Implementing midwifery units in a European country: Situational analysis of an Italian case study.

INTRODUCTION: Strong evidence recommends midwifery-led care for women with uncomplicated pregnancies. International research is now focusing on how to implement midwifery models of care in countries where they are not well established. In Europe, many countries like Italy are promoting midwifery-led care in national guidelines but often struggle to apply this change in practice. METHODS: This study collected data on professional, organisational and service users' levels to conduct a situational analysis of an Italian service which is approaching the implementation of a midwifery unit. Participatory Action Research was used together with the support of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to conduct data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants amongst professionals (midwives, obstetricians and neonatologists) and at organisational level (midwifery leaders and medical directors) were recruited; secondary data on service users' views was analysed via regional online surveys. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation were identified to assess the readiness of the local context. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to include professionals, managers and service users in a European context such as Italy. Facilitators to the implementation of the alongside midwifery unit were found in national guidelines, allocated funding, collaborative engagement and medical support. Hierarchical structures, a prevalent medical model and lack of trust and awareness of the evidence of safety of midwifery-led models were main barriers.

What are the strategies for implementing primary care models in maternity? A systematic review on midwifery units.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery Units (MUs) are associated with optimal perinatal outcomes, improved service users' and professionals' satisfaction as well as being the most cost-effective option. However, they still do not represent the mainstream option of maternity care in many countries. Understanding effective strategies to integrate this model of care into maternity services could support and inform the MU implementation process that many countries and regions still need to approach. METHODS: A systematic search and screening of qualitative and quantitative research about implementation of new MUs was conducted (Prospero protocol reference: CRD42019141443) using PRISMA guidelines. Included articles were appraised using the CASP checklist. A meta-synthesis approach to analysis was used. No exclusion criteria for time or context were applied to ensure inclusion of different implementation attempts even under different historical and social circumstances. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to reflect the major contribution of higher quality studies. RESULTS: From 1037 initial citations, twelve studies were identified for inclusion in this review after a screening process. The synthesis highlighted two broad categories: implementation readiness and strategies used. The first included aspects related to cultural, organisational and professional levels of the local context whilst the latter synthesised the main actions and key points identified in the included studies when implementing MUs. A logic model was created to synthesise and visually present the findings. CONCLUSIONS: The studies selected were from a range of settings and time periods and used varying strategies. Nonetheless, consistencies were found across different implementation processes. These findings can be used in the systematic scaling up of MUs and can help in addressing barriers at system, service and individual levels. All three levels need to be addressed when implementing this model of care.