Search

BACKGROUND: Maternity services around the world have been disrupted since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) representing one hundred and forty-three professional midwifery associations across the world sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on women and midwives. AIM: The aim of this study was to understand the global impact of COVID-19 from the point of view of midwives' associations. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey using an on-line questionnaire was sent via email to every midwives' association member of ICM. SURVEY INSTRUMENT: The survey was developed and tested by a small global team of midwife researchers and clinicians. It consisted of 106 questions divided into seven discreet sections. Each member association was invited to make one response in either English, French or Spanish. RESULTS: Data were collected between July 2020 and April 2021. All respondents fulfilling the inclusion criteria irrespective of whether they completed all questions in the survey were eligible for analysis. All data collected was anonymous. There were 101 surveys returned from the 143 member associations across the world. Many countries reported being caught unaware of the severity of the infection and in some places, midwives were forced to make their own PPE, or reuse single use PPE. Disruption to maternity services meant women had to change their plans for place of birth; and in many countries maternity facilities were closed to become COVID-19 centres. Half of all respondents stated that women were afraid to give birth in hospitals during the pandemic resulting in increased demand for home birth and community midwifery. Midwifery students were denied access to practical or clinical placements and their registration as midwives has been delayed in many countries. More than 50% of the associations reported that governments did not consult them, and they have little or no say in policy at government levels

Background: In Australia, midwives are integral to providing safe and supportive care to women in labour. The administration of intravenous (IV) fluids is a frequent clinical intervention performed by midwives. At present, practices surrounding IV fluid administration to women during labour within Australia are largely undescribed and there is a limited amount of robust evidence available to guide practice. IV fluids do carry a risk of harm. To define and ensure safe IV fluid practices, research into practices surrounding the administration of IV fluids to women in labour is essential. Aims: To describe the current practice for registered midwives administering IV fluids to women during labour. Design: Retrospective clinical chart review and fluid balance documentation audit. Methods: A retrospective clinical chart review and audit of fluid balance documentation for 107 nulliparous women was conducted at a single metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, New South Wales between 1 October 2016 and 22 March 2017. A 24-point tool was developed to audit fluid balance charts. Results: Eighty-eight percent of the 88 fluid balance charts available scored 50% or less using the 24-point fluid balance chart audit tool. Additionally, there was an estimated 18% completion rate for the NSW IV fluid order chart. Conclusion: This study found wide variation in clinical practice and incomplete fluid balance documentation at a single, metropolitan tertiary referral hospital. The findings highlight the difficulty of determining IV fluids practices in the context of incomplete fluid balance documentation. Additionally, there are patient safety and professional regulation concerns when fluid management documentation is missing and/or incomplete. Future research should examine barriers and facilitators for documentation.

© 2019 Background: The urban-based Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service integrates multidisciplinary wrap-around services along-side continuity of midwifery care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers and babies. Aim: To evaluate the Malabar Service from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2014. Methods: A mixed method design. Outcomes for mothers of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander babies cared for at an urban Australian referral hospital by the Malabar Service were compared to mainstream. Primary outcomes are rates of low birth weight; smoking >20 weeks gestation; preterm birth; and breastfeeding at discharge. Malabar outcomes are also compared to national and state perinatal outcomes. Results: The Malabar Service (n = 505) demonstrated similar rates of preterm birth (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 0.96–4.97); breastfeeding at discharge (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 0.61–1.86); and a higher rate of low birth weight babies (aOR 3.6, 95% CI 1.02–12.9) than the comparison group (n = 201). There was a 25% reduction in smoking rates from 38.9% to 29.1%. Compared to national and state populations, Malabar outcomes were better. Women experienced greater psychosocial complexity but were well supported. Malabar Mothers (n = 9) experienced: accessibility, preparedness for birth and cultural safety. Staff (n = 13) identified going ‘above and beyond’ and teamwork to provide culturally safe care counterbalanced with concerns around funding and cultural support. Conclusions: Dedicated integrated continuity of midwifery care with wrap-around services for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander mothers is highly valued and is culturally safe. The service is as safe as main stream services and promotes better clinical outcomes compared to national and state outcomes.

