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.

Enabling the context for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Birthing on Country services: Participatory action research.

PROBLEM: Establishment of Birthing on Country services owned and governed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services has been slow. BACKGROUND: Birthing on Country services have demonstrated health and cost benefits and require redesign of maternity care. During the Building On Our Strengths feasibility study, use of endorsed midwives and licensing of birth centres has proven difficult. QUESTION: What prevents Community Controlled Health Services from implementing Birthing on Country services in Queensland and New South Wales? METHODS: Participatory action research identified implementation barriers. We conducted iterative document analysis of instruments to inform government lobbying through synthesis of policy, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors. FINDINGS: Through cycles of participatory action research, we analysed 17 documents: 1) policy barriers prevent Community Controlled Health Services from employing endorsed midwives to provide intrapartum care in public hospitals; 2) economic barriers include lack of sustainable funding stream and inadequate Medicare-billing for endorsed midwives; and 3) legal barriers require a medical practitioner in a birth centre. While social barriers (e.g., colonisation, medicalisation) underpin regulations, these were beyond the scope; technological and environmental barriers were not identified. DISCUSSION: Findings are consistent with the literature on barriers to midwifery practice. Recommendations include a national audit of barriers to Birthing on Country services including healthcare practice insurance, and development of a funding stream. Additionally, private maternity facility regulation must align with evidence on safe birth centre operation. CONCLUSION: Government can address barriers to scale-up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Birthing on Country services.

Developing and evaluating Birthing on Country services for First Nations Australians: the Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) prospective mixed methods birth cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: With the impact of over two centuries of colonisation in Australia, First Nations families experience a disproportionate burden of adverse pregnancy and birthing outcomes. First Nations mothers are 3-5 times more likely than other mothers to experience maternal mortality; babies are 2-3 times more likely to be born preterm, low birth weight or not to survive their first year. 'Birthing on Country' incorporates a multiplicity of interpretations but conveys a resumption of maternity services in First Nations Communities with Community governance for the best start to life. Redesigned services offer women and families integrated, holistic care, including carer continuity from primary through tertiary services; services coordination and quality care including safe and supportive spaces. The overall aim of Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) is to facilitate and assess Birthing on Country expansion into two settings - urban and rural; with scale-up to include First Nations-operated birth centres. This study will build on our team's earlier work - a Birthing on Country service established and evaluated in an urban setting, that reported significant perinatal (and organisational) benefits, including a 37% reduction in preterm births, among other improvements. METHODS: Using community-based, participatory action research, we will collaborate to develop, implement and evaluate new Birthing on Country care models. We will conduct a mixed-methods, prospective birth cohort study in two settings, comparing outcomes for women having First Nations babies with historical controls. Our analysis of feasibility, acceptability, clinical and cultural safety, effectiveness and cost, will use data including (i) women's experiences collected through longitudinal surveys (three timepoints) and yarning interviews; (ii) clinical records; (iii) staff and stakeholder views and experiences; (iv) field notes and meeting minutes; and (v) costs data. The study includes a process, impact and outcome evaluation of this complex health services innovation. DISCUSSION: Birthing on Country applies First Nations governance and cultural safety strategies to support optimum maternal, infant, and family health and wellbeing. Women's experiences, perinatal outcomes, costs and other operational implications will be reported for Communities, service providers, policy advisors, and for future scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia & New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry # ACTRN12620000874910 (2 September 2020).