Article

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.

Midwifery and Women's Health Research Unit, University of Sydney, Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: .
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 09/2013; 382(9906). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61406-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors.
In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246.
Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care.
Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective.
National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Full-text

Available from: Sally K Tracy, Nov 05, 2014
6 Followers
 · 
354 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In Australia, maternity care is available through universal coverage and a parallel, competitive private health insurance system. Differences between sectors in antenatal and intrapartum care and associated outcomes are well documented but few studies have investigated differences in postpartum care following hospital discharge and their impact on maternal satisfaction and confidence.Methods Women who birthed in Queensland, Australia from February to May 2010 were mailed a self-report survey 4 months postpartum. Regression analysis was used to determine associations between sector of birth and postpartum care, and whether postpartum care experiences explained sector differences in postpartum well-being (satisfaction, parenting confidence and feeling depressed).ResultsWomen who birthed in the public sector had higher odds of health professional contact in the first 10 days post-discharge and satisfaction with the amount of postpartum care. After adjusting for demographic and postpartum contact variables, sector of birth no longer had an impact on satisfaction (AOR 0.95, 99% CI 0.78-1.31), but any form of health professional contact did. Women who had a care provider¿s 24 hour contact details had higher odds of being satisfied (AOR 3.64, 95% CI 3.00-4.42) and confident (AOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08- 1.65).Conclusion Women who birthed in the public sector appeared more satisfied because they had higher odds of receiving contact from a health professional within 10 days post-discharge. All women should have an opportunity to speak to and/or see a doctor, midwife or nurse in the first 10 days at home, and the details of a person they can contact 24 hours a day.
    BMC Health Services Research 01/2015; 15(1):14. DOI:10.1186/s12913-015-0689-3 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In response to calls for increased access and availability of maternity care that offers women continuity with a known midwife, caseload midwifery (a model where women have a known midwife for pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period) has been introduced in a number of settings, particularly in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Caseload midwifery reduces childbirth interventions and increases women¿s satisfaction with care, however, the evidence regarding the impact of caseload midwifery on midwives has been conflicting; some studies have reported higher satisfaction, but others have raised concerns about work-life balance, stress and burnout. This study explored caseload and standard care midwives¿ attitudes to their professional role and measured burnout in two newly introduced caseload midwifery models.Methods All midwives providing maternity care at two study sites in Victoria, Australia ¿ one regional and one metropolitan hospital ¿ were sent structured questionnaires at the commencement of the caseload midwifery model (baseline) and after the model had been in operation for two years. The questionnaires examined midwives¿ attitude to their professional role using the Midwifery Process Questionnaire (MPQ); burnout using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI); and also explored midwives¿ views of the positive and negative aspects of caseload work. Demographic data were collected at each time point. Quantitative data were summarised using frequencies, percentages and means, and the MPQ and CBI data presented as individual and group means. Content analysis was undertaken to analyse open-ended questions. Data were pooled for the two sites and comparisons made between caseload and standard care midwives.ResultsTwenty caseload midwives and 130 standard care midwives responded to the baseline survey (response fractions 88% and 41% respectively) and 22 caseload midwives and 133 standard care midwives responded to the two year survey (response fractions 95% and 45% respectively). At baseline, caseload and standard care midwives were very similar across all measures of personal characteristics, attitude to professional role and in their personal burnout and work-related burnout scores. Client-related burnout was lower for caseload midwives at baseline (12.3 vs 22.4, p¿=¿0.02). After two years, caseload midwives had higher mean scores in professional satisfaction (1.08 vs 0.76, p¿=¿0.01), professional support (1.06 vs 0.11, p <0.01) and client interaction (1.4 vs 0.09, p <0.01) and lower scores for personal burnout (35.7 vs 47.7, p¿<¿0.01), work-related burnout (27.3 vs 42.7, p <0.01), and client-related burnout (11.3 vs 21.4, p¿<¿0.01) compared to midwives in standard care. In both the attitude and burnout measures, caseload midwives demonstrated positive changes over the two year period between surveys.Conclusion In this study, caseload midwifery was associated with lower burnout scores and higher ratings of positive attitudes to their professional role, including professional satisfaction. Positive aspects of caseload midwifery, such as working with known women, autonomy and flexibility, and structures that encourage midwives to maintain a work life balance may be influential in both protecting caseload midwives from burnout and improving satisfaction with their role. Further research should explore the longer term sustainability of the model from a workforce perspective, for example recruitment to and attrition from the model.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 12/2014; 14(1):3. DOI:10.1186/s12884-014-0426-7 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Maternity care reform plans have been proposed at state and national levels in Australia, but the extent to which these respond to maternity care consumers’ expressed needs is unclear. This study examines open-text survey comments to identify women’s unmet needs and priorities for maternity care. It is then considered whether these needs and priorities are addressed in current reform plans. Methods Women who had a live single or multiple birth in Queensland, Australia, in 2010 (n 3,635) were invited to complete a retrospective self-report survey. In addition to questions about clinical and interpersonal maternity care experiences from pregnancy to postpartum, women were asked an open-ended question “Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about having your baby?” This paper describes a detailed thematic analysis of open-ended responses from a random selection of 150 women (10% of 1,510 who responded to the question). Results Four broad themes emerged relevant to improving women’s experiences of maternity care: quality of care (interpersonal and technical); access to choices and involvement in decision-making; unmet information needs; and dissatisfaction with the care environment. Some of these topics are reflected in current reform goals, while others provide evidence of the need for further reforms. Conclusions The findings reinforce the importance of some existing maternity reform objectives, and describe how these might best be met. Findings affirm the importance of information provision to enable informed choices; a goal of Queensland and national reform agendas. Improvement opportunities not currently specified in reform agendas were also identified, including the quality of interpersonal relationships between women and staff, particular unmet information needs (e.g., breastfeeding), and concerns regarding the care environment (e.g., crowding and long waiting times).
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 10/2014; 14:366. DOI:10.1186/s12884-014-0366-2 · 2.15 Impact Factor