Midwife-centred management: a qualitative study of midwifery group practice management and leadership in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery group practice (MGP) has consistently demonstrated optimal health and wellbeing outcomes for childbearing women and their babies. In this model, women can form a relationship with a known midwife, improving both maternal and midwife satisfaction. Yet the model is not widely implemented and sustained, resulting in limited opportunities for women to access it. Little attention has been paid to how MGP is managed and led and how this impacts the sustainability of the model. This study clarifies what constitutes optimal management and leadership and how this influences sustainability. METHODS: This qualitative study forms part of a larger mixed methods study investigating the management of MGP in Australia. The interview findings presented in this study are part of phase one, where the findings informed a national survey. Nine interviews and one focus group were conducted with 23 MGP managers, clinical midwife consultants, and operational/strategic managers who led MGPs. Transcripts of the audio-recordings were analysed using inductive, reflexive, thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were constructed, namely: The manager, the person, describing the ideal personal attributes of the MGP manager; midwifing the midwives, illustrating how the MGP manager supports, manages, and leads the group practice midwives; and gaining acceptance, explaining how the MGP manager can gain acceptance beyond group practice midwives. Participants described the need for MGP managers to display midwife-centred management. This requires the manager to have qualities that mirror what is generally accepted as requirements for good midwifery care namely: core beliefs in feminist values and woman-centred care; trust; inclusiveness; being an advocate; an ability to slow down or take time; an ability to form relationships; and exceptional communication skills. Since emotional labour is a large part of the role, it is also necessary for them to encourage and practice self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Managers need to practice in a way that is midwife-centred and mimics good midwifery care. To offset the emotional burden and improve sustainability, encouraging and promoting self-care practices might be of value.

The impact of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care, on women's perceptions of antenatal care quality: Survey results from the M@NGO randomized controlled trial for women of any risk.

BACKGROUND: The measurement and interpretation of patient experience is a distinct dimension of health care quality. The Midwives @ New Group practice Options (M@NGO) randomized control trial of caseload midwifery compared with standard care among women regardless of risk reported both clinical and cost benefits. This study reports participants' perceptions of the quality of antenatal care within caseload midwifery, compared with standard care for women of any risk within that trial. METHODS: A trial conducted at two Australian tertiary hospitals randomly assigned participants (1:1) to caseload midwifery or standard care regardless of risk. Women were sent an 89-question survey at 6 weeks postpartum that included 12 questions relating to pregnancy care. Ten survey questions (including 7-point Likert scales) were analyzed by intention to treat and illustrated by participant quotes from two free-text open-response items. RESULTS: From the 1748 women recruited to the trial, 58% (n = 1017) completed the 6-week survey. Of those allocated to caseload midwifery, 66% (n = 573) responded, compared with 51% (n = 444) of those allocated to standard care. The survey found women allocated to caseload midwifery perceived a higher level of quality care across every antenatal measure. Notably, those women with identified risk factors reported higher levels of emotional support (aOR 2.52 [95% CI 1.87-3.39]), quality care (2.94 [2.28-3.79]), and feeling actively involved in decision-making (3.21 [2.35-4.37]). CONCLUSIONS: Results from the study show that in addition to the benefits to clinical care and cost demonstrated in the M@NGO trial, caseload midwifery outperforms standard care in perceived quality of pregnancy care regardless of risk.

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).

Midwifery group practice workforce in Australia: A cross-sectional survey of midwives and managers.

BACKGROUND: Despite robust evidence on the benefits of midwifery group practice (MGP), there remains difficulties with implementing and sustaining the model. However, contemporary data on the MGP workforce and how each model has been operationalised are limited. This constrains an understanding of the factors that help or hinder implementation and sustainability of MGP. AIM: To describe the characteristics of Australian MGPs and the factors that help or hinder sustainability. METHODS: A national cross-sectional survey was undertaken in Australia between March 2021 and July 2022, inclusive. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive analysis while qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. FINDINGS: Of 669 survey responses, 579 were midwives and 90 were managers. The mean years of experience for clinical midwives was eight years, and 47.8% (almost twice the national average) completed a Bachelor of Midwifery (BMid). Half (50.2%) the models provided care for women of all risk. Midwives resigned from MGP because of the MGP work conditions (30%) and how the service was managed or supported (12.7%). Managers resigned from MGP because of role changes, conflict with their manager, and limited support. Almost half (42.6%) of MGP managers also managed other areas, leading to heavy workloads, competing demands, and burnout. CONCLUSION: The BMid appears to be a common educational pathway for MGP midwives, and many MGP services are providing care to women with complexities. Flexible practice agreements, organisational support and appropriate workloads are vital for recruitment, retention, and sustainability of MGP.

The sustainability of midwifery group practice: A cross-sectional study of midwives and managers.

