Midwifery care during labor and birth in the United States.

The intrapartum period is a crucial time in the continuum of pregnancy and parenting. Events during this time are shaped by individuals' unique sociocultural and health characteristics and by their healthcare providers, practice protocols, and the physical environment in which care is delivered. Childbearing people in the United States have less opportunity for midwifery care than in other high-income countries. In the United States, there are 4 midwives for every 1000 live births, whereas, in most other high-income countries, there are between 30 and 70 midwives. Furthermore, these countries have lower maternal and neonatal mortality rates and have consistently lower costs of care. National and international evidences consistently report that births attended by midwives have fewer interventions, cesarean deliveries, preterm births, inductions of labor, and more vaginal births after cesarean delivery. In addition, midwifery care is consistently associated with respectful care and high patient satisfaction. Midwife-physician collaboration exists along a continuum, including births attended independently by midwives, births managed in consultation with a physician, and births attended primarily by a physician with a midwife acting as consultant on the normal aspects of care. This expert review defined midwifery care and provided an overview of midwifery in the United States with an emphasis on the intrapartum setting. Health outcomes associated with midwifery care, specific models of intrapartum care, and workforce issues have been presented within national and international contexts. Recommendations that align with the integration of midwifery have been suggested to improve national outcomes and reduce pregnancy-related disparities.

Beyond Implementation: Sustaining Group Prenatal Care and Group Well-Child Care.

INTRODUCTION: Group prenatal care and group well-child care (collectively called group care) provide health care in groups. Group care is being introduced in many settings, and the model's benefits are increasingly recognized. Yet, little attention has been paid to understanding model sustainability. This study examined barriers to sustainability and offers suggestions for sustaining group care programs. METHODS: This qualitative research was guided by interpretive description. Semistructured interviews with 17 professionals were conducted in 4 sites in one community to explore barriers to sustaining group care and key ingredients for sustainability. Sites were 2 clinics that had provided group prenatal care, a clinic currently providing group prenatal care, and a clinic currently providing group well-child care. Two clinics have continued providing group care and 2 have discontinued it. Participants included midwives, physicians, nurses, and nurse practitioners. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and entered in ATLAS.ti. A priori and inductive coding schemes were developed; code content was compared across individuals, participant types, and settings. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: administrative buy-in, robust recruitment, clinician and staff buy-in, owning it, and sustainability mindset. Group care needs to be sold to many different constituencies: administrators, staff and clinicians, and patients. Furthermore, sustainability requires having a conscious awareness of the importance of sustainability from the outset, taking ownership by adapting group care to needs of settings, creating venues for expressing divergent viewpoints and problem-solving, and recognizing that these processes are ongoing with change occurring incrementally. It also includes addressing the need for long-term financing. DISCUSSION: Those implementing group care must be prepared to go beyond managing the logistics of introducing a complex new program; they must also be prepared to develop sustainability mindsets, sell the model to everyone on all levels within their institutions, and advocate for enhanced reimbursement for group care and value-driven payment systems.

In a hard spot: providing group prenatal care in two urban clinics.

OBJECTIVES: CenteringPregnancy (Centering) group prenatal care has been demonstrated to improve perinatal outcomes and provide a positive experience of care for women, but it can be difficult to implement and sustain in some clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the challenges encountered when Centering group prenatal care was provided, and the responses of Centering group leaders to these challenges. DESIGN: this was a longitudinal, qualitative study using interpretive description. Data collection included participant-observation and interviews with group leaders and women receiving group prenatal care. SETTING: two urban clinics providing care to low income women in the northeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: interview participants were 23 pregnant women (primarily African-American and Hispanic) receiving group prenatal care; other participants were 24 significant others and support staff participating in groups, and two nurse-midwife group leaders. FINDINGS: the clinics did not always provide full resources for implementing Centering as designed, creating numerous challenges for the group leaders, who were committed to providing group prenatal care. In an attempt to sustain the model in the face of these limitations, the group leaders made a number of compromises and modifications to the Centering model. KEY CONCLUSIONS: the limited clinic resources and resulting modifications of the model had a number of downstream effects, some of which affected relationships within groups, participation, and group cohesion. IMPLICATIONS: modifications of the Centering model should be undertaken with caution. Strategies are needed to enhance the success and sustainability of Centering in varied clinical settings so that the benefits of the model, which have been demonstrated under more controlled circumstances, can be conferred to women receiving routine care during pregnancy.

CenteringPregnancy and the current state of prenatal care.

Prenatal care is often credited with improving pregnancy outcomes. Yet rates of low birthweight (LBW) and prematurity have risen in recent decades, calling into question the efficacy of traditional prenatal routines. Proposals have included broadening the objectives of prenatal care beyond prevention of LBW and enriching care to provide education and support for pregnant women. CenteringPregnancy, an innovative model of prenatal care that integrates extensive health education and group support with the standard prenatal exam, incorporates many of these elements. Impediments to wider implementation of CenteringPregnancy are explored, as well as proposals for addressing these challenges.