BACKGROUND: The report Changing childbirth (1993) has led to the development of midwifery-led schemes that aim to increase the continuity of maternity care. AIM: To determine the impact of midwifery group practices on the work of general practitioners (GPs) and their perceptions of midwifery group practice care. METHOD: Postal questionnaires were sent to 58 GPs referring women to the care of midwifery group practices (group-practice GPs), and a shorter questionnaire was sent to the remaining 67 GPs (non-group-practice GPs) within the same postcode area as a comparison group. In-depth interviews were conducted with 12 GPs. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 71% of group-practice GPs and 81% of non-group practice GPs. One third of the group practice GPs felt that they were seeing group practice women too few times, and 50% thought midwives discouraged women from visiting their GP for antenatal checks. Over 80% of group practice GPs believed that midwives had the skills to detect deviation from the normal, and 66% would confidently refer women to their care. However, only 14% of group practice GPs believed that their own role was clear, while 64% agreed that communication with group practice midwives was poor, and concerns were expressed about the level of consultation before establishing schemes. Of the non-group practice GPs, 87% said they would consider referring women to the care of a midwifery group practice in the future. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners were generally positive about the quality of care provided by midwifery group practices but identified issues that require addressing in developing this model of care.
BACKGROUND: The report Changing childbirth (1993) has led to the development of midwifery-led schemes that aim to increase the continuity of maternity care. AIM: To determine the impact of midwifery group practices on the work of general practitioners (GPs) and their perceptions of midwifery group practice care. METHOD: Postal questionnaires were sent to 58 GPs referring women to the care of midwifery group practices (group-practice GPs), and a shorter questionnaire was sent to the remaining 67 GPs (non-group-practice GPs) within the same postcode area as a comparison group. In-depth interviews were conducted with 12 GPs. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 71% of group-practice GPs and 81% of non-group practice GPs. One third of the group practice GPs felt that they were seeing group practice women too few times, and 50% thought midwives discouraged women from visiting their GP for antenatal checks. Over 80% of group practice GPs believed that midwives had the skills to detect deviation from the normal, and 66% would confidently refer women to their care. However, only 14% of group practice GPs believed that their own role was clear, while 64% agreed that communication with group practice midwives was poor, and concerns were expressed about the level of consultation before establishing schemes. Of the non-group practice GPs, 87% said they would consider referring women to the care of a midwifery group practice in the future. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners were generally positive about the quality of care provided by midwifery group practices but identified issues that require addressing in developing this model of care.