Practice variation of test procedures reportedly used in routine antenatal care in The Netherlands

Background. Pregnant women are encouraged to book for antenatal care. However, little is known about the contents of antenatal care, in particular regarding various test procedures. The present descriptive study was conducted to assess the variation in standard test procedures in antenatal care in The Netherlands. Methods. A nationwide structured survey by mailed questionnaire was carried out among specialist obstetricians and midwives in The Netherlands. Representatives of each obstetric practice registered with the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (n=132) and a sample of midwives registered with the Dutch Society of Midwives (n=394) were invited to report the standard policy of tests routinely used for antenatal care in their own setting. Furthermore, they were asked to report their views on the potential impact of the antenatal care program on pregnancy outcome. Results. Complete information was available from 105 specialist obstetricians (80%) and 281 midwives (71%). The assessment of maternal blood pressure and weight are reportedly the commonest procedures routinely conducted during the antenatal period. However, within each profession reported definitions and implications of abnormal findings vary markedly, especially in the fields of identification and management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Serial examination of the cervix is not standard policy among both groups. With respect to laboratory tests, considerable intra- and interprofessional variations are reported, in particular those for maternal serum glucose, rubella antibody titer and urinary dipstick for glucose and protein. As to standard ultrasound policies, wide intra- and interprofessional variations are noted. Seventy-two specialist obstetricians (68%) and 92 midwives (33%) routinely estimate the duration of gestation by ultrasound in pregnant women (p<0.001). A fetal anomaly scan at about 18-20 weeks' gestation is routinely offered to pregnant women by 31 specialist obstetricians (30%) and 44 midwives (16%) (p<0.01); 29 obstetricians (28%) and 11 midwives (4%) reportedly use ultrasound in all pregnant women for the detection of fetal growth restriction (p<0.001). Overall, midwives have a more optimistic view about the impact of antenatal care on pregnancy outcome than obstetricians. Conclusions. Although the standard package of antenatal care provided by both specialist obstetricians and midwives in The Netherlands seems to be relatively uniform, wide intra- and interprofessional variations exist with respect to (1) the application of tests in terms of recommendations to test some or all pregnant women, (2) defining normal from abnormal and (3) potential implications of abnormal findings.