Dharni N, Essex H, Bryant M J, Cronin de Chavez A, Willan K, Farrar D, Bywater T, Dickerson J
Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK.
Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, York, UK.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Mar 12;21(1):205. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03671-2.
Recent UK maternity policy changes recommend that a named midwife supports women throughout their pregnancy, birth and postnatal care. Whilst many studies report high levels of satisfaction amongst women receiving, and midwives providing, this level of continuity of carer, there are concerns some midwives may experience burnout and stress. In this study, we present a qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a midwife-led continuity of carer model that excluded continuity of carer at the birth.
Underpinned by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Fidelity, our evaluation explored the implementation, fidelity, reach and satisfaction of the continuity of carer model. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with midwives (n = 7) and women (n = 15) from continuity of carer team. To enable comparisons between care approaches, midwives (n = 7) and women (n = 10) from standard approach teams were also interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.
For continuity of carer team midwives, manageable caseloads, extended appointment times, increased team stability, and flexible working patterns facilitated both care provided and midwives' job satisfaction. Both continuity of carer and standard approach midwives reported challenges in providing postnatal continuity given the unpredictable timing of labour and birth. Time constraints, inadequate staffing and lack of administrative support were reported as additional barriers to implementing continuity of carer within standard approach teams. Women reported continuity was integral to building trust with midwives, encouraged them to disclose mental health issues and increased their confidence in making birth choices.
Our evaluation highlighted the successful implementation of a continuity of carer model for ante and postnatal care. Despite exclusion of the birth element in the model, both women and midwives expressed high levels of satisfaction in comparison to women and midwives within the standard approach. Implementation successes were largely due to structural and resource factors, particularly the combination of additional time and smaller caseloads of women. However, these resources are not widely available within the resources of maternity unit budgets. Future research should further explore whether a continuity of carer model focusing on antenatal and postnatal care delivery is a feasible and sustainable model of care for all women.
英国近期的产妇政策变化建议,由一名指定的助产士在女性整个孕期、分娩期及产后护理期间提供支持。尽管许多研究报告称,接受这种连续性护理的女性以及提供护理的助产士满意度很高,但也有人担心一些助产士可能会出现职业倦怠和压力。在本研究中,我们对一种由助产士主导的连续性护理模式的实施情况进行了定性评估,该模式在分娩时不包括护理的连续性。
以实施保真度概念模型为基础,我们的评估探讨了连续性护理模式的实施、保真度、覆盖范围和满意度。对连续性护理团队的助产士(n = 7)和女性(n = 15)进行了半结构化访谈。为了能够比较不同护理方式,还对标准护理方式团队的助产士(n = 7)和女性(n = 10)进行了访谈。访谈进行了录音、转录,并采用主题分析法进行分析。
对于连续性护理团队的助产士来说,可管理的工作量、延长的预约时间、更高的团队稳定性以及灵活的工作模式促进了护理工作的开展和助产士的工作满意度。连续性护理团队和标准护理方式团队的助产士都表示,由于分娩时间难以预测,在提供产后连续性护理方面存在挑战。时间限制、人员配备不足以及缺乏行政支持被报告为标准护理方式团队实施连续性护理的额外障碍。女性表示,连续性护理对于与助产士建立信任至关重要,鼓励她们披露心理健康问题,并增强了她们做出分娩选择的信心。
我们的评估突出了产前和产后护理连续性护理模式的成功实施。尽管该模式在分娩环节有所缺失,但与标准护理方式下的女性和助产士相比,女性和助产士都表达了较高的满意度。实施成功主要归功于结构和资源因素,特别是额外时间和女性较小工作量的结合。然而,这些资源在产科病房预算资源中并不广泛可用。未来的研究应进一步探讨专注于产前和产后护理的连续性护理模式是否是所有女性可行且可持续的护理模式。