A workforce profile comparison of practising and non-practising midwives in Australia: baseline data from the Midwives and Nurses e-Cohort Study.

Existing workforce data, as an estimate of the current capability of the midwifery workforce to provide midwifery care, is confounded by systematic reporting issues that may overestimate the potential of the existing midwifery workforce. This paper reports the characteristics of qualified Australian midwives who responded to the baseline data collection in the Midwives and Nurses e-Cohort Study and compares those who are currently practising in midwifery with those who are not. Currently practising midwives represented only 52% of those respondents who identified as midwives and the profile of the typical midwife is female, aged over 40 years, Australian, married or in a de facto relationship. She has been registered for over 10 years, educated to postgraduate diploma level and currently works in a clinical midwifery role in a hospital for less than 35 hours per week. Specific deficits in the Australian midwifery workforce namely low numbers of indigenous midwives, independent practitioners and midwives suitably qualified to teach and undertake research in academia are identified. Drawing on the nationally representative e-cohort data, this cross-sectional analysis identifies for the first time the real face of the Australian midwifery workforce and provides an evidence-based foundation for future workforce planning and a methodology for other countries interested in accurately monitoring their actual and potential midwifery workforce.

Barriers to electronic portfolio access in the clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: The University of Queensland has developed the Clinical Practice Performance electronic Portfolio (CPPeP) as a learning and assessment tool for third year nursing students. To promote effective use of the CPPeP in the clinical setting, barriers must be identified and strategies developed to overcome them. METHODS: A 24-question survey exploring the use and perceptions of the CPPeP was administered to 42 third year nursing students. Questions explored actual barriers encountered while eight open-ended questions were thematically analysed for perceived barriers. RESULTS: A 100% response rate was achieved. Students were comfortable with working with computers. Twenty nine students (69%) encountered specific barriers. Of the 152 written comments to the open-ended questions, perceived barriers were evident in 72 of them. Barriers experienced related to gaining access, finding time and staff attitude. The majority of students made their portfolio entries at home. CONCLUSION: Students enjoyed using the CPPeP but competed with staff for the limited numbers of computers available. Heavy workloads and 'busyness' of the wards also prohibited access along with negative staff attitudes and reluctance of registered nurses to engage as student preceptors. The issue of overcoming barriers is more complex than simply providing more computers or overcoming staff prejudices. Finding time is a barrier not easily overcome given the current and projected nursing shortage.

The use of tablet PCs to access an electronic portfolio in the clinical setting: a pilot study using undergraduate nursing students.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, a digitalised clinical portfolio was introduced into an undergraduate nursing program. The use of a tablet personal computer (PC) with wireless broadband access could overcome issues around computer access in the clinical setting enhancing authenticity and timeliness of assessment. METHODS: In July 2007, a Hewlett-Packard TC 4400 tablet PC was issued to three participating students. A focus group utilising a semi-structured interview and a survey collected data from the students at the end of the trial to determine the effectiveness of the strategy. RESULTS: Participants used tablet PCs to access their portfolios. However, lack of space, busy wards and concerns about the security of the PCs limited their use in the clinical setting. The majority of their journal entries were made at home and within similar time frames to those prior to access to tablet PCs. Participants also used the PCs to provide education to other students and staff but were reluctant to use them in front of patients. CONCLUSION: Barriers limiting the use of tablet PCs in the clinical setting may be overcome with greater proficiency in their utility and increased portability of the technology. Tablet PCs offer advantages related to and beyond portfolio use in the clinical setting.