Literature DB >> 20351155

Maternity care models in a remote and rural network: assessing clinical appropriateness and outcome indicators.

J Tucker1, A McVicar, E Pitchforth, J Farmer, H Bryers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about performance of small rural maternity units, including stand-alone midwife units. AIM: To describe the proportions of women delivering locally, clinical appropriateness of model of care at delivery and outcome indicators for three rural staffing models of care.
DESIGN: Case note review.
SETTING: Remote and rural maternity units in NHS North of Scotland Region. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 1400 deliveries to women from the catchments of eight rural units (stratified by staffing model) included those in local rural units and in associated distant referral units. Descriptive analysis examined women's risk, clinical appropriateness of model of care at delivery and outcomes aggregated by local catchment unit type and delivery unit type.
RESULTS: Local deliveries by staffing model were 31% (214/697) in midwife stand-alone units, 70% (236/336) in midwife units alongside non-obstetric medical support and 86% (317/367) in small obstetric-led units. Model of care at delivery was generally appropriate according to risk. Judged inappropriate were 3% (22/696) of women with complications delivering in midwife stand-alone units; and of referral unit deliveries, 6% (37/632) with suspected complications unconfirmed, plus 5% (31/633) discharged undelivered by referral hospital at >36 weeks' gestation. Risk profiles of catchment samples were similar, but caesarean section rates appeared lower and neonatal unit admissions higher for women from stand-alone midwife units.
CONCLUSIONS: Rural women were generally referred appropriately for specialist care. These stand-alone midwife units provided intrapartum care for approximately one-third of rural women who remained without complications. Further evidence is needed about outcomes by staffing models of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20351155     DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.028894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care        ISSN: 1475-3898


  6 in total

1.  Quality of care provided in two Scottish rural community maternity units: a retrospective case review.

Authors:  Sara Denham; Tracy Humphrey; Ruth Taylor
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.007

2.  Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ilir Hoxha; Medina Braha; Lamprini Syrogiannouli; David C Goodman; Peter Jüni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-03       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Risk assessment and decision making about in-labour transfer from rural maternity care: a social judgment and signal detection analysis.

Authors:  Helen Cheyne; Len Dalgleish; Janet Tucker; Fiona Kane; Ashalatha Shetty; Sarah McLeod; Catherine Niven
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 4.  Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators.

Authors:  Ramón Escuriet; Joanna White; Katrien Beeckman; Lucy Frith; Fatima Leon-Larios; Christine Loytved; Ans Luyben; Marlene Sinclair; Edwin van Teijlingen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 5.  Centralized or decentralized perinatal surgical care for rural women: a realist review of the evidence on safety.

Authors:  Jude Kornelsen; Kevin McCartney; Kim Williams
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-13       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review.

Authors:  Bahareh Goodarzi; Annika Walker; Lianne Holten; Linda Schoonmade; Pim Teunissen; François Schellevis; Ank de Jonge
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.