Lewis Lucy, Hauck Yvonne L, Crichton Caroline, Pemberton Alissa, Spence Megan, Kelly Georgina
School of Nursing and Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia 6102, Australia; Department of Nursing and Midwifery Education and Research, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia 6009, Australia.
King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia.
Women Birth. 2016 Dec;29(6):494-502. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.04.009. Epub 2016 May 16.
Midwifery group practice (MGP) is a care model offered by a primary midwife in a small team. Evidence confirms MGP is acceptable to women, safe and cost effective.
We aimed to provide a systematic overview of the first 'no exit' MGP in a Western Australian (WA) tertiary maternity hospital, using a mixed methods approach, involving four phases. Between July 2013 and June 2014: phase one assessed MGP characteristics, obstetric and neonatal outcomes by parity; phase two examined women's satisfaction by mode of delivery; and phase three qualitatively explored perceptions of care. Phase four compared the proportion of MGP women and the 2012 WA birthing population.
Phase one included 232 MGP women; 87% achieved a vaginal birth. Phase two included 97% (226 of 232) women, finding 98% would recommend the service. Phase three analysis of 62 interviews revealed an overarching theme 'Continuity with Midwives' encompassing six sub-themes: only a phone call away; home away from home; knowing me; a shared view; there for me; and letting it happen. Phase four compared the MGP cohort to 33,393 WA women. Intrapartum MGP women were more likely than the WA population to have a vaginal birth (87% vs 65%, P≤0.001) and intact perineum (49% vs 36%, P≤0.001) and less likely to use epidural/spinal analgesia (34% vs 59%, P≤0.001), or have a caesarean (13% vs 35%, P≤0.001).
Mixed methods enabled systematic examination of this new 'no exit' MGP confirming safety and acceptability. Findings contribute to our knowledge of MGP models.
助产士团队执业模式(MGP)是由一名初级助产士在一个小团队中提供的护理模式。有证据证实,MGP模式为女性所接受,具有安全性且成本效益高。
我们旨在采用混合方法,分四个阶段,对西澳大利亚州一家三级妇产医院首个“无退出”的MGP模式进行系统概述。在2013年7月至2014年6月期间:第一阶段按产次评估MGP模式的特点、产科和新生儿结局;第二阶段按分娩方式调查女性的满意度;第三阶段定性探索对护理的看法。第四阶段比较了采用MGP模式的女性比例与2012年西澳大利亚州分娩人群的比例。
第一阶段纳入了232名采用MGP模式的女性;87%实现了阴道分娩。第二阶段纳入了97%(232名中的226名)的女性,发现98%的女性会推荐这项服务。对62次访谈的第三阶段分析揭示了一个总体主题“与助产士的连续性”,包含六个子主题:随时可及;像家一样的家外之家;了解我;共同的看法;支持我;顺其自然。第四阶段将采用MGP模式的队列与33393名西澳大利亚州女性进行了比较。产时采用MGP模式的女性比西澳大利亚州人群更有可能阴道分娩(87%对65%,P≤0.001)和会阴完整(49%对36%,P≤0.001),且使用硬膜外/脊髓镇痛的可能性更小(34%对59%,P≤0.001),或进行剖宫产的可能性更小(13%对35%,P≤0.001)。
混合方法能够对这种新的“无退出”MGP模式进行系统审查,证实了其安全性和可接受性。研究结果有助于我们对MGP模式的了解。