Barriers and enablers for midwives to use the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia's Endorsement for scheduled medicines for midwives.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia introduced a new registration standard: Endorsement for scheduled medicines for midwives. The endorsement enables midwives to provide women with Medicare-rebatable care, prescribe relevant medications, and order relevant Medicare-rebatable diagnostics. Translating endorsement education into clinical midwifery practice has been slow, indicating the presence of barriers affecting midwives' ability to use this standard, despite it increasing their scope for service provision. AIM: To discover the mechanisms affecting midwives' ability to work to full scope of practice after completing a programme of study leading to endorsement. METHODS: An observational (non-experimental) design was used. Midwives who had completed an education programme leading to endorsement were invited to complete a survey. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative questions and content analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. FINDINGS: Results indicated that barriers - such as the limitations of Medicare provisions for endorsed midwives and a general lack of support for the role - restrict endorsed midwives' ability to provide quality maternity services. Having some form of support for the role may act as an enabler, in addition to midwives having personal determination and confidence in their ability to use the endorsement. Recommendations to strengthen the endorsed midwife's role include facilitating endorsement use in the public sector, relaxing Medicare Benefit Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme restrictions, raising awareness of the role and scope, and improving midwives' pre-endorsement preparation. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need for an all-of-system approach to support and develop the endorsed midwife's role.

Barriers and enablers for midwives using endorsement for scheduled medicines: A literature review.

PROBLEM: There are currently 429 midwives in Australia who hold the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia's Endorsement for scheduled medicines for midwives. Little is known about how midwives are using the endorsement and what factors impact on its use. OBJECTIVE: To critically examine the literature to discover what the barriers and enablers are for midwives to use the endorsement. METHOD: A search was undertaken examining literature published since 2004. Due to a lack of articles specific to midwifery, the search was widened to include literature related to similar non-medical health professions. The search was divided into two streams: accessing the Medicare Benefits Schedule and accessing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and prescribing. Twenty-six primary articles from 2009 onward met the review criteria. FINDINGS: Although singular barriers and enablers to both streams were identified, many of the themes act as both enabler and barrier. Themes common to both the Medicare Benefits Schedule focus and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and prescribing focus are that of medical support, scope of practice, ongoing support from health care consumers and management, and endorsement processes. Barriers occur approximately three times more frequently than enablers. CONCLUSION: Barriers and enablers occur for various reasons including legislative, regulatory, organisational, and the individual's support for and attitude towards these roles. To overcome barriers and facilitate the success of emerging non-medical extended practice roles, significant buy-in and investment is needed across all levels of the health system. The review highlights a significant gap in knowledge about the endorsement's use in midwifery.

The Scope of Midwifery Practice Regulations and the Availability of the Certified Nurse-Midwifery and Certified Midwifery Workforce, 2012-2016.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have linked midwifery practice laws to the availability of midwives but have generally not related workforce data to potential demand for reproductive health services. We examined state regulatory structure for midwives and its relationship to midwifery distribution and vital statistics data at the state and county level. METHODS: Midwifery distribution data came from the Area Health Resources Files, distribution of women of reproductive age came from the US Census, and birth statistics came from US Natality Files from 2012 to 2016. Midwifery regulations were drawn from American College of Nurse-Midwives Annual Reports. We used bivariate analysis to examine the relationship between state midwifery practice regulations and the number of midwives available in states and counties to potentially meet women's health care needs. RESULTS: Twenty states and the District of Columbia had autonomous practice regulatory frameworks, whereas 24 states had collaborative practice regulatory frameworks during the years between 2012 and 2016. Six states changed regulations during that period. In 2016, the number of midwife-attended births per number of midwives in a state was not related to the regulatory framework. However, states with autonomous frameworks had 2.2 times as many midwives per women of reproductive age (P < .0001) and 2.3 times as many midwives per total births when compared with states with collaborative statutory frameworks (P < .0001). At the county level, 70.1% of US counties had no midwife. Of those states with autonomous practice, only 59.7% of counties had no midwives, compared with 74.1% in states with collaborative models (P < .0001). DISCUSSION: Midwives have the potential to help address the shortage of maternity and reproductive health service providers. Our research suggests that increasing the number of states with autonomous regulatory frameworks can be one way to expand access to care for women in the United States.

