Clinical outcomes and financial estimates for women attending the largest private midwifery service in Australia compared to national data: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM: Multiple barriers to national scale-out of private midwifery practice in Australia exist. AIM: To describe and compare maternal infant health outcomes of the largest private midwifery service in Australia with the national core maternity indicators and estimate the financial impact on collaborating public hospitals. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 2747 maternal health records from 2014 to 2022 were compared to national indicators. Financial calculations estimated the impact on hospitals. FINDINGS: Compared to national data, women cared by private midwives were significantly: more likely to be 25-34 years and primiparous; less likely to be Indigenous, have diabetes, hypertension or multiple births. At birth, 5% required discussion with specialists, 25% required consultation and 39% were referred; 86% women had their primary midwife at birth; 12.5% birthed at home and 14.5% at a birth centre. Compared to national data, primiparous women had fewer inductions (22.9% vs 45.8%), caesarean sections (22.6% vs 32.1%), instrumental vaginal births (17.0% vs 25.7%), episiotomies (9.5% vs 23.9%) and more birthed vaginally after caesarean section (75.9% vs 11.9%). Significantly less babies were born with a birthweight <2750 g (0.5% vs 1.2%) and 83.7% babies were exclusively breastfed at six weeks. Collaborating hospitals would receive less DRG funding compared to public patients, require less intrapartum midwifery staff and receive a net benefit, even when bed fees were waived. CONCLUSION: Women attending My Midwives had significantly lower intervention rates when compared to national indicators although maternal characteristics could be contributing. Multidisciplinary care was evident. Financial modelling shows positive impacts for hospitals.

Exploring women's experiences in a midwifery continuity of care model following a traumatic birth.

PROBLEM: Over one third of women report their birth experience as psychologically traumatic. Psychological birth trauma has been associated with perinatal mental illness and post-traumatic stress disorder. BACKGROUND: Midwifery continuity of care provides improved outcomes for mothers and babies as well as increased birth satisfaction. Some women who have experienced psychological birth trauma will seek out midwifery continuity of care in their next pregnancy. The aim of this study was to explore women's experiences of midwifery continuity of care following a previous traumatic birth experience in Australia. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was undertaken. Eight multiparous women who self-identified as having psychological birth trauma were interviewed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis to discover how participants subsequently experienced care in a midwifery continuity of care model. FINDINGS: Seven out of eight participants had care from a private midwife following birth trauma. Four themes were discovered. The nightmare lives on: despite a positive and/or healing experience in midwifery continuity of care, women still carry their traumatic birth experiences with them. Determination to find better care: Women sought midwifery continuity of care following a previous traumatic birth in their desire to prevent a similar experience. A broken maternity system: women described difficulties accessing these models including financial barriers and lack of availability. The power of continuity: All reported a positive experience birthing in a midwifery continuity of care model and some reported that this had a healing effect. CONCLUSION: Offering midwifery continuity of care models to women with a history of psychological birth trauma can be beneficial. More research is necessary to confirm the findings of this small study, and on ways women who have psychological birth trauma can be prioritised for midwifery continuity of care models in Australia.