Developing and evaluating Birthing on Country services for First Nations Australians: the Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) prospective mixed methods birth cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: With the impact of over two centuries of colonisation in Australia, First Nations families experience a disproportionate burden of adverse pregnancy and birthing outcomes. First Nations mothers are 3-5 times more likely than other mothers to experience maternal mortality; babies are 2-3 times more likely to be born preterm, low birth weight or not to survive their first year. 'Birthing on Country' incorporates a multiplicity of interpretations but conveys a resumption of maternity services in First Nations Communities with Community governance for the best start to life. Redesigned services offer women and families integrated, holistic care, including carer continuity from primary through tertiary services; services coordination and quality care including safe and supportive spaces. The overall aim of Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) is to facilitate and assess Birthing on Country expansion into two settings - urban and rural; with scale-up to include First Nations-operated birth centres. This study will build on our team's earlier work - a Birthing on Country service established and evaluated in an urban setting, that reported significant perinatal (and organisational) benefits, including a 37% reduction in preterm births, among other improvements. METHODS: Using community-based, participatory action research, we will collaborate to develop, implement and evaluate new Birthing on Country care models. We will conduct a mixed-methods, prospective birth cohort study in two settings, comparing outcomes for women having First Nations babies with historical controls. Our analysis of feasibility, acceptability, clinical and cultural safety, effectiveness and cost, will use data including (i) women's experiences collected through longitudinal surveys (three timepoints) and yarning interviews; (ii) clinical records; (iii) staff and stakeholder views and experiences; (iv) field notes and meeting minutes; and (v) costs data. The study includes a process, impact and outcome evaluation of this complex health services innovation. DISCUSSION: Birthing on Country applies First Nations governance and cultural safety strategies to support optimum maternal, infant, and family health and wellbeing. Women's experiences, perinatal outcomes, costs and other operational implications will be reported for Communities, service providers, policy advisors, and for future scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia & New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry # ACTRN12620000874910 (2 September 2020).

Putting Indigenous Cultures and Indigenous Knowledges Front and Centre to Clinical Practice: Katherine Hospital Case Example.

The inclusion of Indigenous cultures, known as the cultural determinants of health, in healthcare policy and health professional education accreditation and registration requirements, is increasingly being recognised as imperative for improving the appalling health and well-being of Indigenous Australians. These inclusions are a strengths-based response to tackling the inequities in Indigenous Australians' health relative to the general population. However, conceptualising the cultural determinants of health in healthcare practice has its contextual challenges, and gaps in implementation evidence are apparent. In this paper, we provide a case example, namely the Katherine Hospital, of how healthcare services can implement the cultural determinants of health into clinical practice. However, to be effective, health professionals must concede that Australia's Indigenous peoples' knowledges involving cultural ways of being, knowing and doing must co-exist with western and biomedical knowledges of health practice. We use the Katherine Hospital ABC Radio National Background Briefing interview, which was mentioned by two research participants in a 2020 study, as an example of good practice that we can learn from. Additionally, the six Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health actions contained in the 2nd Edition of the Australian National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards provide governance and accountability examples of how to enable Indigenous people's cultures and their knowledges in the provision of services. The role of non-Indigenous clinical allies and accomplices is imperative when embedding and enacting Indigenous Australians' cultures in service systems of health. When Indigenous Peoples access mainstream hospitals, deep self-reflection by allies and accomplices is necessary to enable safe, quality care, and treatment that is culturally safe and free from racism. Doing so can increase cultural responsiveness free of racism, thereby reducing the inherent power imbalances embedded within mainstream health services.

The Daalbirrwirr Gamambigu (Safe Children) Model: Embedding Cultural Safety in Child Protection Responses for Australian Aboriginal Children in Hospital Settings.

The aim of this paper is to describe the development of a model of care to embed cultural safety for Aboriginal children into paediatric hospital settings. The Daalbirrwirr Gamambigu (pronounced "Dahl-beer-weer gum-um-be-goo" in the Gumbaynggirr language means 'safe children') model encompasses child protection responses at clinical, managerial and organisational levels of health services. A review of scholarly articles and grey literature followed by qualitative interviews with Aboriginal health professionals formed the evidence base for the model, which then underwent rounds of consultation for cultural suitability and clinical utility. Culturally appropriate communication with children and their families using clinical yarning and a culturally adapted version of ISBAR (a mnemonic for Identify, Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) for interprofessional communication is recommended. The model guides the development of a critical consciousness about cultural safety in health care settings, and privileges the cultural voices of many diverse Aboriginal peoples. When adapted appropriately for local clinical and cultural contexts, it will contribute to a patient journey experience of respect, dignity and empowerment.

A call for action that cannot go to voicemail: Research activism to urgently improve Indigenous perinatal health and wellbeing.

In this call to action, a coalition of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, United States and Canada argue for the urgent need for adequately funded Indigenous-led solutions to perinatal health inequities for Indigenous families in well-resourced settler-colonial countries. Authors describe examples of successful community-driven programs making a difference and call on all peoples to support and resource Indigenous-led perinatal health services by providing practical actions for individuals and different groups.

Talking about the 'r' word: a right to a health system that is free of racism.

