Suppr超能文献

在澳大利亚公立妇产医院系统中实施产妇个案管理:对妇产医院管理人员进行的全国性横断面调查结果。

Operationalising caseload midwifery in the Australian public maternity system: Findings from a national cross-sectional survey of maternity managers.

机构信息

School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Australia; Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, 215 Franklin St., Melbourne 3000, Australia.

Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, 215 Franklin St., Melbourne 3000, Australia; The Royal Women's Hospital, 20 Flemington Road, Parkville 3052, Australia.

出版信息

Women Birth. 2018 Jun;31(3):194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.08.132. Epub 2017 Sep 28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite high-level evidence of the benefits of caseload midwifery for women and babies, little is known about specific practice arrangements, organisational barriers and facilitators, nor about workforce requirements of caseload. This paper explores how caseload models across Australia operate.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional, online survey of maternity managers in public maternity hospitals with birthing services was undertaken. Only services with a caseload model are included in the analysis.

FINDINGS

Of 253 eligible hospitals, 149 (63%) responded, of whom 44 (31%) had a caseload model. Operationalisation of caseload varied across the country. Most commonly, caseload midwives were required to work more than 0.5 EFT, have more than one year of experience and have the skills across the whole scope of practice. On average, midwives took a caseload of 35-40 women when full time, with reduced caseloads if caring for women at higher risk. Leave coverage was complex and often ad-hoc. Duration of home-based postnatal care varied and most commonly provided to six weeks. Women's access to caseload care was impacted by many factors with geographical location and obstetric risk being most common.

CONCLUSION

Introducing, managing and operationalising caseload midwifery care is complex. Factors which may affect the expansion and availability of the model are multi-faceted and include staffing and model inclusion guidelines. Coverage of leave is a factor which appears particularly challenging and needs more focus.

摘要

背景

尽管有高水平的证据表明,以产妇人数为基础的助产模式对母婴都有好处,但对于具体的实践安排、组织障碍和促进因素,以及以产妇人数为基础的劳动力需求,了解甚少。本文探讨了澳大利亚各地的以产妇人数为基础的模式是如何运作的。

方法

对有分娩服务的公立妇产医院的产科管理人员进行了一次全国性的、横断面的、在线调查。只有采用产妇人数模式的服务才包括在分析中。

发现

在 253 家符合条件的医院中,有 149 家(63%)做出了回应,其中 44 家(31%)采用了产妇人数模式。全国各地的产妇人数模式的运作方式各不相同。最常见的是,要求以产妇人数为基础的助产士工作超过 0.5 EFT,有一年以上的经验,并且具备整个实践范围的技能。平均而言,助产士全职时照顾 35-40 名妇女,照顾高危妇女的产妇人数则较少。休假的覆盖范围很复杂,往往是临时的。家庭为基础的产后护理时间长短不一,最常见的是持续六周。许多因素影响妇女获得以产妇人数为基础的护理的机会,地理位置和产科风险是最常见的因素。

结论

引入、管理和运作以产妇人数为基础的助产护理是复杂的。可能影响该模式的扩展和可用性的因素是多方面的,包括人员配备和模式纳入准则。休假的覆盖范围是一个特别具有挑战性的因素,需要更多的关注。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验