Macdonald Danielle, Snelgrove-Clarke Erna, Campbell-Yeo Marsha, Aston Megan, Helwig Melissa, Baker Kathy A
1 School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada2 Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada3 Departments of Paediatrics, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada4 WK Kellogg Health Sciences Library, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada5 Texas Christian University Center for Evidence Based Practice and Research: a Collaborating Center of the Joanna Briggs Institute.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Nov;13(11):74-127. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2444.
Collaboration has been associated with improved health outcomes in maternity care. Collaborative relationships between midwives and physicians have been a focus of literature regarding collaboration in maternity care. However despite the front line role of nurses in the provision of maternity care, there has not yet been a systematic review conducted about the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care.
The objective of this review was to identify, appraise and synthesize qualitative evidence on the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care.Specifically, the review question was: what are the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care?
This review considered studies that included educated and licensed midwives and nurses with any length of practice. Nurses who work in labor and delivery, postpartum care, prenatal care, public health and community health were included in this systematic review.This review considered studies that investigated the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating during the provision of birthing care. Experiences, of any duration, included any interactions between midwives and nurses working in collaboration to provide birthing care.Birthing care referred to: (a) supportive care throughout the pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum, (b) administrative tasks throughout the pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum, and (c) clinical skills throughout the pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum. The postpartum period included the six weeks after delivery.The review considered English language studies that focused on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.This review considered qualitative studies that explored the experiences of collaboration in areas where midwives and nurses work together. Examples of these areas included: hospitals, birth centers, client homes, health clinics and other public or community health settings. These settings were located in any country, cultural context, or geographical location.
A three-step search strategy was used to identify relevant published and unpublished studies. English papers from 1981 onwards were considered. The following databases were searched: Anthrosource, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts. In addition to the databases, several grey literature sources were searched.
Papers that were selected for retrieval were independently assessed for inclusion in the review by two JBI-trained reviewers. The two reviewers used a standardized critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
Qualitative data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
Once qualitative studies were assessed using the the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument critical appraisal tool, findings of the included studies were extracted. These findings were aggregated into categories according to their similarity in meaning. These categories were then subjected to a meta-synthesis to produce a comprehensive set of synthesized findings.
Five studies were included in the review. Thirty-eight findings were extracted from the included studies and were aggregated into five categories. The five categories were synthesized into two synthesized findings. The two synthesized findings were:Synthesized finding1: Negative experiences of collaboration between nurses and midwives may be influenced by distrust, lack of clear roles, or unprofessional or inconsiderate behavior.Synthesized finding 2: If midwives and nurses have positive experiences collaborating thenthere is hope that the challenges of collaboration can be overcome.
Qualitative evidence about the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care was identified, appraised and synthesized. Two synthesized findings were created from the findings of the five included studies. Midwives and nurses had negative experiences of collaboration which may be influenced by: distrust, unclear roles, or a lack of professionalism or consideration. Midwives and nurses had positive experiences of teamwork which can be a source of hope for overcoming the challenges of sharing care.There is clearly a gap in the literature about the collaborative experiences of midwives and nurses, given that only five studies were located for inclusion in the systematic review. More qualitative research exploring collaboration as a process and the interactional dynamics of midwives and nurses in a variety of practice and professional contexts is required.Distrust, unclear roles, and lack of professionalism and consideration must all be addressed. Strategies that address and minimize the occurrences of these three elements need to be developed and implemented in an effort to reduce negative collaborative experiences for midwives and nurses. Postive experiences of teamwork must be acknowleged and celebrated, and the challenges that sharing care present must be understood as a part of the collaborative process.More qualitative research is required to explore the collaborative process between midwives and nurses. Further exploration of their interactional dynamics, their relationship between power and collaboration, and the experiences of collaboration in a variety of professional and practice contexts is recommended.
在产科护理中,合作与改善健康结局相关。助产士与医生之间的合作关系一直是产科护理合作相关文献的焦点。然而,尽管护士在提供产科护理方面发挥着一线作用,但尚未对助产士和护士合作提供分娩护理的经验进行系统综述。
本综述的目的是识别、评估和综合关于助产士和护士合作提供分娩护理经验的定性证据。具体而言,综述问题是:助产士和护士合作提供分娩护理的经验是什么?
本综述纳入了包括受过教育且有执照的助产士和护士、有任何工作时长的研究。在分娩、产后护理、产前护理、公共卫生和社区卫生领域工作的护士被纳入本系统综述。本综述纳入了调查助产士和护士在提供分娩护理过程中合作经验的研究。任何时长的经验,包括助产士和护士合作提供分娩护理时的任何互动。分娩护理指:(a)整个孕期、分娩期、产后期的支持性护理,(b)整个孕期、分娩期、产后期的行政任务,以及(c)整个孕期、分娩期、产后期的临床技能。产后期包括分娩后的六周。本综述纳入了以定性数据为重点的英语研究,包括但不限于现象学、扎根理论、民族志、行动研究和女性主义研究等设计。本综述纳入了探索助产士和护士共同工作领域合作经验的定性研究。这些领域的例子包括:医院、分娩中心、客户家中、健康诊所及其他公共或社区卫生场所。这些场所位于任何国家、文化背景或地理位置。
采用三步检索策略来识别相关的已发表和未发表研究。考虑1981年起的英文论文。检索了以下数据库:Anthrosource、CENTRAL(考克兰图书馆)、CINAHL、EMBASE、PsycINFO、PubMed、社会服务摘要和社会学摘要。除了这些数据库,还检索了几个灰色文献来源。
被选中进行检索的论文由两位接受过JBI培训的评审员独立评估是否纳入综述。两位评审员使用了乔安娜·布里格斯研究所定性评估与综述工具中的标准化批判性评估工具。
使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所定性评估与综述工具中的标准化数据提取工具从纳入综述的论文中提取定性数据。
一旦使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所定性评估与综述工具批判性评估工具对定性研究进行评估,就提取纳入研究的结果。这些结果根据其意义的相似性汇总为类别。然后对这些类别进行元综合,以产生一组全面的综合结果。
本综述纳入了五项研究。从纳入研究中提取了38项结果,并汇总为五类。这五类被综合为两项综合结果。两项综合结果为:综合结果1:护士和助产士之间合作的负面经验可能受到不信任、角色不明确或不专业或不顾及他人行为的影响。综合结果2:如果助产士和护士有积极的合作经验,那么就有希望克服合作中的挑战。
识别、评估并综合了关于助产士和护士合作提供分娩护理经验的定性证据。从五项纳入研究的结果中得出了两项综合结果。助产士和护士有合作的负面经验,这可能受到以下因素影响:不信任、角色不明确、缺乏专业精神或体谅。助产士和护士有团队合作的积极经验,这可以成为克服共享护理挑战的希望之源。鉴于仅找到五项研究纳入系统综述,关于助产士和护士合作经验的文献显然存在空白。需要更多的定性研究来探索合作过程以及助产士和护士在各种实践和专业背景下的互动动态。必须解决不信任、角色不明确以及缺乏专业精神和体谅等问题。需要制定并实施应对和尽量减少这三个因素出现的策略,以减少助产士和护士负面的合作经验。必须认可并赞扬团队合作的积极经验,并且必须将共享护理带来的挑战理解为合作过程的一部分。需要更多的定性研究来探索助产士和护士之间的合作过程。建议进一步探索他们的互动动态、权力与合作之间的关系以及在各种专业和实践背景下的合作经验。