The experiences of new graduate nurses and midwives going through a virtual interview recruitment process during the COVID-19 crisis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The annual recruitment of new graduate nurses and midwives is key to recruiting large numbers of staff with the right attitude, skills and knowledge who are the best fit for the organisation. Virtual interviews were undertaken in 2020 due to the surge worldwide in the COVID-19 crisis. This study evaluates those virtual interviews and explores the sustainability of the model. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a large health organisation in New South Wales, Australia. Data were collected over 3 weeks using two online surveys, one for interviewees (n = 512) and the other for interviewers (n = 68). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and frequency distributions, and additional free-text comments were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Response rates were 55% (n = 280) interviewees and 54% (n = 37) for interviewers. The majority of interviewees (58%, n = 184) and interviewers (78%, n = 29) stated the interview was seamless or very seamless and 55% (n = 156) of interviewees and 73% (n = 27) of interviewers agreed interviewees conveyed themselves well during interviews. Over half of interviewees (65%, n = 182) and interviewers (51%, n = 18) agreed the virtual interview was fair or very fair for interviewee performance, regardless of age, race, or socio-economic status. However, many expressed a need for better internet access, equipment, and support, and a longer interview time to personally connect. Both new graduate interviewees (60%) and interviewers (75%) agreed virtual interviews are a suitable model for future use. However, some respondents indicated they preferred face-to-face interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The use of virtual interviews to select new graduates is considered acceptable, cost-effective and sustainable, as well as fair by the majority of participants. Study findings inform policy development, future planning, support the use of flexible selection practices and provide other health care professionals with a virtual recruitment model to consider when developing strategies to grow their future health workforce.

Feasibility and acceptability of the multi-component P3-MumBubVax antenatal intervention to promote maternal and childhood vaccination: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is a critical time for vaccine decision-making, but coverage remains suboptimal for maternal influenza (45-60%) and pertussis vaccination (65-80%) in Australia. The multi-component P3-MumBubVax intervention has been designed for Australian midwives to optimise antenatal vaccine discussions and improve maternal and childhood vaccine uptake. A pilot study was conducted to assess intervention feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: P3-MumBubVax includes components at three levels: 1. Practice ('vaccine champions'; stickers to prompt and record vaccine discussions/delivery); 2. Provider (website with vaccine communication training; learning exercise; fact sheets; links to child vaccination resources); 3. Parent (SMS reminders; website; fact sheets). Midwives and pregnant women 18-22 weeks gestation were recruited at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne. Post-intervention online surveys assessed intervention feasibility, implementation, acceptability and impact on vaccine uptake. RESULTS: Twenty-five midwives and 62 pregnant women were recruited and 19/25 midwives completed training. Surveys were returned by 18/25 midwives and 56/62 women. 14/18 midwives reported using the sticker prompts, 10/18 reported using or referring to the website, and 11/18 reported using the fact sheets. 48/56 pregnant women (86%) reported discussing influenza and 46/56 (82%) discussed pertussis vaccines with their midwives. These conversations were reported to be short (1-3 min) for 48/56 women (87%). All midwives were satisfied with the intervention and 17/18 reported feeling more confident discussing vaccines following the intervention. Women were very satisfied with SMS content (50/56; 94%) and timing (49/55; 89%), and with their vaccine discussions in general (34/56; 63%). However, 16/54 (30%) wanted more discussion about childhood vaccines. Self-reported maternal vaccine uptake was 82% (45/55) and 93% (51/55) for influenza and pertussis (baseline 2017-2018: 43% influenza, 60% pertussis) and 96% (50/52) of infants were fully vaccinated at 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: The P3-MumBubVax intervention is feasible and acceptable in the Australian public antenatal setting. Further evaluation is required to determine effectiveness.

A study comparing the practice of Australian maternity care providers in relation to maternal immunisation.

BACKGROUND: Women's decisions regarding vaccination during pregnancy are heavily influenced by maternity care provider (MCP) recommendations. Understanding why MCPs may not recommend vaccination is central to improving vaccination rates. AIMS: To examine the knowledge, attitudes and practice of Australian MCPs to maternal vaccination. METHODS: We surveyed obstetricians, midwives and general practitioners (GPs) between September and November 2016. Providers were asked about their knowledge and current practice, and about their perceived roles in discussing and administering maternal vaccinations. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy surveys were completed. Each MCP group believed they had the primary responsibility for discussing vaccinations but all groups perceived GPs as primarily responsible for administering vaccines. More midwives had concerns about safety (21/129, 16%) than obstetricians (9/359, 3%) and GPs (7/326, 2%) (P < 0.001). Overall, 83% of MCPs recommended diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccination (dTpa) and 78% inactivated influenza vaccination (IIV) according to guidelines, with no differences between groups. Overall 77% provided dTpa onsite (GPs 99%, midwives 70%, obstetricians 60%, P < 0.001) and 71% provided IIV (GPs 99%, midwives 48%, obstetricians 54%, P < 0.001). Factors associated with recommending vaccination in accordance with guidelines and providing vaccination onsite were similar across groups: personal history of vaccination, confidence in vaccine knowledge, and awareness of recommendations for and belief in the safety of maternal dTpa. CONCLUSIONS: Among MCPs, the rates of recommending and providing maternal vaccination were higher than previously reported. Further improvements might be expected with increased awareness of guidelines, further education around vaccine safety, and by changing perceptions of the role of obstetricians and midwives in providing maternal vaccinations.

