Background Estimates of the burden of maternal morbidity are patchy. Objective To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews of maternal conditions to: (1) make available the most up‐to‐date frequency estimates; (2) identify which conditions do not have reliable estimates; and (3) scrutinize the quality of the available reviews. Search strategy We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, combining terms for pregnancy, frequency (e.g. prevalence, incidence), publication type, and specific terms for each of 121 conditions. Selection criteria We included peer‐reviewed systematic reviews aiming to estimate the frequency of at least one of the conditions in WHO's list of maternal morbidities, with estimates from at least two countries. Data collection and analysis We present the frequency estimates with their uncertainty bounds by condition, region, and pregnancy/postpartum period. We also assess and present information on the quality of the systematic reviews. Main results Out of 11 930 found, 48 reviews were selected and one more was added. From 49 reviews we extracted 34 direct and 60 indirect frequency estimates covering 35 conditions. No review was available for 71% of the conditions on the WHO list. The extracted estimates show substantial maternal morbidity, spanning the time before and beyond childbirth. There were several gaps in the quality of the reviews. Notably, one‐third of the estimates were based only on facility‐based studies. Conclusions Good‐quality systematic reviews are needed for several conditions, as a research priority.

Hospital cleaning has been shown to impact on rates of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) and good environmental hygiene is critical to quality care, yet those tasked with the role of ensuring a safe and clean environment often go unrecognised as members of the healthcare workforce. Sepsis is a leading cause of maternal and newborn death, a significant proportion of these cases are estimated to be due to HCAIs. Deliveries in health institutions have now reached 75% globally, and in low and middle income countries the corresponding increased pressure on facilities has impacted both quality of care provided and quality of the birth environment in terms of infection prevention and control (IPC) and HCAIs. The paper discusses the neglected role of health facility cleaners, providing evidence from the literature and from needs assessments conducted by The Soapbox Collaborative and partners in Bangladesh, India, The Gambia and Zanzibar. While not the primary focus of the assessments, common themes emerged consistently pointing to institutional neglect of cleaning and cleaners. The paper argues that low status within facilities, wider societal marginalisation, lack of training, and poor pay and working conditions contribute to the lack of prioritisation placed on health facility environmental hygiene. With increased international attention focused towards health facility water, sanitation and hygiene and a growing focus on IPC, now is the time to address the neglect of this frontline healthcare workforce. We propose that provision of and improved training can enable the recognition of the valuable role cleaning staff play, as well as equipping these staff with the tools required to perform their job to the highest standard. In addition to training, wider systems changes are necessary to establish improvements in environmental hygiene and the role of cleaning staff, including addressing resource availability, supportive supervision, and an increased emphasis on preventative healthcare.

Hygiene during childbirth is essential to the health of mothers and newborns, irrespective of where birth takes place. This paper investigates the status of water and sanitation in both the home and facility childbirth environments, and for whom and where this is a more significant problem. We used three datasets: a global dataset, with information on the home environment from 58 countries, and two datasets for each of four countries in Eastern Africa: a healthcare facility dataset, and a dataset that incorporated information on facilities and the home environment to create a comprehensive description of birth environments in those countries. We constructed indices of improved water, and improved water and sanitation combined (WATSAN), for the home and healthcare facilities. The Joint Monitoring Program was used to construct indices for household; we tailored them to the facility context–household and facility indices include different components. We described what proportion of women delivered in an environment with improved WATSAN. For those women who delivered at home, we calculated what proportion had improved WATSAN by socio-economic status, education and rural-urban status. Among women delivering at home (58 countries), coverage of improved WATSAN by region varied from 9% to 53%. Fewer than 15% of women who delivered at home in Sub-Saharan Africa, had access to water and sanitation infrastructure (range 0.1% to 37%). This was worse among the poorest, the less educated and those living in rural areas. In Eastern Africa, where we looked at both the home and facility childbirth environment, a third of women delivered in an environment with improved water in Uganda and Rwanda; whereas, 18% of women in Kenya and 7% in Tanzania delivered with improved water and sanitation. Across the four countries, less than half of the facility deliveries had improved water, or improved water and sanitation in the childbirth environment. Access to water and sanitation during childbirth is poor across low and middle-income countries. Even when women travel to health facilities for childbirth, they are not guaranteed access to basic WATSAN infrastructure. These indicators should be measured routinely in order to inform improvements.

Our primary objective was to assess hand hygiene (HH) compliance before aseptic procedures among birth attendants in the 10 highest-volume facilities in Zanzibar. We also examined the extent to which recontamination contributes to poor HH. Recording exact recontamination occurrences is not possible using the existing World Health Organization HH audit tool. In this time-and-motion study, 3 trained coders used WOMBATv2 software to record the hand actions of all birth attendants present in the study sites. The percentage compliance and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual behaviors (hand washing/rubbing, avoiding recontamination and glove use) and for behavioral sequences during labor and delivery were calculated. We observed 104 birth attendants and 781 HH opportunities before aseptic procedures. Compliance with hand rubbing/washing was 24.6% (95% CI, 21.6-27.8). Only 9.6% (95% CI, 7.6-11.9) of birth attendants also donned gloves and avoided recontamination. Half of the time when rubbing/washing or glove donning was performed, hands were recontaminated prior to the aseptic procedure. In this study, HH compliance by birth attendants before aseptic procedures was poor. To our knowledge, this is the first study in a low- to middle-income country to show the large contribution to poor HH compliance from hand and glove recontamination before the procedure. Recontamination is an important driver of infection risk from poor HH. It should be understood for the purposes of improvement and therefore included in HH monitoring and interventions.

Background: Healthcare associated infections (HAI) are estimated to affect up to 15% of hospital inpatients in low-income countries (LICs). A critical but often neglected aspect of HAI prevention is basic environmental hygiene, particularly surface cleaning and linen management. TEACH CLEAN is an educational intervention aimed at improving environmental hygiene. We evaluated the effectiveness of this intervention in a pilot study in three high-volume maternity and newborn units in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Methods: This study design prospectively evaluated the intervention as a whole, and offered a before-and-after comparison of the impact of the main training. We measured changes in microbiological cleanliness [Aerobic Colony Counts (ACC) and presence of Staphylococcus aureus] using dipslides, and physical cleaning action using gel dots. These were analysed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. We used qualitative (focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and semi-structured observation) and quantitative (observation checklist) tools to measure why and how the intervention worked. We describe these findings across the themes of adaptation, fidelity, dose, reach and context. Results: Microbiological cleanliness improved during the study period (ACC pre-training: 19%; post-training: 41%). The odds of cleanliness increased on average by 1.33 weekly during the pre-training period (CI = 1.11–1.60), and by 1.08 (CI = 1.03–1.13) during the post-training period. Cleaning action improved only in the pre-training period. Detection of S. aureus on hospital surfaces did not change substantially. The intervention was well received and considered feasible in this context. The major pitfalls in the implementation were the limited number of training sessions at the hospital level and the lack of supportive supervision. A systems barrier to implementation was lack of regular cleaning supplies. Conclusions: The evaluation suggests that improvements in microbiological cleanliness are possible using this intervention and can be sustained. Improved microbiological cleanliness is a key step on the pathway to infection prevention in hospitals. Future research should assess whether this bundle is cost-effective in reducing bacterial and viral transmission and infection using a rigorous study design.