There is an abundance of literature focussing on why midwives leave the profession; however, the gap exists in the reasons why midwives stay. If we can uncover this important detail, then changes within the profession can begin to be implemented, addressing the shortage of midwives issue that has been seen globally for a large number of years.

No abstract

Aims and objectives To understand why Western Australian (WA) midwives choose to remain in the profession. Background Midwifery shortages and the inability to retain midwives in the midwifery profession is a global problem. The need for effective midwifery staff retention strategies to be implemented is therefore urgent, as is the need for evidence to inform those strategies. Design Glaserian grounded theory (GT) methodology was used with constant comparative analysis. Methods Fourteen midwives currently working clinically area were interviewed about why they remain in the profession. The GT process of constant comparative analysis resulted in an overarching core category emerging. The study is reported in accordance with Tong and associates’ (2007) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). Results The core category derived from the data was labelled—“I love being a midwife; it's who I am.” The three major categories that underpin the core category are labelled as follows: “The people I work with make all the difference”; “I want to be ‘with woman’ so I can make a difference”; and “I feel a responsibility to pass on my skills, knowledge and wisdom to the next generation.” Conclusion It emerged from the data that midwives’ ability to be “with woman” and the difference they feel they make to them, the people they work with and the opportunity to “grow” the next generation together underpin a compelling new middle‐range theory of the phenomenon of interest. Relevance to clinical practice The theory that emerged and the insights it provides will be of interest to healthcare leaders, who may wish to use it to help develop midwifery workforce policy and practice, and by extension to optimise midwives’ job satisfaction, and facilitate the retention of midwives both locally and across Australia.

Background Despite the advancement of scientific research in the field of maternity care, midwives face challenges translating latest evidence into evidence-based practice (EBP) and express reticence towards leading practice change in clinical areas. This study aimed to explore midwifery leaders’ views on what factors help or hinder midwives’ efforts to translate latest evidence into everyday practice and consider them in relation to both the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods This qualitative study formed part of a larger action research (AR) project that was designed to improve midwives’ EBP implementation capability. Data were obtained from eight Western Australian midwifery leaders who were employed in either managerial or executive positions within their organisation. Five midwives attended a focus group workshop and three opted for face-to-face interviews. Thematic analysis was used to code the transcribed data and group alike findings into sub-categories, which were collapsed to four major categories and one overarching core finding. These were mapped to a matrix combining the COM-B and TDF to establish the usability of these tools in midwifery contexts. Results Four major categories were developed from the data collected in this study. Three reported the hindrances midwives’ experienced when trying to initiate new EBPs: ‘For midwives, medical opposition and workplace culture are the biggest challenges’, ‘Fear can stop change: it’s personal for midwives’ and ‘Midwives are tired of fighting the battle for EBP; they need knowledge and the confidence to bring about practice change.’ The other major category highlighted factors midwives’ considered helpers of EBP: ‘Having stakeholder buy-in and strong midwifery leadership is a huge advantage.’ When mapped to the TDF and COM-B, these findings provided valuable insight into the helpers of and hindrances to evidence-based practice in midwifery. Conclusion Midwives are motivated to initiate evidence-based change yet have limited knowledge of implementation processes or the confidence to lead practice change. Factors such as inter-disciplinary buy-in, clear instruction for midwives and support from midwifery leaders were considered beneficial to implementing practice change in clinical areas. The TDF when used in combination with the COM-B was deemed useful to midwives wanting to lead practice change projects in clinical areas.

Background Over the past decade, an industry has emerged around Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) development in healthcare, which has increased pressure on guideline-producing organisations to develop CPGs at an accelerated rate. These are intended to improve the quality of care provided to patients while containing healthcare costs and reducing variability in clinical practice. However, this has inadvertently led to discrepancies in CPG recommendations between health organisations, also challenging healthcare providers who rely on these for decision-making and to inform clinical care. From a global perspective, although some countries have initiated national protocols regarding developing, appraising and implementing high-quality CPGs, there remains no standardised approach to any aspect of CPG production. Methods A scoping review of the literature and document analysis were conducted according to Joanna Brigg’s Institute methodology for scoping reviews. This comprised two qualitative methods: a comprehensive review of the literature (using CINAHL, Scopus and PubMeD) and a document analysis of all national and international guideline development processes (manual search of health-related websites, national/international organisational health policies and documents). Results A set of clear principles and processes were identified as crucial to CPG development, informing the planning, implementation and dissemination of recommendations. Fundamentally, two common goals were reported: to improve the quality and consistency of clinical practice (patient care) and to reduce the duplication or ratification of low-grade CPGs. Conclusions Consultation and communication between CPG working parties, including a wide range of representatives (including professional organisations, regional and local offices, and relevant national bodies) is essential. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of standardising the approach and disseminating the recommendations.