ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Continuity of Patient Care , Health Services, Indigenous , Maternal Health Services/organization & administration , Maternal Welfare/ethnology , Midwifery/organization & administration , Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander/psychology , Parturition/ethnology , Adult , Australia , Cultural Characteristics , Female , Humans , Obstetrics , Pregnancy , SmokingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that a significant number of women are fearful about birth but less is known about the fears of maternity health providers and how their fear may impact on the women they care for. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the top fears midwives in Australia and New Zealand hold when it comes to caring for childbearing women. METHOD: From 2009 to 2011, 17 workshops were held in Australia and New Zealand supporting over 700 midwives develop skills to keep birth normal. During the workshop midwives were asked to write their top fear on a piece of paper and return it to the presenters. Similar concepts were grouped together to form 8 major categories. FINDINGS: In total 739 fears were reported and these were death of a baby (n=177), missing something that causes harm (n=176), obstetric emergencies (n=114), maternal death (n=83), being watched (n=68), being the cause of a negative birth experience (n=52), dealing with the unknown (n=36) and losing passion and confidence around normal birth (n=32). Student midwives were more concerned about knowing what to do, while homebirth midwives were mostly concerned with being blamed if something went wrong. CONCLUSION: There was consistency between the 17 groups of midwives regarding top fears held. Supporting midwives with workshops such as dealing with grief and loss and managing fear could help reduce their anxiety. Obstetric emergency skills workshops may help midwives feel more confident, especially those dealing with shoulder dystocia and PPH as they were most commonly recorded.
Subject(s)
Anxiety , Fear , Midwifery , Nurse Midwives/psychology , Adult , Australia , Delivery, Obstetric , Female , Humans , Maternal Mortality , New Zealand , Parturition , PregnancyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The St. George Homebirth Program was the first publicly funded homebirth model of care set up in New South Wales. This program provides access to selected women at low obstetric risk the option of having their babies at home. There are only four other publicly funded homebirth programs operating in Australia. AIMS: To report the outcomes of the first 100 women booked at the St. George Homebirth Program. METHODS: A prospective descriptive study was undertaken. Data were collected on the first 100 women who gave birth between November 2005 and March 2009. Two databases were accessed and missing data were followed up by review of the relevant charts. RESULTS: Of the first 100 booked women, 63 achieved a homebirth, 30 were transferred to hospital or independent midwifery care in the antenatal period and seven were transferred intrapartum. Two women were transferred to hospital in the early postnatal period, one for a postpartum haemorrhage and one for hypotension. One baby suffered mild respiratory distress, was treated in the emergency department and was discharged home within four hours. CONCLUSION: The St. George Hospital homebirth program has provided reassuring outcomes for the first 100 women it has cared for over the past four years. Wider availability of this service could be achieved provided there is the appropriate close collaboration between providers and effective processes for consultation, referral and transfer. The outcomes of women and babies in publicly funded homebirth programs deserve further study, and the development of a national prospective database of all planned homebirth would contribute to this knowledge.