Skip to main content
  1. Right Decisions
  2. GGC - Clinical Guideline Platform
  3. Maternity
  4. Back
  5. Infections (Maternity)
  6. Group B Streptococcal Prophylaxis (570)
Announcements and latest updates

Right Decision Service newsletter: April 2024

Welcome to the Right Decision Service (RDS) newsletter for April 2024. 

Issues with RDS and Umbraco access

Tactuum has been working hard to address the issues experienced during the last week. They have identified a series of three mitigation measures and put the first of these in place on Friday 3rd May.  If this does not resolve the problems, the second mitigation will be actioned, and then the third if necessary.

Please keep a lookout for any slowing down of the system or getting locked out. Please email myself, mbuchner@tactuum.com and onivarova@tactuum.com if you experience any problems, and also please raise an urgent support ticket via the Support Portal.

Thank you for your patience and understanding while we achieve a full resolution.

Promotion and communication resources

A rotating carousel presenting some of the key RDS tools and capabilities, and an editable slideset, are now available in the Resources for RDS providers section of the Learning and Support toolkit.

Redesign and improvements to RDS

The redesign of RDS Search and Browse is still on-track for delivery by mid-June 2024. We then plan to have a 3-week user acceptance testing phase before release to live. All editors and toolkit owners on this mailing list will be invited to participate in the UAT.

The archiving and version control functionality is also progressing well and we will advise on timescales for user acceptance testing shortly.

Tactuum is also progressing with the deep linking to individual toolkits within the mobile RDS app. There are several unknowns around the time and effort required for this work, which will only become clear as the work progresses. So we need to be careful to protect budget for this purpose.

New feature requests

These have all been compiled and effort estimated. Once the redesign work is complete, these will be prioritised in line with the remaining budget. We expect this to take place around late June.

Evaluation

Many thanks to those of you completed the value and impact survey we distributed in February. Here are some key findings from the 65 responses we received.

Figure 1: Impact of RDS on direct delivery of care

Key figures

  • 93% say that RDS has improved evidence-informed practice (high impact 62%; some impact 31%)
  • 91% report that RDS has improved consistency in practice (high impact 65%, some impact 26%)
  • 85% say that RDS has improved patient safety (high impact 59%, some impact 26%)
  • Although shared decision-making tools are only a recent addition to RDS, and only represent a small proportion of the current toolset, 85% of respondents still said that RDS had delivered impact in this area (53% high impact, 32% some impact.) 92% anticipate that RDS will deliver impact on shared decision-making in future and 85% believe it will improve delivery of personalised care in future.

Figure 2 shows RDS impact to date on delivery of health and care services

 

Key figures

These data show how RDS is already contributing to NHS reform priorities and supporting delivery of more sustainable care.

Saving time and money

  • RDS clearly has a strong impact on saving practitioner time, with 90% of respondents reporting that this is the case. 65% say it has a high impact; 25% say it has some impact on time-saving.
  • It supports devolved decision-making across the multi-professional team (85% of respondents)
  • 76% of respondents confirm that it saves money compared, for example, to investing in commercial apps (54% high impact; 22% some impact.)
  • 72% believe it has impacted already on saving money and reducing waste in the way services are delivered – e.g. reducing costs of referral management, prescribing, admissions.

Quality assurance and governance

  • RDS leads are clear that RDS has improved local governance of guidelines, with 87% confirming that this is the case. (62% high impact; 25% some impact.)

Service innovation and workforce development

  • RDS is a major driver for service innovation and improvement (83% of respondents) and has impacted significantly on workforce knowledge and skills (92% of respondents – 66% high impact; 26% some impact).

New toolkits

A few examples of toolkits published to live in the last month:

Toolkits in development

Some of the toolkits the RDS team is currently working on:

  • SARCS (Sexual Assault Response Coordination Service)
  • Staffing method framework – Care Inspectorate.
  • SIGN 171 - Diabetes in pregnancy
  • SIGN 158 – British Guideline on Management of Asthma. Selected sections will be incorporated into the RDS, and complemented by a new chronic asthma pathway being developed by SIGN, British Thoracic Society and NICE.
  • Clinical pathways from NHS Fife and NHS Lanarkshire

Please contact his.decisionsupport@nhs.scot if you would like to learn more about a toolkit. The RDS team will put you in touch with the relevant toolkit lead.

