ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends Midwifery Continuity of Care (MCoC) due to the consistent improvements in outcomes for mothers and babies. Surveys from the United Kingdom and Australia reported large numbers of midwives are unable to commit to the on call component required to provide MCoC across the continuum. To address this challenge a modified MCoC model called Midwifery Antenatal and Postnatal Services (MAPS) has been introduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate MAPS services in six sites across one State in Australia. METHODS: A multi-site qualitative descriptive study was undertaken framed by the Quality Maternal Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework. The QMNC framework was used to develop focus group questions for data collection, and as a lens for analysing data. Data were collected via focus groups from midwives and women at six sites ranging from metropolitan to regional and rural settings and thematically analysed. FINDINGS: Participants (n=80) included women (n=28), midwives (n=44) and MAPS managers (n=8). This paper reports the findings from the women and midwives, presented under three themes: Getting onto the program, Knowing the story and Building confidence by sharing information. Each theme had subthemes and the findings were aligned either positively or negatively with the QMNC framework. CONCLUSION: This study found the MAPS model aligns in positive ways with the QMNC quality care framework with some recommendations to improve quality care. Midwives want to provide continuity of care and MAPS is a useful model for providing continuity through the antenatal and postnatal periods.
ABSTRACT
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND: Strong international evidence demonstrates significantly improved outcomes for women and their babies when supported by midwifery continuity of care models. Despite this, widespread implementation has not been achieved, especially in regional settings. AIM: To develop a theoretical understanding of the factors that facilitate or inhibit the implementation of midwifery continuity models within regional settings. METHODS: A Constructivist Grounded Theory approach was used to collect and analyse data from 34 interviews with regional public hospital key informants. RESULTS: Three concepts of theory emerged: 'engaging the gatekeepers', 'midwives lacking confidence' and 'women rallying together'. The concepts of theory and sub-categories generated a substantive theory: A partnership between midwives and women is required to build confidence and enable the promotion of current evidence; this is essential for engaging key hospital stakeholders to invest in the implementation of midwifery continuity of care models. DISCUSSION: The findings from this research suggest that midwives and women can significantly influence the implementation of midwifery continuity models within their local maternity services, particularly in regional settings. Midwives' reluctance to transition is based on a lack of confidence and knowledge of what it is really like to work in midwifery continuity models. Similarly, women require education to increase awareness of continuity of care benefits, and a partnership between women and midwives can be a strong political force to overcome many of the barriers. CONCLUSION: Implementation of midwifery continuity of care needs a coordinated ground up approach in which midwives partner with women and promote widespread dissemination of evidence for this model, directed towards consumers, midwives, and hospital management to increase awareness of the benefits.
