Denis Walsh1, Helen Spiby2, Celia P Grigg2, Miranda Dodwell3, Christine McCourt4, Lorraine Culley5, Simon Bishop2, Jane Wilkinson6, Dawn Coleby2, Lynne Pacanowski7, Jim Thornton2, Sonia Byers8. 1. University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: denis.walsh@nottingham.ac.uk. 2. University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. 3. City University of London, United Kingdom; BirthChoiceUK, United Kingdom. 4. City University of London, University of London, United Kingdom. 5. De Montfort University, United Kingdom. 6. NHS West Cheshire CCG, United Kingdom. 7. Guys&St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. 8. North East Ambulance Service National Health Service Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to describe the configuration of midwifery units, both alongside&free-standing, and obstetric units in England. DESIGN: national survey amongst Heads of Midwifery in English Maternity Services SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) in England PARTICIPANTS: English Maternity Services Measurements descriptive statistics of Alongside Midwifery Units and Free-standing Midwifery Units and Obstetric Units and their annual births/year in English Maternity Services FINDINGS: alongside midwifery units have nearly doubled since 2010 (n = 53-97); free-standing midwifery units have increased slightly (n = 58-61). There has been a significant reduction in maternity services without either an alongside or free-standing midwifery unit (75-32). The percentage of all births in midwifery units has trebled, now representing 14% of all births in England. This masks significant differences in percentage of all births in midwifery units between different maternity services with a spread of 4% to 31%. KEY CONCLUSIONS: In some areas of England, women have no access to a local midwifery unit, despite the National Institute for Health&Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommending them as an important place of birth option for low risk women. The numbers of midwifery units have increased significantly in England since 2010 but this growth is almost exclusively in alongside midwifery units. The percentage of women giving birth in midwifery units varies significantly between maternity services suggesting that many midwifery units are underutilised. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both the availability and utilisation of midwifery units in England could be improved.
OBJECTIVE: to describe the configuration of midwifery units, both alongside&free-standing, and obstetric units in England. DESIGN: national survey amongst Heads of Midwifery in English Maternity Services SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) in England PARTICIPANTS: English Maternity Services Measurements descriptive statistics of Alongside Midwifery Units and Free-standing Midwifery Units and Obstetric Units and their annual births/year in English Maternity Services FINDINGS: alongside midwifery units have nearly doubled since 2010 (n = 53-97); free-standing midwifery units have increased slightly (n = 58-61). There has been a significant reduction in maternity services without either an alongside or free-standing midwifery unit (75-32). The percentage of all births in midwifery units has trebled, now representing 14% of all births in England. This masks significant differences in percentage of all births in midwifery units between different maternity services with a spread of 4% to 31%. KEY CONCLUSIONS: In some areas of England, women have no access to a local midwifery unit, despite the National Institute for Health&Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommending them as an important place of birth option for low risk women. The numbers of midwifery units have increased significantly in England since 2010 but this growth is almost exclusively in alongside midwifery units. The percentage of women giving birth in midwifery units varies significantly between maternity services suggesting that many midwifery units are underutilised. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both the availability and utilisation of midwifery units in England could be improved.
Authors: Benjamin Rupert Fletcher; Rachel Rowe; Jennifer Hollowell; Miranda Scanlon; Lisa Hinton; Oliver Rivero-Arias Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah Milosevic; Sue Channon; Billie Hunter; Mary Nolan; Jacqueline Hughes; Christian Barlow; Rebecca Milton; Julia Sanders Journal: Midwifery Date: 2019-10-05 Impact factor: 2.372
Authors: Denis Walsh; Helen Spiby; Christine McCourt; Celia Grigg; Dawn Coleby; Simon Bishop; Miranda Scanlon; Lorraine Culley; Jane Wilkinson; Lynne Pacanowski; Jim Thornton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.692