© 2017 This article describes a sequence of events that led to the development of national standards for the accreditation of Australian midwifery education programmes for initial registration. This process occurred within a climate of polarised opinions about the value of the introduction of three-year degree programmes for midwives who are not nurses (known as the BMid in Australia) and concerns about the invisibility of midwifery within nursing regulation, education, policy and nomenclature. Concerted efforts to develop standards to inform the introduction of BMid programmes through a process of collective action are described. This involved arguing successfully for the positioning of midwifery as a separate profession from nursing, with a need for its own discreet regulation.

Background: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care.Methods: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'.Results: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care.Conclusions: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. BACKGROUND: Around 2 percent of women who give birth in Australia each year do so in a birth center. New South Wales, Australia's largest state, accounts for almost half of these births. Previous studies have highlighted the need for better quality data on maternal morbidity and mortality, to fully evaluate the safety of birth center care.AIMS: This study aimed to examine maternal morbidity related to birth center care for women in New South Wales.METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with matched-pairs was conducted using linked health data for New South Wales. Maternal outcomes were compared for women who intended to give birth in a birth center, matched with women who intended to give birth in the co-located hospital labor ward.RESULTS: Rates of maternal outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, and postpartum infection, were significantly lower in the birth center group, after controlling for demographic and institutional factors. Interventions such as cesarean section and episiotomy were also significantly lower in these women, and the rate of breastfeeding at discharge was higher. There existed no difference in length of stay, admission to ICU, or maternal mortality.CONCLUSIONS: Birth centers are a safe option for low-risk women; however, further research is required for some rare maternal outcomes.

Background: Induction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term.Methods: Women with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N = 101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n = 50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n = 51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction.Results: OPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p < .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p = .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p = .003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p < .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p = .001).Conclusions: OPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total in

Objective: this paper describes the pilot study that was undertaken to test the feasibility of the recruitment plan designed to recruit women who booked to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units in NSW, Australia. The pilot preceded the full prospective cohort study, Evaluating Midwifery Units (EMU), which aimed to examine the antenatal, birth and postnatal outcomes of women planning to give birth in freestanding midwifery units compared to those booked to give birth in tertiary level maternity units in Australia and New Zealand. Design: a prospective cohort study with two mutually-exclusive cohorts. Setting: two freestanding midwifery units in NSW and their corresponding tertiary referral hospitals. Participants: a total of 146 women with few identified risk factors recruited between 13 September 2009 and 31 March 2010 whose planned place of birth was either a freestanding midwifery unit or tertiary maternity unit. Measurements and findings: the pilot study identified the feasibility of relying on the booking midwife to recruit eligible women from several antenatal booking clinics to the study. Low rates of eligible women were invited resulting in a lower than expected consent rate. In addition, although mostly only low-risk women were invited to participate, some women requiring medical consultation at the time of booking were inadvertently recruited into the study. The results of this pilot study led us to revise the study protocol to find ways of including the outcomes of all women without identified risk factors who booked at either the freestanding midwifery units or the tertiary referral hospital in that area. This paper describes the revisions that were made to the study plan. Key conclusions: five lessons were learned from the pilot study. We found that recruitment protocols employed for the cohort study were too complicated and required simplification to maximise the potential of the study. The study protocol needed to be changed for the main study

Background Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identifi ed risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. Methods In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the fi rst booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by inten tion to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. Findings Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0•88, 95% CI 0•

Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant. Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial.

The current Australian national maternity reform agenda focuses on improving access to maternity care for women and their families while preserving safety and quality. The caseload midwifery model of care offers the level of access to continuity of care proposed in the reforms however the introduction of these models in Australia continues to meet with strong resistance. In many places access to caseload midwifery care is offered as a token, usually restricted to well women, within limited metropolitan and regional facilities and where available, places for women are very small as a proportion of the total service provided. This case study outlines a major clinical redesign of midwifery care at a metropolitan tertiary referral maternity hospital in Sydney. Caseload midwifery care was introduced under randomised trial conditions to provide midwifery care to 1500 women of all risk resulting in half of the publicly insured women receiving midwifery group practice care. The paper describes the organisational quality and safety tools that were utilised to facilitate the process while discussing the factors that facilitated the process and the barriers that were encountered within the workforce, operational and political context. What is known about the topic? Caseload midwifery models of care have been established in a variety of community based and hospital settings throughout Australia with a reported reduction in clinical intervention rates while maintainning safety of mothers and babies. What does this paper add? This case study illustrates the strategies used to achieve a large sustainable clinical service redesign project based on the introduction of the caseload midwifery model of care. What are the implications for practitioners? Establishing midwifery group practice care within the mainstream maternity services has far reaching implications for the retention and recruitment of midwives and the improvement of clinical outcomes in childbirth. © 2012 AHHA.

