BackgroundHow women experience childbirth is acknowledged as critical to the postnatal wellbeing of mother and baby. However there is a knowledge deficit in identifying the important elements of these experiences in order to enhance care. This study elicits women’s preferences for the most important elements of their childbirth experiences.MethodsA mixed methods design was used. An initial qualitative phase (reported previously) was followed by a second quantitative one using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), which is reported on here. Participants who had experienced labour, were over 18 and had a healthy baby were recruited from four randomly selected and one pilot hospital in the Republic of Ireland. Data were collected by means of a DCE survey instrument. Questions were piloted, refined, and then arranged in eight pair-wise scenarios. Women identified their preferences by choosing one scenario over another. Nine hundred and five women were sent the DCE three months after childbirth, with a response rate of 59.3% (N =531).ResultsWomen clearly identified priorities for their childbirth experiences as: the availability of pain relief, partnership with the midwife, and individualised care being the most important attributes. In the context of other choices, women rated decision-making, presence of a consultant, and interventions as less important elements. Comments from open questions provided contextual information about their choices.ConclusionsMost women did not want to be typified as wanting the dichotomy of ‘all natural’ or ‘all technology’ births but wanted ‘the best of both worlds’. The results suggest that availability of pain relief was the most important element of women’s childbirth experiences, and superseded all other elements including partnership with the midwife which was the second most important attribute. The preferences identified might reflect the busy medicalised hospital environments, in which the vast majority of women had given birth, and may differ in settings such as midwifery led care or home births.
Clinical nursing documentation, written, verbal or supported by technology, is being affected by both the worldwide "information explosion" and budgetary constraints. In Australia, the necessity of documenting complex care needs and treatment plans in older adult care settings has become more imperative because funding levels and sources are frequently tied to these documents. As a consequence, the statutory requirements for documentation have become a significant driving force in shaping nursing practice. Although the value of quality documentation is or should be recognized, the seemingly vast amounts of time required inevitably distracts nurses from what they see as their primary purpose-the provision of direct patient care. Older adults who are frail are among the most complex clients requiring services in what is traditionally a poorly resourced sector. Under-funding frequently impacts on the staff skill mix, resulting in low levels of senior, highly qualified, and skilled staff. These factors impact the quality of the documentation and possibly the usage of the information itself. This article will provide an overview of the issues related to documentation of clinical information in older adult care settings with particular reference to some of the "unique" inefficiencies inherent in the Australian system.
Background:At the time of birth, the baby is attached to its mother’s placenta via the umbilical cord. A delay in cord clamping is physiologically beneficial to the neonate as they receive an increase in blood volume (30%–40%), increased iron stores (20–30mg/kg), and an easier transition to extrauterine life. Active management of the third stage of labor, in order to prevent maternal postpartum hemorrhage, may contribute to early cord clamping practices in Ireland. Objective:To describe the current practices and attitudes of midwives in Irish hospitals toward delayed cord clamping in term neonates. Methods:A cross-sectional descriptive survey was distributed to three maternity hospitals and two Irish online midwifery groups. Results:One hundred and fifty-three valid responses were received. One hundred and eleven midwives (72.4%) defined delayed cord clamping as “clamping after the cord ceases to pulsate.” One hundred and forty (91.5%) respondents practiced delayed cord clamping. Moreover, 62.7 % (98/153) of participants routinely clamp the umbilical cord >1 minute when practicing active management of the third stage, with 49.1% (48/98) of those waiting until cord pulsations have ceased. Awareness of research, practice guidelines advising delayed cord clamping, and experience of practicing physiological third stage are associated with increased delayed cord clamping practices. Early cord clamping is influenced by a deteriorating neonatal or maternal condition and the cultural context within clinical sites. Delayed cord clamping times during active management of the third stage differ significantly between clinical sites and maternity care pathways.Conclusion:A variety of midwifery practices were identified with differing attitudes toward cord clamping practices. Diverse influences included the practice environment, awareness of research, and availability of adjunct resuscitation supports. Recommendations for future practice include a synchronized approach to delayed cord clamping in the third stage of labor, including the provision of a national guideline.
Aim To outline the traditional worldviews of healthcare research and discuss the benefits and challenges of using mixed methods approaches in contributing to the development of nursing and midwifery knowledge.Background There has been much debate about the contribution of mixed methods research to
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.