Knowledge of US Midwifery Credentials Among Members of the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

INTRODUCTION: Three midwifery credentials are granted in the United States: certified nurse-midwife (CNM), certified midwife (CM), and certified professional midwife (CPM). Confusion about US midwifery credentials may restrict growth of the midwifery profession. This survey assessed American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) members' knowledge of US midwifery credentials. METHODS: ACNM members (N = 7551) were surveyed via email in 2017. The survey asked respondents to report demographic information and to identify correct statements about the education, certification, and scope of practice of CNMs, CMs, and CPMs. Responses to 17 items about all midwives certified in the United States, a 5-item subset specific to CNMs/CMs, and one item related to location of midwifery practice by credential were analyzed. RESULTS: Nearly a quarter of the membership (22.1%) responded to the survey. Higher scores on the survey indicated greater identification of correct statements about the education, certification, scope, and location of practice of CNMs, CMs, and CPMs. Significant differences in scores were found among ACNM members based on their level of education, degree of professional involvement in midwifery, and prior practice as a nurse. ACNM members with higher scores on the survey held a doctorate, worked in Region I, and had greater professional leadership involvement in midwifery organizations. Participants with less nursing experience prior to their midwifery education also scored significantly higher on the survey. DISCUSSION: Although two-thirds of respondents correctly answered items on the preparation, credentialing, and scope of practice of CNMs, CMs, and CPMs, a significant minority had gaps in knowledge. Results of this survey suggest the need for outreach about US midwifery credentials. Future research to replicate and expand upon this survey may benefit the profession of midwifery in the United States.

United States Model Midwifery Legislation and Regulation: Development of a Consensus Document.

INTRODUCTION: Midwifery is defined and regulated across all 50 United States. However, states' regulations vary markedly, creating confusion for policy makers and consumers, and can limit services to women. In 2011, the International Confederation of Midwives released Global Standards for Midwifery Education, Regulation, and Association, providing guidance for international midwifery for the first time. US organizations representing midwifery education, regulation, and professional associations (US MERA) agreed to work together on common goals. METHODS: The purpose of this modified Delphi study, conducted by US MERA, was to develop a consensus document on principles of model US midwifery legislation and regulation. Expert panelists (N = 51) across maternal and child health care professions and consumer groups participated over several iterative rounds. RESULTS: The final document establishes guiding principles for US midwifery regulation, including regulatory authority, education, qualifications, regulation, registration and licensure, standards of practice and conduct, complaints, and third-party payment for services. DISCUSSION: As more US states recognize and license midwives of all credentials and in every practice setting, we can envision a time when equity, informed choice, safety, and seamless access to quality midwifery care will be the right of every birthing family.

Cannabis for posttraumatic stress disorder: A neurobiological approach to treatment.

The endocannabinoid system is intricately involved in regulation of the neurobiological processes, which underlie the symptomatology of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This article discusses the neurobiological underpinnings of PTSD and the use of cannabis for treating PTSD in the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program.

Regulation of Prescriptive Authority for Certified Nurse-Midwives and Certified Midwives: 2015 National Overview.

Statutory restrictions regarding the regulation of prescriptive authority for midwives continue to create barriers to practice in many states.

Regulation of Certified Nurse-Midwife Scope of Practice: Change in the Professional Practice Index, 2000 to 2015.

INTRODUCTION: Certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) across the United States are educated in the same core competencies, yet scope of practice varies with state regulation. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) funded studies published in 1994 and 2004 on the professional practice environment of CNMs, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, and developed the Certified Nurse-Midwife Professional Practice Index (CNMPPI), a 100-point scoring system of state regulation focusing on 3 domains: legal status, reimbursement, and prescriptive authority. The purpose of this study was to examine changes to CNM regulation between 2000 and 2015 by updating scores to the CNMPPI. METHODS: Individual state CNMPPI scores from 2000 were updated for every year through 2015 by reviewing data published in the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) quarterly publication Quickening, the annual advanced practice registered nurse legislative updates in the journal Nurse Practitioner, and the ACNM State Legislative and Regulatory Guidance. RESULTS: Mean state scores increased 18%, from 69.7 in 2000 to 79.8 in 2015, and variation between state scores fell. Increases were seen in all 3 domains, with the greatest increase in the domain of prescriptive authority and the smallest in the legal domain. Individual state CNMPPI scores tend to be correlated with scores of adjacent states. DISCUSSION: The CNMPPI can be used to document changes in practice authority of CNMs. The increase in state CNMPPI scores and decrease in variance across states can be interpreted as indicating growth of professional authority and increasing consensus regarding the CNM role. The scoring system needs to be updated to reflect the current health systems environment and to include certified midwives and other midwives meeting the International Confederation of Midwives definition of a midwife. Applications of the CNMPPI to future research are discussed.