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.

Evaluating Healthcare Performance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Pilot Study on Selected Settings in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda.

The literature reports some experiences regarding the design of integrated healthcare Performance Evaluation Systems (PES) applied in Low- and Middle-income Countries (LMIC). This study describes the design of an integrated and bottom-up PES aimed at evaluating healthcare services delivery in rural settings. The analysis involved four hospitals and their relative health districts in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda. The evaluation process was undertaken for those indicators that could be evaluated using the same reference standard. The evaluation scores were determined through the international standards identified in the literature or through benchmarking assessment. Both administrative and health data were extracted from the hospitals' registers and District Health Information Systems (DHIS) from 2017 to 2020. We defined 128 indicators: 88 were calculated at the hospital level and 40 at the health district level. The evaluation process was undertaken for 48 indicators. The evaluated indicators are represented using effective graphical tools. In settings characterised by multiple healthcare providers, this framework may contribute to achieving good governance through performance evaluation, benchmarking, and accountability. It may promote evidence-based decision-making in the planning and allocation of resources, thus ultimately fostering quality improvement processes and practices, both at the hospital and health district level.

General practitioners: Between integration and co-location. The case of primary care centers in Tuscany, Italy.

Healthcare systems have followed several strategies aimed at integrating primary care services and professionals. Medical homes in the USA and Canada, and primary care centres across Europe have collocated general practitioners and other health and social professionals in the same building in order to boost coordination among services and the continuity of care for patients. However, in the literature, the impact of co-location on primary care has led to controversial results. This article analyses the possible benefits of the co-location of services in primary care focusing on the Italian model of primary care centres (Case della Salute) in terms of general practitioners' perception. We used the results of a web survey of general practitioners in Tuscany to compare the experiences and satisfaction of those general practitioners involved and not involved in a primary care centre, performed a MONAVA and ANOVA analysis. Our case study highlights the positive impact of co-location on the integration of professionals, especially with nurses and social workers, and on organizational integration, in terms of frequency of meeting to discuss about quality of care. Conversely, no significant differences were found in terms of either clinical or system integration. Furthermore, the collaboration with specialists is still weak. Considering the general practitioners' perspective in terms of experience and satisfaction towards primary care, co-location strategies is a necessary step in order to facilitate the collaboration among professionals and to prevent unintended consequences in terms of an even possible isolation of primary care as an involuntary 'disintegration of the integration'.