Quality audit of RDS toolkits

Thanks to all of you who have responded to the retrospective quality audit survey and to the follow up questions.  We still have some following up to do, and to work with owners of a further 23 toolkits to complete responses. An interim report is being presented to the HIS Quality and Performance Committee.

Implementation projects

Eight clinical services and two public library services are undertaking tests of change to implement the Being a partner in my care app. This app aims to support patients and the public to become active participants in Realistic Medicine. It has a strong focus on personalised, person-centred care and a library of shared decision aids, as well as simple explanations and videoclips to help the public to understand the aims of Realistic Medicine.  The tests of change will inform guidance and an implementation model around wider adoption and spread of the app.

With kind regards

Right Decision Service team

Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Group B Streptococcal Prophylaxis (570)

Warning

Audience

This guideline is applicable to all medical, nursing in midwifery staff caring for women and neonates in Greater Glasgow & Clyde. Staff should also be familiar with the relevant drug monographs.

Please report any inaccuracies or issues with this guideline using our online form

Introduction

Group B streptococcus is the commonest cause of early onset infection in the neonatal period. The organism frequently colonises the lower vagina or anorectum and may pass to the baby following rupture of the membranes, or occasionally prior to membrane rupture in the presence of amnionitis. This guideline aims to interrupt the transmission of GBS by giving intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to the mother. Two approaches have been used to identify mothers who should be offered intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. Mothers may be identified through routine bacteriological screening during the pregnancy or based on clinical risk factors for transmission of the organism. In the UK the Royal College of Obstetricians recommends the latter approach.

In 2012, NICE published guidance on antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of early onset neonatal infection (NICE CG149). This includes advice on maternal risk factors which warrant the use of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. It also includes advice on the management of babies born to mothers with intrapartum risk factors, or where there are abnormal signs or symptoms in the baby, indicating an increased risk of early onset infection (including with Group B Streptococcus). All such babies are monitored using a Neonatal Early Warning Screening (NEWS) chart and some will receive antibiotics if there are multiple risk factors, signs or symptoms, or any single “red flag” risk factor, sign or symptom. This is all detailed in the neonatal Early Onset Sepsis (EOS) guideline.

Antenatal care

All pregnant women should be provided with an appropriate information leaflet regarding GBS.

Universal bacteriological screening is not recommended. A maternal request for screening is not an indication, but should be discussed with healthcare professionals on an individual basis.

Antenatal treatment is not recommended for GBS cultured from a vaginal or rectal swab. Women with GBS urinary tract infection (> 10cfu/ml) during pregnancy should receive appropriate treatment at the time of diagnosis, as well as intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP)

1– Prophylaxis cases

The following groups of women should be offered IAP with an intravenous antibiotic which is effective against GBS. This will be benzylpenicillin or, for penicillin sensitive women, teicoplanin.

  • Women in whom colonisation with GBS has been identified in current or previous pregnancy
  • Women with GBS bacteriuria in current or previous pregnancy
  • Women with previous baby affected by early- or late-onset neonatal GBS disease
  • Women in confirmed preterm labour< 37+0 weeks gestation

Women with GBS detected in a previous pregnancy have a 50% risk of recurrent GBS carriage and should be offered routine IAP or the option of bacteriological testing in late pregnancy, followed by IAP if still positive.

If performed, bacteriological testing should be carried out at 35-37 weeks gestation or 3-5 weeks prior to the anticipated delivery date, i.e. 32-34 weeks gestation in multiple pregnancies. A single (Amies charcoal) swab should be taken from the lower vagina and anorectum. Healthcare professionals should indicate that the swab is being taken for GBS.

2– Potentially infected women who require antibiotics that also cover GBS

In women:

  • Where chorioamnionitis is suspected
  • Who have a pyrexia during labour (> 38°C) or a temperature of ≥ 37.5°C on 2 separate occasions at least 2 hours apart or maternal sepsis with a temperature < 36°C
  • For whom the sepsis 6 bundle is triggered

Antibiotic therapy should be according to GGC guidelines but in addition, must include specific GBSprophylaxis as below.

