Women and healthcare providers’ perceptions of a midwife-led unit in a Swiss university hospital: a qualitative study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Beat Stoll³  Patrick Hohlfeld⁵  Laura Cardia-Vonèche⁴  Claire de Labrusse²  Françoise Maillefer¹ 

[1] University Hospital of the Canton of Vaud (CHUV), Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland;University of Applied Sciences in Western Switzerland (HES-SO, HESAV), Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland;Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, 1202, Switzerland;Association Actions en Santé Publique, Geneva, 1200, Switzerland;Maternity Hospital, University Hospital of the Canton of Vaud (CHUV), Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland

关键词: Qualitative research;    Physiological childbirth;    Continuity of care;    Midwifery;    Maternity services care model;    Midwife-led unit;   

Others  :  1137781
DOI  :  10.1186/s12884-015-0477-4

 received in 2014-08-31, accepted in 2015-02-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The development of medical-led care in obstetrics over the past decades has contributed to improving outcomes for both mother and child. Although efficiency has improved in complex situations, unnecessary interventions are still practiced in low-risk pregnancies, contrary to international recommendations. A shift to a less interventionist model of care has encouraged many countries to review their policies on maternal health care and develop models such as the “midwife-led unit” (MLU) where the midwife plays a predominant role with a minimum of routine intervention. Existing research has provided convincing evidence that MLUs lead to better maternal and neonatal outcomes when compared to traditional models. They not only improve the level of satisfaction amongst women, but are also associated with reduced healthcare costs. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of women and healthcare providers regarding the creation of an MLU in a Swiss university hospital.

Methods

A descriptive research study using qualitative methods was conducted among pregnant women and new mothers in a Swiss maternity unit, including also midwives and medical staff. Data collection was carried out through one-to-one interviews, focus groups, and telephone interviews (n = 63). After transcription, thematic analysis was performed.

Results

The triangulation of perceptions of women and healthcare providers indicated support for the implementation of an MLU to promote physiological delivery. Most women welcomed the idea of an MLU, in particular how it could help in offering continuity of care. Healthcare providers were optimistic about the implementation of an MLU and recognised the need for some women to have access to a less interventionist approach. From the women’s perspective, barriers concerned the lack of awareness of midwives’ full scope of practice, while barriers for midwives and obstetricians were related to the challenge to develop a good interprofessional collaboration.