PROBLEM: Although there is robust evidence for the benefits of midwifery group practice (MGP) caseload care, there are limited opportunities for women to access this model in Australia. There is also limited knowledge on how to sustain these services. BACKGROUND: MGP can benefit childbearing women and babies and improve satisfaction for women and midwives. However, sustainability of the model is challenging. While MGPs are often supported and celebrated, in Australia some services have closed, while others struggle to adequately staff MGPs. AIM: To investigate midwives and managers opinions on the management, culture, and sustainability of MGP. METHODS: A national survey of MGP midwives and managers was distributed (2021 and 2022). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 579 midwives and 90 managers completed the survey. The findings suggest that many MGPs do not support new graduates and students to work in MGP. Over half (59.8%) the participants (midwives and managers) reported that the women and families were the best aspect about working in MGP, while 44.3% said the effects on midwives' lifestyle and families were the worst aspect. DISCUSSION: The relationship with women remains the major motivator for providing MGP care. However, work-life imbalance is a deterrent, exacerbated by staffing shortages. Staffing might be improved by adequate renumeration, strengthening orientation, and attracting new graduates and students through experience in MGP. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to attract midwives to MGP and improve work-life balance and sustainability.

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.

Management and sustainability of midwifery group practice: Thematic and lexical analyses of midwife interviews.

BACKGROUND: Although there is high-level evidence supporting positive perinatal outcomes for midwifery group practice (MGP) care, not all women can access this model due to a failure to implement or sustain it. The way that MGPs are managed could be an important factor in whether they are successful in the long-term. AIM: To explore what determines optimal management of MGP in Australia, and the influence it has on sustainability of MGP. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with MGP midwives (n=8). Transcriptions of the audio recordings were analysed thematically and lexically for triangulation. FINDINGS: Following a thematic analysis of the data, an over-arching theme emerged - namely - being valued and supported, with three sub-themes: a nice little sweet spot, someone to stand up for you, and building relationships and support beyond the model. This revealed that value and support by all stakeholders, including the midwives themselves, was necessary to sustain an MGP. The lexical analysis revealed the themes: support, the system, and the caseload. This analysis highlighted the importance of the system - specifically, the impact of the institution on how MGP is operationalised. CONCLUSION: For MGP to be sustained in Australia, it needs to be prioritised, nurtured, and embraced by the whole maternity care system. Management plays an important role in ensuring the right people are employed to pivotal positions and that midwifery-led models of care are valued and supported throughout the system.

Midwives speaking out on COVID-19: The international confederation of midwives global survey.

BACKGROUND: Maternity services around the world have been disrupted since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) representing one hundred and forty-three professional midwifery associations across the world sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on women and midwives. AIM: The aim of this study was to understand the global impact of COVID-19 from the point of view of midwives' associations. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey using an on-line questionnaire was sent via email to every midwives' association member of ICM. SURVEY INSTRUMENT: The survey was developed and tested by a small global team of midwife researchers and clinicians. It consisted of 106 questions divided into seven discreet sections. Each member association was invited to make one response in either English, French or Spanish. RESULTS: Data were collected between July 2020 and April 2021. All respondents fulfilling the inclusion criteria irrespective of whether they completed all questions in the survey were eligible for analysis. All data collected was anonymous. There were 101 surveys returned from the 143 member associations across the world. Many countries reported being caught unaware of the severity of the infection and in some places, midwives were forced to make their own PPE, or reuse single use PPE. Disruption to maternity services meant women had to change their plans for place of birth; and in many countries maternity facilities were closed to become COVID-19 centres. Half of all respondents stated that women were afraid to give birth in hospitals during the pandemic resulting in increased demand for home birth and community midwifery. Midwifery students were denied access to practical or clinical placements and their registration as midwives has been delayed in many countries. More than 50% of the associations reported that governments did not consult them, and they have little or no say in policy at government levels. These poor outcomes were not exclusive to high-, middle- or low-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations that stem from this research include the need to include midwifery representation on key government committees and a need to increase the support for planned out of hospital birth. Both these recommendations stand to enhance the effectiveness of midwives in a world that continues to face and may face future catastrophic pandemics.

Leadership and management in midwifery-led continuity of care models: A thematic and lexical analysis of a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Although midwifery-led continuity of care is associated with superior outcomes for mothers and babies, it is not available to all women. Issues with implementation and sustainability might be addressed by improving how it is led and managed - yet little is known about what constitutes the optimal leadership and management of midwifery-led continuity models. DESIGN: Following a systematic search of academic databases for relevant publications, 25 publications were identified. These were analysed, thematically to clarify (dis)similar themes, and lexically, to clarify how words within the publications travelled together. FINDINGS: The publications were replete with three key themes. First, leadership - important yet challenged. Second, management of organisational change; barriers and enhancers. Third, promotors of sustainable models of care. Complementarily, the lexical analysis suggests that references to midwives and leadership among the publications did not typically travel together, as reported in the publications and were distant to one another, although management was inter-connected to both and to change. Leadership and management were not closely coupled with midwives or relationships with women. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Midwifery leadership matters and can be enacted irrespective of position or seniority. Midwifery-led continuity of care models can be better managed via a multipronged approach. Improved leadership and management can help sustain such care. Although there was a perceived need for midwifery leadership, there did not seem to be an association between leadership and midwives in the lexical analysis. Many publications focused on the style theory of leadership and the transformational style theory. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Instead of focusing on leaders and the presumption of a leadership scarcity, it might be more beneficial to start focusing within, looking with a new lens on leadership within midwifery at all levels. It might also be constructive for the profession to investigate a more progressive form of leadership, one that is relational and focuses on leadership rather than on the leader.