Strategies to implement maternal vaccination: A comparison between standing orders for midwife delivery, a hospital based maternal immunisation service and primary care.

Maternal vaccination is a safe and effective strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality from pertussis and influenza. However, despite recommendations for maternal vaccination since 2010, uptake remains suboptimal. Barriers to uptake have been studied widely and include lack of integration of vaccination into routine pregnancy care and access to vaccination services. Standing orders for administration of vaccines without the need for a physician review or prescription have been demonstrated to improve uptake as part of multi-model interventions to increase antenatal influenza and post-partum pertussis vaccination. Monash Health is a university-affiliated, public healthcare network in Melbourne, Australia providing maternity services across three hospitals. In this study we compared three different immunisation models - an immunisation nurse-led immunisation service, standing orders for midwife-administered pertussis vaccination within pregnancy care clinics, and delivery by general practitioners in primary care. Uptake of maternal pertussis vaccine was measured as recorded in the state-wide perinatal data collection tool. Uptake improved significantly at all three hospitals over the study period with the most significant change (39% to 91%, p < .001) noted at the hospital where standing orders were introduced. Our study highlights the diversity of immunisation service models available in maternity care settings. We demonstrated significant improvement in uptake of maternal pertussis vaccination with introduction of midwife-administered vaccination but each maternity service should consider the model best suited to their needs.

Evaluating the preceptor role for pre-registration nursing and midwifery student clinical education.

AIM: The aim of this research is to evaluate the perceptions of the Registered Nurse (RN), Registered Midwife (RM) and Enrolled Nurse (EN) about their experience of preceptoring an undergraduate student within a large Local Health District in New South Wales (NSW) Australia. BACKGROUND: In the current Health Workforce Australia (HWA) literature, the term 'Clinical Supervisor' has subsumed the role of mentor, preceptor, buddy and facilitator of clinical practice. Preceptor in this paper describes the supervisory, facilitating and teaching role of the registered nurse in the clinical practice undergraduate nursing and midwifery educational pairing. DESIGN: A quantitative cross sectional design was used and data collected using the Clinical Preceptor Experience Evaluation Tool (CPEET), a previously validated and reliable survey tool. METHOD: Nurses and Midwives across nine acute care facilities that preceptor undergraduate students were invited to complete the survey between March and May 2012. RESULTS: There were 337 survey respondents across nine acute hospitals included in this study (22.5% response rate). Differences were observed between preceptors who had training in precepting in three of the subscales. Differences were observed in all four subscales between those preceptors with access to university facilitators in their location and those without immediate access. CONCLUSION: The majority of preceptors score highly on all subscales indicating they are generally satisfied with the role of precepting. Significant differences on several items suggest that some aspects of the role are more challenging and less satisfying than others.

Effective interprofessional collaboration in rural contexts: a research protocol.

AIM: To describe the research protocol that will be used to investigate factors contributing to effective interprofessional practice in a rural context in Australia. BACKGROUND: Interprofessional practice is a key strategy for overcoming rural health challenges; however, our knowledge of interprofessional initiatives and consequences in rural areas is limited. DESIGN: A modified realistic evaluation approach will be used to explore the structures, systems, and social processes contributing to effective interprofessional outcomes. This 'context-mechanism-outcome' approach provides a useful framework for identifying why and how interprofessional practice works in rural contexts. METHOD: Initial propositions regarding the factors that explain effective collaborative practice will be generated through interviews with lead clinicians, policy-makers, and clinician managers. Clinician interviews, document analysis, and multi-participant focus groups will be used as evidence to support, refine, or redevelop the initial propositions. This will allow the development of a model of rural interprofessional practice that will explain how and why collaborative approaches work in rural environments. This study is funded by an Institute of Rural Clinical Services and Teaching grant (January 2010). DISCUSSION: Rural healthcare challenges are well documented; however, studies investigating the nature of interprofessional practice in rural contexts are not common. Rural contexts also present research design, particularly data collection, challenges. This proposed research is one of the first to identify the factors that facilitate or constrain effective interprofessional work in rural settings. This is particularly important, given the continuing workforce shortages and maldistribution and poorer health outcomes in rural communities globally.

(W)riting across and within: Providing a vehicle for sharing local nursing and midwifery projects and innovation.

INTRODUCTION: This paper describes the development and outcomes of a locally-based journal that is contributed to and managed by nurses, midwives and academics within an area health service (AHS) in NSW, Australia. BACKGROUND: Nurses and midwives are often engaged in scholarly and rigorous activities aimed at improving practice and patient outcomes. However, often these endeavours remain unreported, unpublished and hence not shared for the benefit of others. Reasons given for nurses' and midwives' persistent reluctance to publish are well documented in the literature. Lack of expertise and understanding of the publication process, together with lack of confidence and opportunity are the reasons most often cited. To overcome these barriers we developed a local journal called Handover that provides a non-threatening, supportive opportunity for nurses and midwives to develop skills in writing and reviewing articles for publication. Handover was established and is managed by editorial committee members from the area health service and the two local universities. Each institution agreed to co-fund the journal which is published twice yearly. Two editions of the journal have been published with wide ranging content and contributions from across the AHS. Writing mentorship and support systems have been established. Reviewers workshop have been conducted and novice reviewers mentored by experienced reviewers. CONCLUSION: Our experience indicates that a locally based and owned journal can motivate and support novice writers and offers one solution to many of the barriers to publication identified in the literature.