Fleissig A, Kroll D, McCarthy M
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Medical School, UK.
Midwifery. 1996 Dec;12(4):191-7. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(96)80006-4.
to assess the feasibility of obstetric offering community-led maternity care to most women, both those assessed to be at low obstetric risk and those with complicated pregnancies at 'booking'. Community-led care is defined as appropriate care by community midwives and general practitioners during pregnancy, birth and the puerperium, with routine hospital care kept to a minimum.
observational study.
South Camden, London, UK: University College Obstetric Hospital and community.
453 women, resident in South Camden, including those 'booked' for home births, who were 'booked' for maternity care at University College Hospital between October 1993 and April 1994.
this paper assesses the extent to which community midwives and general practitioners were able to give local women community-led care and describes the amount of care provided to women by their 'named' community midwives and team. Most local women were eligible for community-led care and 85% planned to have it. The majority of care was given by the community midwives, but the amount of hospital input varied. Women who remained at low obstetric risk generally had their antenatal care in the community, only attending hospital for two or three routine assessments and occasional extra referrals. Women attending hospital more frequently usually had a complicated pregnancy. Care given by a woman's 'named' midwives was generally provided antenatally, but care from familiar midwives was less common in labour and postnatally.
community-led maternity care can be provided to the majority of women, even those with a complicated pregnancy, as long as specialist opinion and facilities are accessible and women are referred as necessary. Although the majority of women had access to local antenatal care from staff they got to know, the 'named' community midwives and teams found it difficult to provide comprehensive care, particularly to the women who developed complications, so priorities need to be established. Further research is needed to compare alternative models of care and their costs.
评估产科向大多数妇女提供社区主导的孕产妇护理的可行性,这些妇女包括评估为低产科风险的妇女以及在“预约”时患有复杂妊娠的妇女。社区主导的护理定义为社区助产士和全科医生在孕期、分娩期及产褥期提供的适当护理,将常规医院护理降至最低限度。
观察性研究。
英国伦敦南卡姆登:大学学院妇产医院及社区。
453名居住在南卡姆登的妇女,包括那些“预约”在家分娩的妇女,她们于1993年10月至1994年4月在大学学院医院“预约”接受孕产妇护理。
本文评估了社区助产士和全科医生能够为当地妇女提供社区主导护理的程度,并描述了由她们“指定”的社区助产士和团队为妇女提供的护理量。大多数当地妇女有资格接受社区主导的护理,85%的人计划接受这种护理。大部分护理由社区助产士提供,但医院的介入量各不相同。产科风险较低的妇女通常在社区接受产前护理,仅到医院进行两三次常规检查和偶尔的额外转诊。就诊更频繁的妇女通常患有复杂妊娠。妇女“指定”的助产士提供的护理通常在产前,但熟悉的助产士在分娩时和产后提供的护理较少见。
只要能够获得专科意见和设施,并在必要时进行转诊,就可以为大多数妇女,甚至是患有复杂妊娠的妇女提供社区主导的孕产妇护理。尽管大多数妇女能够从她们认识的工作人员那里获得当地的产前护理,但“指定”的社区助产士和团队发现难以提供全面护理,尤其是对出现并发症的妇女,因此需要确定优先事项。需要进一步研究以比较不同的护理模式及其成本。