Conclusion:This study provides the first national evaluation of a significant proportion of women choosing publicly funded homebirth in Australia; however, the sample size does not have sufficient power to draw a conclusion about safety. More research is warranted into the safety of alternative places of birth within Australia. AbstractChristine Catling-Paull RN, RM, MMid, Lecturer in Midwifery
Problem: Midwifery-led continuity of care has well documented evidence of benefits for mothers and babies, however uptake of these models by Australian maternity services has been slow. Background: It is estimated that only 10% of women have access to midwifery-led continuity of care in Australia. The Quality Maternal Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework has been developed as a way to implement and upscale health systems that meet the needs of childbearing women and their infants. The Framework can be used to explore the qualities of existing maternity services. Aim: We aimed to use the QMNC Framework to explore the qualities of midwifery-led continuity of care in two distinct settings in Australia with recommendations for replication of the model in similar settings. Methods: Data were collected from services users and service providers via focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to develop initial findings that were then mapped back to the QMNC Framework. Findings: Good quality care was facilitated by Fostering connection, Providing flexibility for women and midwives and Having a sense of choice and control. Barriers to the provision of quality care were: Contested care and Needing more preparation for unexpected outcomes. Discussion: Midwifery-led continuity of carer models shift the power dynamic from a hierarchical one, to one of equality between women and midwives facilitating informed decision making. There are ongoing issues with collaboration between general practice, obstetrics and midwifery. Maternity services have a responsibility to address the challenges of contested care and to prepare women for all possible outcomes to ensure women experience the best quality care as described in the Framework. Conclusion: The QMNC Framework is a useful tool for exploring the facilitators and barriers to the widespread provision of midwifery-led continuity of care.
Problem: Midwifery-led continuity of care has well documented evidence of benefits for mothers and babies, however uptake of these models by Australian maternity services has been slow. Background:It is estimated that only 10% of women have access to midwifery-led continuity of care in Australia. The Quality Maternal Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework has been developed as a way to implement and upscale health systems that meet the needs of childbearing women and their infants. The Framework can be used to explore the qualities of existing maternity services. Aim:We aimed to use the QMNC Framework to explore the qualities of midwifery-led continuity of care in two distinct settings in Australia with recommendations for replication of the model in similar settings.Methods: Data were collected from services users and service providers via focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to develop initial findings that were then mapped back to the QMNC Framework.Findings: Good quality care was facilitated by Fostering connection, Providing flexibility for women and midwives and Having a sense of choice and control. Barriers to the provision of quality care were: Contested care and Needing more preparation for unexpected outcomes.Discussion: Midwifery-led continuity of carer models shift the power dynamic from a hierarchical one, to one of equality between women and midwives facilitating informed decision making. There are ongoing issues with collaboration between general practice, obstetrics and midwifery. Maternity services have a responsibility to address the challenges of contested care and to prepare women for all possible outcomes to ensure women experience the best quality care as described in the Framework. Conclusion:The QMNC Framework is a useful tool for exploring the facilitators and barriers to the widespread provision of midwifery-led continuity of care.
Conclusion: This study provides the first national evaluation of a significant proportion of women choosing publicly funded homebirth in Australia; however, the sample size does not have sufficient power to draw a conclusion about safety. More research is warranted into the safety of alternative places of birth within Australia.
Background A new wireless and beltless monitoring device utilising fetal and maternal electrocardiography (ECG) and uterine electromyography, known as ‘non-invasive fetal ECG’ (NIFECG) was registered for clinical use in Australia in 2018. The safety and reliability of NIFECG has been demonstrated in controlled settings for short periods during labour. As far as we are aware, at the time our study commenced, this was globally the first trial of such a device in an authentic clinical setting for the entire duration of a woman’s labour. Methods This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using NIFECG fetal monitoring for women undergoing continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour and birth. Women were eligible to participate in the study if they were at 36 weeks gestation or greater with a singleton pregnancy, planning to give birth vaginally and with obstetric indications as per local protocol (NSW Health Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guideline GL2018_025. 2018) for continuous intrapartum fetal monitoring. Written informed consent was received from participating women in antenatal clinic prior to the onset of labour. This single site clinical feasibility study took place between January and July 2020 at the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to inform the analysis of results using the NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale up, Spread and Sustainability) framework, a validated tool for analysing the implementation of new health technologies into clinical settings. Results Women responded positively about the comfort and freedom of movement afforded by the NIFECG. Midwives reported that when no loss of contact occurred, the device enabled them to focus less on the technology and more on supporting women’s physical and emotional needs during labour. Midwives and obstetricians noticed the benefits for women but expressed a need for greater certainty about the reliability of the signal. Conclusion The NIFECG device enables freedom of movement and positioning for labouring women and was well received by women and the majority of clinicians. Whilst measurement of the uterine activity was reliable, there was uncertainty for clinicians in relation to loss of contact of the fetal heart rate. If this can be ameliorated the device shows potential to be used as routinely as cardiotocography (CTG) for fetal monitoring. This is the first time the NASSS framework has been used to synthesise the implementation needs of a health technology in the care of women during labour and birth. Our findings contribute new knowledge about the determinants for implementation of a complex technology in a maternity care setting. Trial registration The Universal Trial Number is reU1111-1228-9845 and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration Number is 12619000293167p. Trial registration occurred on the 20 February, 2019. The trial protocol may be viewed at http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377027
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.