Australia's local, state, territory and federal governments have agreed that the 10-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians will be closed by 2031. However, annual Closing the Gap reports tabled by the various prime ministers in the Australian Parliament (for the past 12 years) have consistently indicated that the life expectancy gap continues to widen. Australia has seen more than three decades of government policies since the landmark 1989 National Aboriginal health strategy. What has been missing from these policy commitments is the genuine enactment of the knowledges that are held by Indigenous Australians relating to their cultural ways of being, knowing and doing. Privileging Indigenous knowledges, cultures and voices must be front and centre in developing, designing and implementing policies and programs. The sharing of power, provision of resources, culturally informed reflective policy making, and program design are critical elements. In this paper, we provide a conceptual model of practice, working at the cultural interface where knowledges are valued and innovations can occur. This model of practice is where knowledges and cultures can co-exist, and it could be the answer to Closing the Gap in life expectancy by 2031. Despite a growing willingness and need to consider these models, there remains a deep-seated resistance to identifying and addressing institutional and systemic racism and racist attitudes, including unconscious biases held by individuals. Further, western non-Indigenous worldviews of ways of being, knowing and doing continue to dominate the decisions and actions of governments - and consequentially dominate public health policies and practices. There is an unacceptable standard approach, for and about Indigenous health instead of with Indigenous peoples, resulting in the neglectful dismissal of Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous cultures of ways of being, knowing and doing.

The experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Bachelor of Midwifery students: An integrative literature review.

ISSUE: There is an underrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander midwives across Australia and an inadequate number of graduating midwives to redress this. A major pillar for the Birthing on Country Model is maternity care workforce development. AIM: The purpose of this review is to examine the enablers and barriers that Aboriginal students experience while undertaking the Bachelor of Midwifery degree in Australia. METHODS: A search of the literature was undertaken through electronic databases. When only three papers were found looking at the experiences of Aboriginal midwifery students the search was broadened to include Aboriginal undergraduate health students. FINDINGS: The literature review reported a strong need for cultural safety in both the clinical and education systems. Students with access to cultural supports, relationships with Aboriginal mentors and academics and Aboriginal clinical placements felt empowered and were able to navigate the 'two worlds' in a meaningful way. DISCUSSION: This review highlights a significant gap in the literature. Despite the expanded search terms to include Aboriginal health students, a relatively narrow range of papers were found. Interestingly, the combined search revealed similar themes: kinship, personal factors, and cultural issues. CONCLUSION: Empowering and supporting Aboriginal Peoples to become midwives is essential. While systems and societies aim for cultural safety, this review shows there is still a way to go. Further research is essential to decolonise higher education and health care systems, and provide strong, well supported pathways for Aboriginal midwifery students.

Evaluation of an Australian Aboriginal model of maternity care: The Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service.

BACKGROUND: The urban-based Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service integrates multidisciplinary wrap-around services along-side continuity of midwifery care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers and babies. AIM: To evaluate the Malabar Service from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2014. METHODS: A mixed method design. Outcomes for mothers of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander babies cared for at an urban Australian referral hospital by the Malabar Service were compared to mainstream. Primary outcomes are rates of low birth weight; smoking >20 weeks gestation; preterm birth; and breastfeeding at discharge. Malabar outcomes are also compared to national and state perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: The Malabar Service (n = 505) demonstrated similar rates of preterm birth (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 0.96-4.97); breastfeeding at discharge (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 0.61-1.86); and a higher rate of low birth weight babies (aOR 3.6, 95% CI 1.02-12.9) than the comparison group (n = 201). There was a 25% reduction in smoking rates from 38.9% to 29.1%. Compared to national and state populations, Malabar outcomes were better. Women experienced greater psychosocial complexity but were well supported. Malabar Mothers (n = 9) experienced: accessibility, preparedness for birth and cultural safety. Staff (n = 13) identified going 'above and beyond' and teamwork to provide culturally safe care counterbalanced with concerns around funding and cultural support. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated integrated continuity of midwifery care with wrap-around services for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander mothers is highly valued and is culturally safe. The service is as safe as main stream services and promotes better clinical outcomes compared to national and state outcomes.

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care. METHODS: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'. RESULTS: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care. CONCLUSIONS: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. METHODS: In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. FINDINGS: Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Australian maternity reform through clinical redesign.

The current Australian national maternity reform agenda focuses on improving access to maternity care for women and their families while preserving safety and quality. The caseload midwifery model of care offers the level of access to continuity of care proposed in the reforms however the introduction of these models in Australia continues to meet with strong resistance. In many places access to caseload midwifery care is offered as a token, usually restricted to well women, within limited metropolitan and regional facilities and where available, places for women are very small as a proportion of the total service provided. This case study outlines a major clinical redesign of midwifery care at a metropolitan tertiary referral maternity hospital in Sydney. Caseload midwifery care was introduced under randomised trial conditions to provide midwifery care to 1500 women of all risk resulting in half of the publicly insured women receiving midwifery group practice care. The paper describes the organisational quality and safety tools that were utilised to facilitate the process while discussing the factors that facilitated the process and the barriers that were encountered within the workforce, operational and political context.

A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options).

BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant.Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246.