The aim of this paper is to review the clinical outcomes of descriptive and comparative cohort studies of the Australian caseload midwifery models of care that emerged during the late 1990s and early 2000s. These models report uniformly a decrease in caesarean section operation rates when compared to local, state and national rates, irrespective of the obstetric risk of the women cared for. These outcomes are in contrast to the findings of the randomised controlled trials and comparative cohort studies of caseload midwifery conducted, predominantly in the United Kingdom, in the mid to late 1990s. The Australian studies show that caseload midwifery is a model of care that is associated with lowered rates of caesarean section operations, and other obstetric intervention rates. The absence of definitive evidence of the effect of caseload midwifery, derived from published descriptive and comparative cohort studies, underlines the need for a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery. The randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery being undertaken in two major teaching hospitals in Australia will provide definitive answers relating to the effect of the caseload midwifery model of care for women of all risk in the Australian context. © 2011 Australian College of Midwives.

A review of key historical texts that mentioned perineal care was undertaken from the time of Soranus (98-138. A.D.) to modern times as part of a PhD into perineal care. Historically, perineal protection and comfort were key priorities for midwives, most of whom traditionally practised under a social model of care. With the advent of the Man-Midwife in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the perineum became pathologised and eventually a site for routine surgical intervention - most notably seen in the widespread use of episiotomy. There were several key factors that led to the development of a surgical rather than a social model in perineal care. These factors included a move from upright to supine birth positions, the preparation of the perineum as a surgical site through perineal shaving and elaborate aseptic procedures; and the distancing of the woman from her support people, and most notably from her own perineum. In the last 30 years, in much of the developed world, there has been a re-emergence of care aimed at preserving and protecting the perineum. A dichotomy now exists with a dominant surgical model competing with the re-emerging social model of perineal care. Historical perspectives on perineal care can help us gain useful insights into past practices that could be beneficial for childbearing women today. These perspectives also inform future practice and research into perineal care, whilst making us cautious about political influences that could lead to harmful trends in clinical practice. © 2010 Australian College of Midwives.

Background: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant.Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial.Methods/design: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs.Discussion: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9

Maternity services in Australia are in urgent need of change. During the last 10 years several reviews have highlighted the need to provide more continuity of care for women in conjunction with the rationalisation of services. One solution may lie in the development of new integrated systems of care where primary-level maternity units offer midwifery-led care and women are transferred into perinatal centres to access tertiary-level obstetric technology and staff when required. This case study outlines the introduction of caseload midwifery into an Area Health Service in metropolitan Sydney. Our objective is to explore the concept of caseload midwifery and the process of implementing the first midwifery-led unit in NSW within an integrated service network. The midwife-led unit is a small but growing phenomenon in many countries. However, the provision of "continuity" and "woman-centred" midwifery care involves radical changes to conventional hospital practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine recent trends in obstetric intervention rates among women at low-risk of poor pregnancy outcome. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analytic study SETTING AND POPULATION: A population of 336,189 women categorised as low-risk of a poor pregnancy outcome who gave birth to a live singleton in NSW from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric intervention rates including oxytocin induction and augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, instrumental births, caesarean section and episiotomy METHODS: Trends over time were assessed by fitting trend-lines to numbers of births or by trends in proportions. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental birth over time. RESULTS: Rates of operative births did not rise despite increases in maternal age and use of epidural analgesia. Instrumental births declined over time from 26% to 22% among primiparas and 5% to 4% among multiparas. There was also a shift to vacuum extraction rather than forceps. Although instrumental birth was strongly associated with epidural analgesia, the strength of the association declined over the study period, for primiparas from an adjusted odds ratio of 7.2 to 5.2 and for multiparas from 13.2 to 10.3. CONCLUSIONS: Increased use of epidural analgesia for labour has been a feature of the management of birth at term during the 1990s. The decline in the strength of association between epidural analgesia and instrumental birth may reflect improved epidural techniques and management of epidural labour, and recognition of the adverse maternal outcomes associated with forceps and vacuum births.