Objective: To explore implementation of two intrapartum trials with compelling findings: BUMPES (position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with epidural), and RESPITE (remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia). Design: Qualitative interview study. Setting: UK NHS Trusts and Universities. Sample: Purposively sampled investigators from RESPITE and BUMPES trials and clinicians providing intrapartum care: midwives, anaesthetists and obstetricians recruited using existing networks and snowball sampling. Methods: Semi-structured virtual interviews. Thematic analysis was underpinned by Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour Change Framework. Results: Twenty-nine interview participants across 19 maternity units: 11 clinical academics, 10 midwives, 4 obstetricians, 4 anaesthetists. Most (25/29) were aware of one or both trials. BUMPES had been implemented in 4/19 units (one original trial site) and RESPITE in 3/19 units (two trial sites). Access to sufficient resources, training, exposure to interventions, support from leaders, and post-trial dissemination and implementation activities all facilitated uptake of interventions. Some clinicians were opposed to the intervention or disagreed with trial conclusions. However competing priorities in terms of staff time and a plethora of initiatives in maternity care, emerged as key barrier to implementation. Conclusions: Compelling trial findings were not implemented widely, and numerous barriers and facilitators were identified. Large-scale improvement programmes and evidence-based national guidelines may mean single trials have limited potential to change practice. There is a need to examine how intervention implementation is prioritised to optimise safety outcomes in the context of workforce restrictions, limited resources and large arrays of competing priorities including statutory requirements, that have increased in maternity care.

Objective: To explore the views of female genital mutilation (FGM) survivors, men, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision. Design: Qualitative study informed by the sound of silence framework. Setting: Survivors and men were recruited from three FGM prevalent areas of England. HCPs and stakeholders were from across the UK. Sample: 44 survivors, 13 men and 44 HCPs. 10 participants at two community workshops and 30 stakeholders at a national workshop. Methods: Hybrid framework analysis of 101 interviews and three workshops. Results: There was no consensus across groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation for survivors who wished to be deinfibulated. Within group, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre-pregnancy and HCPs antenatal deinfibulation. There was no consensus for men. Participants reported that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable HCP. Decision making around deinfibulation was complex but for those who underwent surgery it helped to mitigate FGM impacts. Whilst there were examples of good practice, in general, FGM service provision was sub-optimal. Conclusion: Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised. Information should highlight that the procedure can be carried out at different time points, according to preference, and in a hospital by suitable HCPs. Future services should ideally be developed with survivors, to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines would benefit from being updated to reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in provision. Study registration number ISRCTN 14710507