Conclusion

Alternative models to provide maternity care for low-risk women have been developed and evaluated widely in several countries outside Switzerland. This study showed that women and healthcare providers were favourable towards the development of a new care model, while taking into account the specific expectations and barriers raised by participants.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Maillefer et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]The European Perinatal Health Report. The health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. Euro-Peristat. 2010:93-97. Available from: http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html.
• [2]Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D: Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 8:CD000012. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4
• [3]World Health Organization: Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization, Geneva; 1997.
• [4]Nardin J: Continuous Cardiotocography (CTG) as a Form of Electronic Monitoring (EFM) for Fetal Assessment During Labour. World Health Organization Reproductive Health Library, Geneva; 2007.
• [5]Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GML: Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 5:CD006066. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006066.pub2
• [6]The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANCZOG). Intrapartum fetal surveillance. Clinical Guidelines - 2nd ed.; 2006.
• [7]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring. NICE Pathways. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London; 2014.
• [8]Wagner M: Fish can’t see water: the need to humanize birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001, 75(1):25-37.
• [9]Murphy-Lawless J: Reading Birth and Death: A History of Obstetric Thinking. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis; 1998.
• [10]Tew M: Safer Childbirth?: a Critical History of Maternity Care. Free Association Books, London; 1998.
• [11]Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al.: Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007, 335(7628):1025.
• [12]Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Valezco A, et al.: Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006, 367(9525):1819-29.
• [13]Swain JE, Tasquin E, Mayes LC, Feldman R, Constable RT, Leckman JF: Maternal brain response to own baby-cry is affected by cesarean section delivery. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2008, 49(10):1042-52.
• [14]Koo V, Lynch J, Cooper S: Risk of postnatal depression after emergency delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2003, 29(4):246-50.
• [15]Rowe-Murray HJ, Fisher JR: Operative intervention in delivery is associated with compromised early mother-infant interaction. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 108(10):1068-75.
• [16]Zeitlin J, Mahangoo A, Cuttlini M, Alexander S, Barros H, et al.: EUROPERISTAT Report Writing Committee: The European Perinatal Health Report: comparing the health and care of pregnant women and newborn babies in Europe. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009, 63(9):681-2.
• [17]Davis-Floyd R: Birth Models That Work. University of California Press, Berkeley; 2009.
• [18]Department of Health: National Service for Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. Department of Health, London; 2004.
• [19]Department of Health: Making it Better for Mother and Baby. Department of Health, London; 2007.
• [20]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Planning Place of Birth, Intrapartum Care. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health, London; 2007.
• [21]Hunter M: Autonomy, Clinical Freedom and Responsibility. The Paradoxes of Providing Intrapartum Midwifery Care in a Small Maternity Unit as Compared With a Large Obstetric Hospital. Massey University, Palmerston North, USA; 2000.
• [22]Lavender T, Chapple J: How women choose where to give birth. Pract Midwife 2005, 8(7):10-5.
• [23]Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D: Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 8:CD004667. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3
• [24]Birthplace in England Collaborative Group: Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study BMJ 2011, 343:d7400. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7400
• [25]Swiss Federal Administration: Ordonnance du DFI sur les prestations dans l’assurance obligatoire des soins en cas de maladie. Federal Internal Department, Bern; 2015.
• [26]Hebamme.ch: Comment choisir le lieu de l’accouchement? Quelles sont les possibilités? 2013. Available from: http://www.hebamme.ch/fr/elt/rat/index.cfm?grID=5.
• [27]Federal Office of Statistics: Les nouveau-nés dans les hôpitaux de Suisse en 2004. Swiss Confederation, Bern; 2004.
• [28]Federation Suisse des sages-femmes (FSSF): Sages-femmes independantes de Suisse en 2012. FSSF, Bern; 2012.
• [29]Centre Hospitalier Universitaire du Canton de Vaud-DGOG. Missions et valeur du DGOG. 2013; Available from: http://www.chuv.ch/dgo/dgo_home/dgo_presentation/dgo_presentation_mission.htm
• [30]Sabatier E: Démarche Qualité aux Hospices-CHUV: Evaluation de la Satisfaction Concernant le Déclenchement de l’accouchement Sous Misoprostol®. Institut Universitaire de Sante Publique - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Canton de Vaud, MSc Thesis; 2006.
• [31]Bowling A: Research Methods in Health Investigating Health and Health Services. 2009.
• [32]Braun V: Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage Publications Ltd, London; 2013.
• [33]Byrne B: Researching Society and Culture. Edited by Seale C. Sage Publications Ltd, London; 2001.
• [34]Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D, Soltani H, Gates S: Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008, 8(4):CD004667. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub2
• [35]Murray A: Evaluating Consumer Participation in Paediatric Healthcare: An Action Research Approach in Creativity, Research and Innovation in Nursing and Midwifery Practice. Adelaide & Meath Hospital, Dublin; 2006.
• [36]Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Weston J: Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Databse Syst Rev 2011, 16(2):CD003766. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub3
• [37]Hodnett ED. Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 (4):CD000062. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000062.pub2
• [38]Hildingsson I, Waldenstrom U, Radestad I: Women’s expectations on antenatal care as assessed in early pregnancy: number of visits, continuity of caregiver and general content. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 2002, 81(2):118-25.
• [39]Steele R: Gaining competence and confidence as a midwife. Brit J Midwifery 2009, 17(1):441-4.
• [40]Nursing and Midwifery Council: Standards for pre-Registration Midwifery Education. Nursing and Midwifery Council, London; 2004.
• [41]Brown S, Lumley J: Satisfaction with care in labor and birth: a survey of 790 autralian women. Birth 1994, 21(1):4-13.
• [42]Hodnett ED: Pain and women satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obst Gynaecol 2002, 186(5):160-72.
• [43]Hundley V, Cruickshank FM, Lang G, Glazener VM, Minle JM, Turner M, et al.: Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ 1994, 309(6966):1400-4.
• [44]De Labrusse C, Kiger A: Midwife-led units: a place to work, a place to give birth. J Int Childbirth 2013, 3(2):128-37.
• [45]Griffith G: Understanding accountability in midwifery practice: key concepts. Brit J Midwifery 2011, 19(5):327-8.
• [46]Nursing and Midwifery Council: The Code: Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics for Nurses and Midwives. Nursing and Midwifery Council, London; 2008.