Jyai Allen

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

Does the way maternity care is provided affect maternal and neonatal outcomes for young women? A review of the research literature

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)

BACKGROUND Young pregnant women who continue a pregnancy are primarily from a socioeconomically deprived background. The risk factors associated with low socio-economic status may independently affect perinatal and neonatal morbidity to a greater extent than the young age of the woman. Young pregnant women are frequently sceptical about health care providers who they can perceive to be judgemental. This may lead to late booking for pregnancy care, attending few appointments, or not attending the health service for any antenatal care. QUESTION Does the way maternity care is provided affect maternal and neonatal outcomes for young women? METHOD A systematic search of the major health databases. RESULTS Nine research articles met the eligibility criteria: one randomised controlled trial, three prospective cohort studies, two comparative studies with concurrent controls, two comparative studies with historical controls, and one case series. DISCUSSION Providing young women with a non-standard model of maternity care has some beneficial and no known detrimental effects on childbirth outcomes. While there is a dearth of evidence on the effectiveness of a Midwifery Group Practice model of care for young women, there is strong evidence to suggest that a Group Antenatal Care model increases antenatal visit attendance and breastfeeding initiation, and decreases the risk of preterm birth. There is research to indicate that a Young Womens Clinic model may also increase antenatal visit attendance and decrease the incidence of preterm birth. CONCLUSION More well-designed and resourced midwifery models of care for young women should be implemented and rigorously researched.

Does model of maternity care make a difference to birth outcomes for young women? A retrospective cohort study

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

How does group antenatal care function within a caseload midwifery model? A critical ethnographic analysis

BACKGROUND Adolescent pregnancy is associated with adverse outcomes including preterm birth, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, low birth weight infants, and artificial feeding. OBJECTIVE To determine if caseload midwifery or young womens clinic are associated with improved perinatal outcomes when compared to standard care. DESIGN A retrospective cohort study. SETTING A tertiary Australian hospital where routine maternity care is delivered alongside two community-based maternity care models specifically for young women aged 21 years or less: caseload midwifery (known midwife) and young womens clinic (rostered midwife). PARTICIPANTS All pregnant women aged 21 years or less, with a singleton pregnancy, who attended a minimum of two antenatal visits, and who birthed a baby (without congenital abnormality) at the study hospital during May 2008 to December 2012. METHODS Caseload midwifery and young womens clinic were each compared to standard maternity care, but not with each other, for four primary outcomes: preterm birth (<37 weeks gestation), low birth weight infants (<2500g), neonatal intensive care unit admission, and breastfeeding initiation. Two analyses were performed on the primary outcomes to examine potential associations between maternity care type and perinatal outcomes: intention-to-treat (model of care at booking) and treatment-received (model of care on admission for labour/birth). RESULTS 1908 births were analysed by intention-to-treat and treatment-received analyses. Young women allocated to caseload care at booking, compared to standard care, were less likely to have a preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio 0.59 (0.38-0.90, p=0.014)) or a neonatal intensive care unit admission adjusted odds ratio 0.42 (0.22-0.82, p=0.010). Rates of low birth weight infants and breastfeeding initiation were similar between caseload and standard care participants. Participants allocated to young womens clinic at booking, compared to standard care, were less likely to have a low birth weight infant adjusted odds ratio 0.49 (0.24-1.00, p=0.049), however when analysed by treatment-received, this finding was not significant. There was no difference in the other primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Young women who were allocated to caseload midwifery at booking, and/or were receiving caseload midwifery at the time of admission for birth, were less likely to experience preterm birth and neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Predictors of breastfeeding exclusivity and duration in a hospital without Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative accreditation: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND caseload midwifery and CenteringPregnancy™ (a form of group antenatal care) are two models of maternity care that are separately associated with better clinical outcomes, maternal satisfaction scores and positive experiences compared to standard care. One study reported exclusively on younger women׳s experiences of caseload midwifery; none described younger women׳s experiences of group antenatal care. We retrieved no studies on the experiences of women who received a combination of caseload midwifery and group antenatal care. OBJECTIVE examine younger women׳s experiences of caseload midwifery in a setting that incorporates group antenatal care. DESIGN a critical, focused ethnographic approach. SETTING the study was conducted in an Australian hospital and its associated community venue from 2011 to 2013. PARTICIPANTS purposive sampling of younger (19-22 years) pregnant and postnatal women (n=10) and the caseload midwives (n=4) who provided group antenatal care within one midwifery group practice. METHODS separate focus group interviews with women and caseload midwives, observations of the setting and delivery of group antenatal care, and examination of selected documents. Thematic analyses of the women׳s accounts have been given primary significance. Coded segments of the midwives interview data, field notes and documents were used to compare and contrast within these themes. FINDINGS we report on women׳s first encounters with the group, and their interactions with peers and midwives. The group setting minimised the opportunity for the women and midwives to get to know each other. CONCLUSIONS this study challenges the practice of combining group antenatal care with caseload midwifery and recommends further research.

So you want to conduct a randomised trial? Learnings from a 'failed' feasibility study of a Crisis Resource Management prompt during simulated paediatric resuscitation

AIM The aim of this study was to investigate the maternity care factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding duration at three months and six months postpartum in a setting without BFHI accrediation. METHODS A prospective cohort design. Participants from one tertiary maternity hospital were eligible if they intended to exclusively breastfeed, had birthed a live, term baby; were breastfeeding at recruitment; were rooming-in with their baby; were healthy and well; and understood English. Participants completed an infant feeding survey using 24-h recall questions at three time-points. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and regression modelling. FINDINGS We recruited 424 participants of whom 84% (n=355) responded to the survey at 3-months and 79% (n=335) at 6-months. Women who avoided exposure to intrapartum opioid analgesia (e.g. intramuscular, intraveous or epidural) were more likely to be exclusively breastfeeding at 3-months postpartum (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-3.80, probability value (p) 0.016). The only other modifiable predictor of exclusive breastfeeding at 3-months was non-exposure to artificial formula on the postnatal ward (aOR 2.44, 95% CI 1.43-4.18, p<0.001). At 6-months postpartum, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding had reduced to 5% (n=16) which rendered regression modelling untenable. DISCUSSION Strategies to decrease exposure to opioid analgesia in birth settings and the use of infant formula on the postnatal ward may improve exclusive breastfeeding at three months. CONCLUSION Results suggest that both intrapartum and postpartum maternity care practices can predict long-term breastfeeding success.

Is a randomised controlled trial of a maternity care intervention for pregnant adolescents possible? An Australian feasibility study

BACKGROUND No study has tested a Crisis Resource Management prompt on resuscitation performance. METHODS We conducted a feasibility, unblinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at one Australian paediatric hospital (June-September 2014). Eligible participants were any doctor, nurse, or nurse manager who would normally be involved in a Medical Emergency Team simulation. The unit of block randomisation was one of six scenarios (3 control:3 intervention) with or without a verbal prompt. The primary outcomes tested the feasibility and utility of the intervention and data collection tools. The secondary outcomes measured resuscitation quality and team performance. RESULTS Data were analysed from six resuscitation scenarios (n=49 participants); three control groups (n=25) and three intervention groups (n=24). The ability to measure all data items on the data collection tools was hindered by problems with the recording devices both in the mannequins and the video camera. CONCLUSIONS For a pilot study, greater training for the prompt role and pre-briefing participants about assessment of their cardio-pulmonary resuscitation quality should be undertaken. Data could be analysed in real time with independent video analysis to validate findings. Two cameras would strengthen reliability of the methods.