Women's views and experiences of a new Midwifery Group Practice model in rural Australia.

BACKGROUND: Women in rural Australia often have limited maternity care options available, and in Victoria, like many Australian states, numerous small hospitals no longer offer birthing services. AIM: To evaluate women's views and experiences of maternity care at a local rural hospital that re-established birthing services with a Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) model of maternity care. METHODS: Women who booked into the new MGP model from May 2021 to June 2022 were invited to complete an anonymous online survey and participate in an optional additional semi-structured interview to explore their views and experiences. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, and open-ended survey and interview responses were analysed using a general inductive approach. FINDINGS: Sixty-seven percent (44/66) of women completed the survey and five also completed an interview. Women were highly satisfied with the care they received. They felt respected, empowered, and had a sense of agency throughout their pregnancies, labour and birth, and post-birth. They reported low levels of anxiety during labour and birth, and felt that they coped physically and emotionally better than they anticipated. They felt well supported by midwives and highly valued the continuity of care within the MGP model. CONCLUSION: Women's voices play a critical role in informing maternity care provision, particularly for those in rural communities who may have limited access to care options. The findings support and expand on existing research regarding the value of midwifery continuity of care models, and can inform other rural maternity services in introducing similar models.

Identifying women with a disability in Australian maternity services: Time for a change.

It is estimated that over 1 billion people worldwide have a disability. In Australia, 9% of women of childbearing age have a disability, but data on disability status for women accessing maternity services are not routinely collected and data collection processes are inconsistent. Maternal disability may affect perinatal outcomes, but to understand what factors might be amenable to interventions to improve outcomes, accurate data collection on disability status is essential. This opinion piece reflects on disability identification within maternity services in Australia, identifying areas for policy and practice change.

Exploring disability prevalence among childbearing women attending a tertiary maternity service in Melbourne, Australia using an audit and cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Although there is an estimated rate of 10% of women of childbearing age in Australia who have a disability, there is a lack of accurate prevalence data, with the true rate unknown. The timing and questions used to collect women's disability status in pregnancy vary, and there is limited knowledge on how women accessing maternity services in Australia would like to be asked about their disability status. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevalence of women with a disability receiving maternity care using a direct and indirect disability identification question. Secondary aims were to explore how women would like to be asked about their disability status and to examine the difference between self-reported and clinician-documented disability status within medical records. RESEARCH DESIGN/SETTING: The study was conducted at a tertiary maternity hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and included two components. Component one used a cross-sectional survey with two different cohorts of women administered face-to-face on the postnatal ward (Cohort 1 - February 2019, Cohort 2 - December 2019). In Cohort 1, a specific disability identification question asked: 'Can you please tell me if you identify as someone who has a disability?'. In Cohort 2, an indirect disability identification question asked: 'Do you require additional assistance or support?'. Other questions explored women's views on disability identification. Component two consisted of an audit of the medical records to compare disability documentation in the medical records of the women who participated with women's disability self-identification status. RESULTS: 371/467 (79%) of eligible women that were approached participated in Cohort 1 and in Cohort 2, 295/346 (85%) of eligible women that were approached participated in the study. In Cohort 1, 5% (17/371) of women self-identified with having a disability. In Cohort 2 16% (46/295) of women reported needing additional assistance/support, however of these, only nine women viewed this as a disability. In Cohort 1, of the women who self-identified as having a disability, 82% had this recorded in their medical record. An additional 12% (43/354) of women in Cohort 1 who may have had a disability according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics classification, did not self-identify as having a disability. In Cohort 2, 37% (17/43) of women who self-identified as needing additional support did not have these needs documented in the medical record. Less than a quarter of women in both cohorts were asked about their disability status during their maternity care. Women with a disability or additional support needs suggested both direct and indirect ways of being asked about their disability status, and their responses were similar to women who did not self-identify with having a disability or additional support needs. CONCLUSIONS: Disability prevalence data is highly dependant on the wording of the disability identification question. It may be appropriate to ask about disability both indirectly, in terms of additional support needs, and directly, to enable disclosure for those who do identify with a disability. Disability questioning should be routine and standardised guidelines around disability identification should be developed to allow for tailored adjustments to care on an individual level.

Supporting the midwifery workforce: An evaluation of an undergraduate midwifery student employment model at a large tertiary maternity service in Victoria, Australia.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, in response to major maternity workforce challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Victorian Department of Health implemented a number of workforce maximisation strategies, one of which was employment of undergraduate midwifery students called 'Registered Undergraduate Student Of Midwifery' (RUSOM). AIM: To evaluate the RUSOM model implemented in a tertiary maternity service in Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to all RUSOMs and midwives at the study site in August 2021. FINDINGS: Twenty of 26 RUSOMs (77%) and 110 of 338 permanent midwives (33%) responded. Both groups considered the model to be a positive workforce strategy that contributed to work readiness of students, and increased confidence and competence to practise. RUSOMS and midwives reported positives for the organisation including improving workload for midwives on the postnatal ward, enhancing quality of care and outcomes for women and babies, and the value of RUSOMs as team members. RUSOMs felt well supported, supervised and clinically and theoretically prepared. Both groups considered RUSOMs were underutilised, and that they could undertake additional duties, and both thought that the RUSOM model should continue. CONCLUSION: The model was highly valued by both RUSOMs and midwives. There was strong agreement that the model should continue and that the list of duties could be expanded. Given these findings, further research should explore the expansion and sustainability of RUSOMs in the maternity workforce.

How are women with a disability identified in maternity services in Australia? A cross-sectional survey of maternity managers.

BACKGROUND: Women with a disability have poorer perinatal outcomes, but little is known about the prevalence of women with a disability accessing maternity services, how they are identified and what care and services are available. Estimates suggest that nine percent of women of childbearing age have a disability. AIM: To explore how public maternity services in Australia identify pregnant women with a disability, what (if any) routine disability identification questions are used, and to examine availability and adequacy of services for women. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey of maternity managers in Australian public hospitals. FINDINGS: Thirty-six percent (70/193) of eligible hospitals responded including all states and territories. Overall, 71 % routinely asked women about disability status (usually as part of routine history taking), however there was wide variation in how this was asked. Most (63 %) did not have standardised documentation processes and two thirds (65 %) were unable to estimate the number of women with a disability seen at their hospital. Most (68 %) did not offer specialised services, with only 13 % having specialised training for staff in disability identification, documentation and referral pathways. Only a quarter of respondents felt that there were adequate services for women with a disability related to maternity care. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore disability identification in maternity services in Australia. How women were asked was highly varied and documentation not standardised. National guidelines on disability identification for women accessing maternity services should be developed and collection of disability identification data should be routine.