Patricia A Smith1, Catherine Kilgour2,3, Deann Rice2, Leonie K Callaway4,2,5, Elizabeth K Martin6. 1. Women, Children and Families Stream Metro North Health, Butterfield Street, 4029, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Trish.Smith@health.qld.gov.au. 2. Women's and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, 4029, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. Women, Children and Families Stream Metro North Health, Butterfield Street, 4029, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 5. Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, 4006, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. Mater Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Raymond Terrace, 4101, South Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maternity services have limited formalised guidance on planning new services such as midwifery group practice for vulnerable women, for example women with a history of substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs), mental health challenges, complex social issues or other vulnerability. Continuity of care through midwifery group practice is mostly restricted to women with low-risk pregnancies and is not universally available to vulnerable women, despite evidence supporting benefits of this model of care for all women. The perception that midwifery group practice for vulnerable women is a high-risk model of care lacking in evidence may have in the past, thwarted implementation planning studies that seek to improve care for these women. We therefore aimed to identify the barriers and enablers that might impact the implementation of a midwifery group practice for vulnerable women. METHODS: A qualitative context analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was conducted at a single-site tertiary health facility in Queensland, Australia. An interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from a purposeful sample of 31 people participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using manual and then Leximancer computer assisted methods. Themes were compared and mapped to the Framework. RESULTS: Themes identified were the woman's experience, midwifery workforce capabilities, identifying "gold standard care", the interdisciplinary team and costs. Potential enablers of implementation included perceptions that the model facilitates a relationship of trust with vulnerable women, that clinical benefit outweighs cost and universal stakeholder acceptance. Potential barriers were: potential isolation of the interdisciplinary team, costs and the potential for vicarious trauma for midwives. CONCLUSION: There was recognition that the proposed model of care is supported by research and a view that clinical benefits will outweigh costs, however supervision and support is required for midwives to manage and limit vicarious trauma. An interdisciplinary team structure is also an essential component of the service design. Attention to these key themes, barriers and enablers will assist with identification of strategies to aid successful implementation. Australian maternity services can use our results to compare how the perceptions of local stakeholders might be similar or different to the results presented in this paper.
BACKGROUND: Maternity services have limited formalised guidance on planning new services such as midwifery group practice for vulnerable women, for example women with a history of substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs), mental health challenges, complex social issues or other vulnerability. Continuity of care through midwifery group practice is mostly restricted to women with low-risk pregnancies and is not universally available to vulnerable women, despite evidence supporting benefits of this model of care for all women. The perception that midwifery group practice for vulnerable women is a high-risk model of care lacking in evidence may have in the past, thwarted implementation planning studies that seek to improve care for these women. We therefore aimed to identify the barriers and enablers that might impact the implementation of a midwifery group practice for vulnerable women. METHODS: A qualitative context analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was conducted at a single-site tertiary health facility in Queensland, Australia. An interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from a purposeful sample of 31 people participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using manual and then Leximancer computer assisted methods. Themes were compared and mapped to the Framework. RESULTS: Themes identified were the woman's experience, midwifery workforce capabilities, identifying "gold standard care", the interdisciplinary team and costs. Potential enablers of implementation included perceptions that the model facilitates a relationship of trust with vulnerable women, that clinical benefit outweighs cost and universal stakeholder acceptance. Potential barriers were: potential isolation of the interdisciplinary team, costs and the potential for vicarious trauma for midwives. CONCLUSION: There was recognition that the proposed model of care is supported by research and a view that clinical benefits will outweigh costs, however supervision and support is required for midwives to manage and limit vicarious trauma. An interdisciplinary team structure is also an essential component of the service design. Attention to these key themes, barriers and enablers will assist with identification of strategies to aid successful implementation. Australian maternity services can use our results to compare how the perceptions of local stakeholders might be similar or different to the results presented in this paper.
Authors: Sally K Tracy; Donna L Hartz; Mark B Tracy; Jyai Allen; Amanda Forti; Bev Hall; Jan White; Anne Lainchbury; Helen Stapleton; Michael Beckmann; Andrew Bisits; Caroline Homer; Maralyn Foureur; Alec Welsh; Sue Kildea Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel J Corsi; Laura Walsh; Deborah Weiss; Helen Hsu; Darine El-Chaar; Steven Hawken; Deshayne B Fell; Mark Walker Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 56.272
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