Donna Hartz

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

Australian caseload midwifery: The exception or the rule

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).

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

The aim of this paper is to review the clinical outcomes of descriptive and comparative cohort studies of the Australian caseload midwifery models of care that emerged during the late 1990s and early 2000s. These models report uniformly a decrease in caesarean section operation rates when compared to local, state and national rates, irrespective of the obstetric risk of the women cared for. These outcomes are in contrast to the findings of the randomised controlled trials and comparative cohort studies of caseload midwifery conducted, predominantly in the United Kingdom, in the mid to late 1990s. The Australian studies show that caseload midwifery is a model of care that is associated with lowered rates of caesarean section operations, and other obstetric intervention rates. The absence of definitive evidence of the effect of caseload midwifery, derived from published descriptive and comparative cohort studies, underlines the need for a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery. The randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery being undertaken in two major teaching hospitals in Australia will provide definitive answers relating to the effect of the caseload midwifery model of care for women of all risk in the Australian context.

Australian maternity reform through clinical redesign

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

Why such differing stances? A review of position statements on home birth from professional colleges.

The current Australian national maternity reform agenda focuses on improving access to maternity care for women and their families while preserving safety and quality. The caseload midwifery model of care offers the level of access to continuity of care proposed in the reforms however the introduction of these models in Australia continues to meet with strong resistance. In many places access to caseload midwifery care is offered as a token, usually restricted to well women, within limited metropolitan and regional facilities and where available, places for women are very small as a proportion of the total service provided. This case study outlines a major clinical redesign of midwifery care at a metropolitan tertiary referral maternity hospital in Sydney. Caseload midwifery care was introduced under randomised trial conditions to provide midwifery care to 1500 women of all risk resulting in half of the publicly insured women receiving midwifery group practice care. The paper describes the organisational quality and safety tools that were utilised to facilitate the process while discussing the factors that facilitated the process and the barriers that were encountered within the workforce, operational and political context.

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes

Despite low rates of home birth throughout most Western countries, the topic generates considerable debate. This is reflected by the differing positions on home birth adopted by professional colleges representing obstetricians and midwives. We reviewed position statements of midwifery and obstetric colleges in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to explore how the same body of research evidence leads to different positions. Aside from a joint statement from the UK we found widely differing stances, reflecting traditional midwifery perspectives of birth as a physiological process versus obstetric perspectives of potential pathology. We feel the differences in position statements are largely the end product of significant confirmatory bias.