Embracing the continuity of care experience: A new Australian graduate entry master of midwifery course with a student caseload of 15 women per year.

BACKGROUND: Women receiving continuity of midwifery care have increased satisfaction and improved outcomes. Preparation of midwifery students to work in continuity models from the point of graduation may provide an ongoing midwifery workforce that meets rising demand from women for access to such care. AIM OF THE PAPER: The aim of this paper is to describe an innovative midwifery course based on a continuity model, where students acquire more than 50 % of clinical hours through continuity of care experiences. Additional educational strategies incorporated in the course to enhance the CCE experience within the philosophy of midwifery care, include a virtual maternity centre, case-based learning and the Resources Activities Support Evaluation (RASE) pedagogical model of learning. DISCUSSION: Australian accredited midwifery courses vary in structure, format and philosophy; this new course provides students with an alternative option of study for those who have a particular interest in continuity of midwifery care. CONCLUSION: A midwifery course which provides the majority of clinical hours through continuity of care may prepare graduates for employment within midwifery group practice models by demonstrating the benefits of relationship building, improved outcomes and the reality of an on-call lifestyle.

Midwives' experience of their education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research examining midwives' education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth. Our aim was to address this gap in evidence and build knowledge around this important topic. METHODS: This mixed method study was performed in two phases, between August and December 2016, in the birth centre of a tertiary public maternity hospital in Western Australia. Phase one utilised a cross sectional design to examine perceptions of education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth through a questionnaire. Phase two employed a qualitative descriptive design and focus groups to explore what midwives enjoyed about caring for women who labour or birth in water and the challenges midwives experienced with waterbirth. Frequency distributions were employed for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract common themes from focus group transcripts. RESULTS: The majority (85%; 29 of 34) of midwives surveyed returned a questionnaire. Results from phase one confirmed that following training, 93% (27 of 29) of midwives felt equipped to facilitate waterbirth and the mean waterbirths required to facilitate confidence was seven. Midwives were confident caring for women in water during the first, second and third stage of labour and enjoyed facilitating water immersion for labour and birth. Finally, responses to labour and birth scenarios indicated midwives were practicing according to state-wide clinical guidance. Phase two included two focus groups of seven and five midwives. Exploration of what midwives enjoyed about caring for women who used water immersion revealed three themes: instinctive birthing; woman-centred atmosphere; and undisturbed space. Exploration of the challenges experienced with waterbirth revealed two themes: learning through reflection and facilities required to support waterbirth. CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to the growing knowledge base examining midwives' education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth. It also highlights the importance of exploring what immersion in water for labour and birth offers midwives, as this research suggests they are integral to sustaining waterbirth as an option for low risk women.

The perceptions and experiences of women who achieved and did not achieve a waterbirth.

BACKGROUND: There is a gap in knowledge and understanding relating to the experiences of women exposed to the opportunity of waterbirth. Our aim was to explore the perceptions and experiences of women who achieved or did not achieve their planned waterbirth. METHODS: An exploratory design using critical incident techniques was conducted between December 2015 and July 2016, in the birth centre of the tertiary public maternity hospital in Western Australia. Women were telephoned 6 weeks post birth. Demographic data included: age; education; parity; and previous birth mode. Women were also asked the following: what made you choose to plan a waterbirth?; what do you think contributed to you having (or not having) a waterbirth?; and which three words would you use to describe your birth experience? Frequency distributions and univariate comparisons were employed for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract common themes from the interviews. RESULTS: A total of 31% (93 of 296) of women achieved a waterbirth and 69% (203 of 296) did not. Multiparous women were more likely to achieve a waterbirth (57% vs 32%; p < 0.001). Women who achieved a waterbirth were less likely to have planned a waterbirth for pain relief (38% vs 52%; p = 0.24). The primary reasons women gave for planning a waterbirth were: pain relief; they liked the idea; it was associated with a natural birth; it provided a relaxing environment; and it was recommended. Two fifths (40%) of women who achieved a waterbirth suggested support was the primary reason they achieved their waterbirth, with the midwife named as the primary support person by 34 of 37 women. Most (66%) women who did not achieve a waterbirth perceived this was because they experienced an obstetric complication. The words women used to describe their birth were coded as: affirming; distressing; enduring; natural; quick; empowering; and long. CONCLUSIONS: Immersion in water for birth facilitates a shift of focus from high risk obstetric-led care to low risk midwifery-led care. It also facilitates evidence based, respectful midwifery care which in turn optimises the potential for women to view their birthing experience through a positive lens.

Australian, Irish and Swedish women's perceptions of what assisted them to breastfeed for six months: exploratory design using critical incident technique.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding initiation rates in some developed countries are high (98 % in Sweden and 96 % in Australia) whereas in others, they are not as favourable (46 % to 55 % in Ireland). Although the World Health Organization recommends exclusively breastfeeding for six months, 15 % of Australian women, 11 % of Swedish women and less than 7 % of Irish women achieve this goal. Awareness of what women in different countries perceive as essential breastfeeding support is a gap in our knowledge. METHODS: Our aim was to explore Australian, Irish and Swedish women's perceptions of what assisted them to continue breastfeeding for six months. An exploratory design using critical incident techniques was used. Recruitment occurred through advertisements in local newspapers and on social networking platforms. Initial sampling was purposive, followed by snowball sampling. Telephone interviews were conducted with 64 Irish, 139 Swedish and 153 Australian women who responded to one question "what has assisted you to continue breastfeeding for at least six months?" Content analysis was conducted and common categories determined to allow comparison of frequencies and priority ranking. RESULTS: Categories reflected the individual mother, her inner social network, her outer social network (informal support either face to face or online), and societal support (health professionals, work environment and breastfeeding being regarded as the cultural norm). Categories ranked in the top five across the three countries were 'informal face to face support' and 'maternal determination'. Swedish and Australian women ranked "health professional support" higher (first and third respectively) than Irish women who ranked 'informal online support' as second compared to ninth and tenth for Swedish and Australian women. CONCLUSIONS: The support required to assist breastfeeding women is complex and multi-faceted. Although common international categories were revealed, the ranking of these supportive categories varied. We must recognize how the cultural context of breastfeeding support can vary for women in differing countries and acknowledge the resourcefulness of women who embrace innovations such as social media where face to face formal and informal support are not as accessible.