Dominiek Coates1,2, Natasha Donnolley3, Maralyn Foureur4,5, Amanda Henry6,7,8. 1. Faculty of Health, Centre for Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Dominiek.Coates@uts.edu.au. 2. Maridulu Budyari Gumal, the Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE), Sydney, Australia. Dominiek.Coates@uts.edu.au. 3. National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. 4. Hunter New England Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Newcastle, Australia. 5. Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 6. School of Women's and Children's Health, UNSW Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. 7. Department of Women's and Children's Health, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 8. The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Medicine, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: How the application of evidence to planned birth practices, induction of labour (IOL) and prelabour caesarean (CS), differs between Australian maternity units remains poorly understood. Perceptions of readiness for practice change and resources to implement change in individual units are also unclear. AIM: To identify inter-hospital and inter-professional variations in relation to current planned birth practices and readiness for change, reported by clinicians in 7 maternity units. METHOD: Custom-created survey of maternity staff at 7 Sydney hospitals, with questions about women's engagement with decision making, indications for planned birth, timing of birth and readiness for change. Responses from midwives and medical staff, and from each hospital, were compared. FINDINGS: Of 245 completed surveys (27% response rate), 78% were midwives and 22% medical staff. Substantial inter-hospital variation was noted for stated planned birth indication, timing, women's involvement in decision-making practices, as well as in staff perceptions of their unit's readiness for change. Overall, 48% (range 31-64%) and 64% (range 39-89%) agreed on a need to change their unit's caesarean and induction practices respectively. The three units where greatest need for change was perceived also had least readiness for change in terms of leadership, culture, and resources. Regarding inter-disciplinary variation, medical staff were more likely than midwifery staff to believe women were appropriately informed and less likely to believe unit practice change was required. CONCLUSION: Planned birth practices and change readiness varied between participating hospitals and professional groups. Hospitals with greatest perceived need for change perceived least resources to implement such change.
BACKGROUND: How the application of evidence to planned birth practices, induction of labour (IOL) and prelabour caesarean (CS), differs between Australian maternity units remains poorly understood. Perceptions of readiness for practice change and resources to implement change in individual units are also unclear. AIM: To identify inter-hospital and inter-professional variations in relation to current planned birth practices and readiness for change, reported by clinicians in 7 maternity units. METHOD: Custom-created survey of maternity staff at 7 Sydney hospitals, with questions about women's engagement with decision making, indications for planned birth, timing of birth and readiness for change. Responses from midwives and medical staff, and from each hospital, were compared. FINDINGS: Of 245 completed surveys (27% response rate), 78% were midwives and 22% medical staff. Substantial inter-hospital variation was noted for stated planned birth indication, timing, women's involvement in decision-making practices, as well as in staff perceptions of their unit's readiness for change. Overall, 48% (range 31-64%) and 64% (range 39-89%) agreed on a need to change their unit's caesarean and induction practices respectively. The three units where greatest need for change was perceived also had least readiness for change in terms of leadership, culture, and resources. Regarding inter-disciplinary variation, medical staff were more likely than midwifery staff to believe women were appropriately informed and less likely to believe unit practice change was required. CONCLUSION: Planned birth practices and change readiness varied between participating hospitals and professional groups. Hospitals with greatest perceived need for change perceived least resources to implement such change.
Entities:
Keywords:
Caesarean section; Induction of labour; Practice change; Shared decision-making; Unwarranted clinical variation
Authors: Yuen Yi Cathy Lee; Christine L Roberts; Jillian A Patterson; Judy M Simpson; Michael C Nicholl; Jonathan M Morris; Jane B Ford Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Peter McCulloch; Myura Nagendran; W Bruce Campbell; Andrew Price; Anant Jani; John D Birkmeyer; Muir Gray Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-09-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ties Boerma; Carine Ronsmans; Dessalegn Y Melesse; Aluisio J D Barros; Fernando C Barros; Liang Juan; Ann-Beth Moller; Lale Say; Ahmad Reza Hosseinpoor; Mu Yi; Dácio de Lyra Rabello Neto; Marleen Temmerman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tanya A Nippita; Judy A Trevena; Jillian A Patterson; Jane B Ford; Jonathan M Morris; Christine L Roberts Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 2.692