Anne Lainchbury

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. METHODS In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. FINDINGS Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS

A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options)

566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care. INTERPRETATION Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Knowledge, advice and attitudes toward women driving a car after caesarean section or hysterectomy: A survey of obstetrician/gynaecologists and midwives.

BackgroundAustralia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant.Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial.Methods/designA two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary womens hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the womans needs.DiscussionData will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246

Maternal car driving capacity after birth: a pilot prospective study randomizing postnatal women to early verses late driving in a driving simulator

Women are given variable information about when to recommence driving after surgery.

Mothers’ views of caseload midwifery and the value of continuity of care at an Australian regional hospital

Abstract Background: Women are commonly advised to avoid driving following cesarean section (CS), however, this advice is based upon little evidence. Aims: We aimed to assess a woman’s capacity to drive a car postbirth using a driving simulator to objectively examine driving behavior and competencies. Materials and methods: We conducted a pilot, prospective, randomized study from a tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Postnatal women who were regular drivers and had given birth by vaginal delivery (VD), elective cesarean section (ElCS) or emergency cesarean section (EmCS) were randomized to early (2–3 weeks post birth) or late (5–6 weeks post birth) driver simulator testing. Driving performance was measured by reaction time to simulated impediments, awareness, attention, braking ability, traffic infringements, and accidents. Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcomes were assessed using contingency analysis via two-sample t-tests and Wilcoxen rank-sum tests. Results: 66 women were randomized and 38 attended simulator testing (57.6%; 19 early, 19 late; 8 VD, 14 ElCS, 16 EmCS). There was no difference in reaction times, driver awareness, braking times, or traffic infringements by early versus late testing (all p > .05), nor by mode of birth (p > .05) amongst the women who completed driver testing. At 7–8 weeks, all women were driving, without an accident. Conclusions: Although the study is limited by small sample size, there was no difference in driving capability by early versus late driving time since birth, nor by mode of birth. Further research is needed, but we cannot provide evidence to discourage well women from driving from 2–3 weeks post birth.