A multicriteria resource allocation model for the redesign of services following birth.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare services are under considerable pressure to reduce costs while improving quality. This is particularly true in the United Kingdom's National Health Service where postnatal care is sometimes viewed as having a low priority. There is much debate about the service's redesign and the reallocation of resources, both along care pathways and between groups of mothers and babies with different needs. The aim of this study was to develop a decision support tool that would encourage a systemic approach to service redesign and that could assess the various quality and financial implications of service change options making the consequent trade-offs explicit. The paper describes the development process and an initial implementation as a preliminary exploration of the possible merits of this approach. METHODS: Other studies have suggested that combining multicriteria decision analysis with programme budgeting and marginal analysis might offer a suitable basis for resource allocation decisions in healthcare systems. The Postnatal care Resource Allocation Model incorporated this approach in a decision support tool to analyse the consequences of varying design parameters, notably staff contacts and time, on the various quality domains and costs. The initial phase of the study focussed on mapping postnatal care, involving interviews and workshops with a variety of stakeholders. This was supplemented with a literature review and the resultant knowledge base was encoded in the decision support tool. The model was then tested with various stakeholders before being used in an NHS Trust in England. RESULTS: The model provides practical support, helping staff explore options and articulate their proposals for the redesign of postnatal care. The integration of cost and quality domains facilitates trade-offs, allowing staff to explore the benefits of reallocating resources between hospital and community-based care, and different patient-categories. CONCLUSIONS: The main benefits of the model include its structure for assembling the key data, sharing evidence amongst multi-professional teams and encouraging constructive, systemic debate. Although the model was developed in the context of the routine maternity services for mothers and babies in the days following birth it could be adapted for use in other health care services.

Continuity of care in community midwifery.

Continuity of care is often critical in delivering high quality health care. However, it is difficult to achieve in community health care where shift patterns and a need to minimise travelling time can reduce the scope for allocating staff to patients. Community midwifery is one example of such a challenge in the National Health Service where postnatal care typically involves a series of home visits. Ideally mothers would receive all of their antenatal and postnatal care from the same midwife. Minimising the number of staff-handovers helps ensure a better relationship between mothers and midwives, and provides more opportunity for staff to identify emerging problems over a series of home visits. This study examines the allocation and routing of midwives in the community using a variant of a multiple travelling salesmen problem algorithm incorporating staff preferences to explore trade-offs between travel time and continuity of care. This algorithm was integrated in a simulation to assess the additional effect of staff availability due to shift patterns and part-time working. The results indicate that continuity of care can be achieved with relatively small increases in travel time. However, shift patterns are problematic: perfect continuity of care is impractical but if there is a degree of flexibility in the visit schedule, reasonable continuity is feasible.

Intrapartum uncertainty: a feature of normal birth, as experienced by midwives in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: to explore midwives' perceptions of intrapartum uncertainty when caring for women in low risk labour. DESIGN: a grounded theory approach was used to capture the experiences of midwives practising in Scotland. Data were generated through unstructured in-depth one-to-one interviews and focus groups. SETTING: four Health Boards in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 19 midwives, practising in a range of maternity settings, participated in the study. The maternity settings included; obstetric led labour wards, along-side maternity units, stand-alone community maternity units, and community and independent practice. They also had a mixture of clinical experience, ranging from one to 20 years in practice. FINDINGS: Three categories emerged from the analysis, intrapartum uncertainty, the normality boundary and threshold pressures. Recognising the point at which a labour deviates away from normal constitutes 'intrapartum uncertainty'. In these situations midwives develop a normality boundary that shape their clinical judgements and decisions. The boundary becomes the limit, edge or border of what they accept as normal in a labour. Therefore if midwives tolerate intrapartum uncertainty they are more likely to construct labours as normal, than midwives with a lower tolerance of uncertainty. This can be mediated by threshold pressures that expand or contract their definitions of normality. So that supportive environments and good relationships with women enable midwives to tolerate uncertainty and thus maintain normality. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the reemphasise on midwifery practice as a means of supporting normal birth has been promoted as a way of 'demedicalising' birth for low risk women. However to maintain normality midwives need to understand the impact uncertainty has on their decision making. Supporting midwives to tolerate uncertainty, either at unit or national level, will expand definitions of normality so that birth can remain natural and dynamic.

Midwifery and the LGBT midwife.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, through searching the published literature, midwifery's attitudes to gay and lesbian midwives. DESIGN: A selective literature review. FINDINGS: UK-based material was sparse. Items on midwifery and nursing and medicine and on midwifery in non-UK countries were accessed. Issues emerging include the salience of 'coming out', of education, of culture, of forming relationships with childbearing women and the difficulty of authoritative research. KEY CONCLUSIONS: The midwifery literature on LGBT colleagues corresponds with that identified in nursing almost three decades ago. The lack of recognition of LGBT midwives carries personal and organisational implications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Discriminatory attitudes may be difficult to resolve by education. Research on LGBT colleagues is fraught with difficulties. Various aspects of culture affect the acceptance of the colleague who is gay or lesbian. It is uncertain whether the midwife-woman relationship is less easily achieved by the gay or lesbian midwife.