Intrapartum prophylaxis

(to start at the onset of labour)

Benzylpenicillin 3 g IV loading infusion over 30 minutes followed every 4 hours by 1.8 g IV infusion over 30 minutes until delivery. For women who have a genuine allergy to penicillin, give Teicoplanin 12 mg/kg * over 3-5 minutes as a slow IV bolus or over 30 minutes by IV infusion every 12 hours until delivery. (See Appendix 1)

* based on most recent body weight – round each dose to nearest 100 mg (max 800 mg)

Antibiotic therapy for women with suspected chorioamnionitis, intrapartum pyrexia or sepsis should be reviewed at delivery and/or after a maximum of 48 hours.

Clinicians should be aware of the potential adverse effects of IAP including anaphylaxis.

Effective prophylaxis

Prophylaxis is more effective if the first dose is given at least 4 hours prior to delivery and continued at the correct intervals. Antibiotics should be started as soon as possible after the onset of labour and continued until delivery. Prophylaxis is considered to have lapsed if a dose is more than 1 hour late. If prophylaxis with benzylpenicillin has lapsed a 3g loading dose is required rather than the routine 1.8g dose.

NB – As the primary goal of IAP is to prevent transmission of GBS to the neonate, it is vital to give effective prophylaxis even if the baby will receive antibiotics after delivery due to the presence of other risk factors for early onset sepsis.

Women who are receiving prophylactic antibiotics for GBS in labour who require a caesarean section will still require routine co-amoxiclav or clindamycin cover  (See antibiotic guideline).

Irrespective of gestation and the presence of risk factors for GBS transmission, IAP is not required if delivery is by planned caesarean section with intact membranes and the baby is clinically well.

 

Management of rupture of membranes to reduce the risk of GBS transmission

Women with rupture of membranes at term (≥ 37+0 weeks gestation) who are known GBS carriers should be offered immediate IAP and induction of labour as soon as reasonably possible.

Bacteriological testing for GBS carriage is not recommended for women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes. IAP should be given once labour is confirmed or induced irrespective of GBS status. However, known GBS colonisation should be taken into consideration when making decisions about timing of delivery in women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes. For those at more than 34+0 weeks of gestation it may be beneficial to expedite delivery if the woman is a known GBS carrier.

Communication

It  will  be  the  responsibility  of  the  labour ward  staff  to  communicate  to  the neonatologist  the following information:

  • That risk factors for early onset neonatal GBS disease have been identified
  • Whether prophylaxis has been started and, if so, how long prior to delivery
  • Whether there is evidence of maternal sepsis

The requirement for prophylaxis should be recorded on the alert area in the maternal notes.
Remember if mother is septic ensure neonatologist informed.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Parents who decline intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis or empirical treatment for their baby

We recommend GBS prophylaxis. Intrapartum prophylaxis may be declined despite this advice. Empirical therapy for well infants born to mothers with risk factors may also be declined.

If parents decline these interventions the medical staff should ensure that they are aware of the level of risk of early onset GBS disease and the life threatening nature of GBS sepsis. The infant should remain in hospital for at least 24 hours and observations of temperature, pulse and respiratory rate performed 3 hourly and recorded on a NEWS chart.

GBS prophylaxis is offered by maternity staff to the mother and this must be adequately explained. If the clinician is unable to answer any queries then a relevant professional should be asked to address any concerns. This should conclude with a decision as to whether prophylaxis is accepted or declined and this must be clearly documented.

When prophylaxis or empirical treatment is declined by informed parents, this should be documented. It is not appropriate to suggest or instigate child protection proceedings.

The baby should be monitored on a NEWS chart and treated with antibiotics if abnormal clinical signs or symptoms are identified (refer to EOS guideline for details). Parents may not decline therapy for their baby if signs or symptoms of infection are present.

Appendix 1 Teicoplanin Dose Banding for GBS Prophylaxis

  Most recent weight   Dose (mg)
  Less than 36 kg   400mg
  36 - 45.9 kg   500mg
  46 - 53.9 kg   600mg
  54 - 61.9 kg   700mg
  62 kg or above   800mg

Editorial Information

Last reviewed: 19/02/2019

Next review date: 23/05/2024

Author(s): Ann Duncan.

Approved By: Obstetrics Clinical Governance Group

Document Id: 570

References

RCOG. Prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease. [Green-top Guideline No 36] September 2017.

NICE. Antibiotics for early-onset neonatal infection. [CG149] August 2012.