Turnbull Deborah, Baghurst Peter, Collins Carmel, Cornwell Chris, Nixon Anne, Donnelan-Fernandez Roslyn, Antoniou Georgia
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, South Australia, Australia.
Women Birth. 2009 Mar;22(1):3-9. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2008.10.001. Epub 2008 Dec 19.
Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) is a continuity of midwifery care model for women in all risk groups (Low, Moderate and High) available at a tertiary metropolitan hospital in Australia. This demonstration study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of MGP with other models of care at the hospital.
Comparisons of clinical outcomes were made between women who received care under MGP (n=618) and those receiving 'Other' modes of care at the hospital (n=3548) between three risk categories over a 15-month period.
There were more Low (MGP n=218, 35.3%, 'Other' n=773, 21.8%) and fewer High Risk (MGP n=46, 7.4%, 'Other' n=564, 15.9%) women in MGP, with similar proportions of Moderate Risk women (MGP n=354, 57.3%, 'Other' n=2211, 62.3%). Significant differences include: fewer assisted deliveries for Moderate Risk women in MGP (27.7% MGP, 46.1% 'Other'); fewer labour inductions (Low Risk: 12.8% MGP, 25.1% 'Other'; Moderate Risk: 21.8% MGP, 29.5% 'Other'; High Risk: 19.6% MGP, 34.9% 'Other'); less epidural analgesia (Low Risk: 22.5% MGP, 49.0% 'Other'; Moderate Risk: 20.3% MGP, 38.4% 'Other'; High Risk: 17.4% MGP, 32.6% 'Other'); and differences in the overall pattern of perineal trauma. No significant differences were found in the incidence of post-partum haemorrhage, antenatal hospital admissions, or neonatal admission to Special or Intensive Care.
MGP is clinically effective when practiced in a routine setting.
助产士团队执业模式(MGP)是澳大利亚一家三级城市医院为所有风险类别(低、中、高)的女性提供的一种连续性助产护理模式。这项示范研究旨在比较MGP与该医院其他护理模式的临床效果。
在15个月的时间里,对MGP模式下接受护理的女性(n = 618)和在医院接受“其他”护理模式的女性(n = 3548)在三个风险类别中的临床结局进行比较。
MGP模式下低风险女性更多(MGP组n = 218,占35.3%;“其他”组n = 773,占21.8%),高风险女性更少(MGP组n = 46,占7.4%;“其他”组n = 564,占15.9%),中度风险女性比例相似(MGP组n = 354,占57.3%;“其他”组n = 2211,占62.3%)。显著差异包括:MGP模式下中度风险女性的辅助分娩更少(MGP组为27.7%,“其他”组为46.1%);引产更少(低风险:MGP组为12.8%,“其他”组为25.1%;中度风险:MGP组为21.8%,“其他”组为29.5%;高风险:MGP组为19.6%,“其他”组为34.9%);硬膜外镇痛更少(低风险:MGP组为22.5%,“其他”组为49.0%;中度风险:MGP组为20.3%,“其他”组为38.4%;高风险:MGP组为17.4%,“其他”组为32.6%);以及会阴创伤的总体模式存在差异。在产后出血发生率、产前住院次数或新生儿入住特殊或重症监护病房方面未发现显著差异。
MGP在常规环境中实施时具有临床效果。