Women's unmet needs in early labour: Qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses in the M@NGO trial of caseload midwifery.

OBJECTIVE: to analyse women's experiences of early labour care in caseload midwifery in Australia. DESIGN: this study sits within a multi-site randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery versus standard care. Participant surveys were conducted at 6-weeks and 6-months after birth. Free-text responses about experiences of care were subject to critical thematic analysis in NVivo 11 software. SETTING: two urban Australian hospitals in different states. PARTICIPANTS: women 18 years and over, with a singleton pregnancy, less than 24 weeks' pregnant, not planning a caesarean section or already booked with a care provider; were eligible to participate in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: participants were randomised to caseload midwifery or standard care for antenatal, labour and birth and postpartum care. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: The 6-week survey response rate was 58% (n = 1,019). The survey included five open questions about women's experiences of pregnancy, labour and birth, and postnatal care. Nine-hundred and one respondents (88%) provided free text comments which were coded to generate 10 categories. The category of early labour contained data from 84 individual participants (caseload care n = 44; standard care n = 40). Descriptive themes were: (1) needing permission; (2) doing the 'wrong' thing; and (3) being dismissed. Analytic themes were: (1) Seeking: women wanting to be "close to those who know what's going on"; and (2) Shielding: midwives defending resources and normal birth. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of model of care, early labour care was primarily described in negative terms. This could be attributed to reporting bias, because women who were neutral about early labour care may not comment. Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate a gap in knowledge about early labour care in caseload midwifery models. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Maternity services that offer caseload midwifery are ideally placed to evaluate how early labour home visiting impacts women's experiences of early labour.

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.

The motivation and capacity to go 'above and beyond': Qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses in the M@NGO randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery.

OBJECTIVE: to explore whether women allocated to caseload care characterise their midwife differently to those allocated to standard care. DESIGN: multi-site unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial. SETTING: the study was conducted in two metropolitan teaching hospitals across two Australian cities. POPULATION: women of all obstetric risk were eligible to participate. Inclusion criteria were: 18 years or older, less than 24 week's gestation with a singleton pregnancy. Women already booked with a care provider or planning to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: participants were randomised to caseload midwifery or standard care. The caseload model provided antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care from a primary midwife or 'back-up' midwife; as well as consultation with obstetric or medical physicians as indicated by national guidelines. The standard model included care from a general practitioner and/or midwives and obstetric doctors. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: participants' responses to open-ended questions were collected through a 6-week postnatal survey and analysed thematically. A total of 1748 women were randomised between December 2008 - May 2011; 871 to caseload midwifery and 877 to standard care. The response rate to the 6-week survey including free text items was 52% (n=901). Respondents from both groups characterised midwives as Informative, Competent and Kind. Participants in the caseload group perceived midwives with additional qualities conceptualised as Empowering and 'Endorphic'. These concepts highlight some of the active ingredients that moderated or mediated the effects of the midwifery care within the M@NGO trial. KEY CONCLUSION: caseload midwifery attracts, motivates and enables midwives to go Above and Beyond such that women feel empowered, nurtured and safe during pregnancy, labour and birth. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the concept of an Endorphic midwife makes a useful contribution to midwifery theory as it enhances our understanding of how the complex intervention of caseload midwifery influences normal birth rates and experiences. Defining personal midwife attributes which are important for caseload models has potential implications for graduate attributes in degree programs leading to registration as a midwife and selection criteria for caseload midwife positions.

Australian caseload midwifery: the exception or the rule.

The aim of this paper is to review the clinical outcomes of descriptive and comparative cohort studies of the Australian caseload midwifery models of care that emerged during the late 1990s and early 2000s. These models report uniformly a decrease in caesarean section operation rates when compared to local, state and national rates, irrespective of the obstetric risk of the women cared for. These outcomes are in contrast to the findings of the randomised controlled trials and comparative cohort studies of caseload midwifery conducted, predominantly in the United Kingdom, in the mid to late 1990s. The Australian studies show that caseload midwifery is a model of care that is associated with lowered rates of caesarean section operations, and other obstetric intervention rates. The absence of definitive evidence of the effect of caseload midwifery, derived from published descriptive and comparative cohort studies, underlines the need for a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery. The randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery being undertaken in two major teaching hospitals in Australia will provide definitive answers relating to the effect of the caseload midwifery model of care for women of all risk in the Australian context.