Integrated care is seen as an enabling strategy in organising healthcare to improve quality, finances, personnel and sustainability. Developments in the organisation of maternity care follow this trend. The way care is organised should support the general aims and outcomes of healthcare systems. Organisation itself consists of a variety of smaller ‘elements of organisation’. Various elements of organisation are implemented in different organisations and networks. We will examine which elements of integrated maternity care are associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, experiences of women and professionals, healthcare spending and care processes.

We will conduct this review using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the reporting guideline PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews). We will undertake a systematic search in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and PsycINFO. A machine learning tool, ASReview, will be used to select relevant papers. These papers will be analysed and classified thematically using the framework of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC). The Population Concept Context framework for scoping reviews will be used in which ‘Population’ is defined as elements of the organisation of integrated maternity care, ‘Context’ as high-income countries and ‘Concepts’ as outcomes stated in the objective of this review. We will include papers from 2012 onwards, in Dutch or English language, which describe both ‘how the care is organised’ (elements) and ‘outcomes’.

Since this is a scoping review of previously published summary data, ethical approval for this study is not needed. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed international journal, discussed in a webinar and presented at (inter)national conferences and meetings of professional associations.

The findings of this scoping review will give insight into the nature and effectiveness of elements of integrated care and will generate hypotheses for further research.

The aim of this multicentre COVID-PREDICT study (a nationwide observational cohort study that aims to better understand clinical course of COVID-19 and to predict which COVID-19 patients should receive which treatment and which type of care) was to determine the association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, complications and discharge destination in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

Data from a historical cohort study in eight hospitals (both academic and non-academic) in the Netherlands between January 2020 and July 2021 were used in this study.

3064 hospitalised COVID-19 patients >18 years old.

The primary outcome was the incidence of new-onset AF during hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were the association between new-onset AF (vs prevalent or non-AF) and mortality, ICU admissions, complications and discharge destination, performed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Of the 3064 included patients (60.6% men, median age: 65 years, IQR 55–75 years), 72 (2.3%) patients had prevalent AF and 164 (5.4%) patients developed new-onset AF during hospitalisation. Compared with patients without AF, patients with new-onset AF had a higher incidence of death (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.59) an ICU admission (aOR 5.45, 95% CI 3.90 to 7.61). Mortality was non-significantly different between patients with prevalent AF and those with new-onset AF (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76). However, new-onset AF was associated with a higher incidence of ICU admission and complications compared with prevalent AF (OR 6.34, 95% CI 2.95 to 13.63, OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.55, respectively).

New-onset AF was associated with an increased incidence of death, ICU admission, complications and a lower chance to be discharged home. These effects were far less pronounced in patients with prevalent AF. Therefore, new-onset AF seems to represent a marker of disease severity, rather than a cause of adverse outcomes.