Implementation and evaluation of a midwifery development unit

Turnbull, Deborah; McGinley, Marisa; Fyvie, Heather; Johnstone, Irene; Holmes, Ann; Shields, Noreen; Cheyne, Helen; MacLennan, Barbara

doi:10.12968/bjom.1995.3.9.465

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When named midwife was unavailable, the woman was cared for by an associate midwife from the MDU team; women were referred to the obstetric medical team when there was deviation from normal, rather than at routinely specified times. The programme of care in comparison with shared care is care is described elsewhere 481,482 How 6 Face to face, provided individually …”

Section: Psychological Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Morrell

Sutcliffe

Booth

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

101

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression C Jane Morrell, 1 * Paul Sutcliffe, 2 Andrew Booth, 3 John Stevens, 3 This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 11/95/03. The contractual start date was in November 2012. The draft report began editorial review in August 2014 and was accepted for publication in June 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department ...

show abstract

Section: Psychological Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Morrell

Sutcliffe

Booth

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

101

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increased professional fulfilment and satisfaction have been reported for midwives working in caseload midwifery [ 5 - 9 ]. Reasons for the high levels of satisfaction include the provision of continuity of care [ 5 ], forming relationships with women [ 8 , 10 ], occupational autonomy [ 5 , 11 - 14 ], personal investment [ 8 ], and making a difference to women [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing satisfaction and burnout between caseload and standard care midwives: findings from two cross-sectional surveys conducted in Victoria, Australia

Newton

McLachlan

Willis

et al. 2014

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCaseload midwifery reduces childbirth interventions and increases women’s satisfaction with care. It is therefore important to understand the impact of caseload midwifery on midwives working in and alongside the model. While some studies have reported higher satisfaction for caseload compared with standard care midwives, others have suggested a need to explore midwives’ work-life balance as well as potential for stress and burnout. This study explored midwives’ attitudes to their professional role, and also measured burnout in caseload midwives compared to standard care midwives at two sites in Victoria, Australia with newly introduced caseload midwifery models.MethodsAll midwives providing maternity care at the study sites were sent questionnaires at the commencement of the caseload midwifery model and two years later. Data items included the Midwifery Process Questionnaire (MPQ) to examine midwives’ attitude to their professional role, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) to measure burnout, and questions about midwives’ views of caseload work. Data were pooled for the two sites and comparisons made between caseload and standard care midwives. The MPQ and CBI data were summarised as individual and group means.ResultsTwenty caseload midwives (88%) and 130 standard care midwives (41%) responded at baseline and 22 caseload midwives (95%) and 133 standard care midwives (45%) at two years. Caseload and standard care midwives were initially similar across all measures except client-related burnout, which was lower for caseload midwives (12.3 vs 22.4, p = 0.02). After two years, compared to midwives in standard care, 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).ConclusionCaseload midwifery was associated with lower burnout scores and higher professional satisfaction. Further research should focus on understanding the key features of the caseload model that are related to these outcomes to help build a picture of what is required to ensure the long-term sustainability of the model.

show abstract

“…Several reports have documented the feasibility and safety of midwife managed care (1–4). Women at low risk for obstetrical complications may even be more satisfied with the maternity care at these units (4) and ‘woman centered’ care has increased the demand for this care to be offered to women at or near their place of living.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Child births in a modified midwife managed unit: Selection and transfer according to intended place of delivery

Holt

Vold

Backe

et al. 2001

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Implementation and evaluation of a midwifery development unit

Abstract: This article describes the implementation and evaluation of a programme of care at the Midwifery Development Unit, Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital. This care programme is being provided as part of a ‘Choices for Care’ initiative.

Cited by 20 publications

References 1 publication

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Comparing satisfaction and burnout between caseload and standard care midwives: findings from two cross-sectional surveys conducted in Victoria, Australia

Child births in a modified midwife managed unit: Selection and transfer according to intended place of delivery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About