showed that the teenagers' choice for a medical versus surgical method is inversely proportional to the adults' choice although the efficiency of the medical method showed even better results for teenagers than for adults. According to the hypothesis made, the reasons for this choice might be influenced by the following facts: (i) the belated call to make an appointment, the medical procedure not being available after 9 weeks of gestation; (ii) the imperative request for confidentiality; (iii) the beliefs and subjective appreciation of the medical staff. Objectives: The aim of this retrospective and qualitative study is to analyse the reasons why, in case of a TOP, teenagers chose the surgical method more often than their adult counterparts. Material: (i) All teenagers who were admitted for an abortive procedure during 2011 in the in- or outpatient ward. (ii) The professional team (midwives and sexual and reproductive counsellors) in charge in the case of a TOP request. Methods: The information about the patient's history and the biopsycho- social data was retrieved from the patient files filled out by midwives and sexual and reproductive health counsellors during the first appointment for a TOP request or during its process. The professionals' appreciation was evaluated by means of a semi-structured questionnaire. Results: Concerning the choice of the method for a pregnancy termination, the results of our research show that: (i) Out of 47 teenagers, 27 chose the surgical method and 17 the medical method. (ii) Three had a second trimester abortion (which includes use of the medical method). (iii) Fifteen teenagers out of the 27 who chose a surgical method consulted between the 9th and 14th weeks of amenorrhoea and therefore did not have any other choice. The reasons for their 'late arrival' will be explained in detail. The 12 teenagers who arrived before the 8th week of amenorrhoea and chose to undertake abortion by suction & curettage under general anaesthesia did it for the following reasons: (i) Four were afraid of bleeding and pain. (ii) Five thought that the organisation of the surgical procedure was easier. (iii) Two did not trust the abortion pill. (iv) One was taken to her mother's gynaecologist where she had a D&C. Confidentiality was requested nine times out of 27 when choosing the surgical method, and six times out of 17 when choosing the medical method. Therefore, although confidentiality concerns a third of the teenagers' pregnancy termination requests, it does not seem to be a significant element for the choice of the method. As for the subjective appreciation of the professionals, the first results of the discussions seem to show that teenagers were reluctant or resistant towards the medical method. Conclusion: This study shows that the reasons why teenagers still prefer the use of the surgical over the medical method compared to adults, seem to include the late request for an appointment, fear of pain and bleeding and organisational issues. Confidentiality does not seem to greatly influence the teenagers' choice. Nonetheless, medical professionals seem to favour the suction curettage procedure performed under anesthesia because they associate young age with vulnerability and psychological frailty and consequently diminished ability to cope with pain and emotional distress during the medical procedures.