An evaluation of midwifery group practice. Part I: Clinical effectiveness

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTurnbull, D.
dc.contributor.authorBaghurst, P.
dc.contributor.authorCollins, C.
dc.contributor.authorCornwell, C.
dc.contributor.authorNixon, A.
dc.contributor.authorDonnellan-Fernandez, R.
dc.contributor.authorAntoniou, G.
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstractBackground: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) is a continuity of midwifery care model for women in all risk groups (Low, Moderate and High) available at a tertiary metropolitan hospital in Australia. This demonstration study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of MGP with other models of care at the hospital. Methods: Comparisons of clinical outcomes were made between women who received care under MGP (n = 618) and those receiving ‘Other’ modes of care at the hospital (n = 3548) between three risk categories over a 15-month period. Results: There were more Low (MGP n = 218, 35.3%, ‘Other’ n = 773, 21.8%) and fewer High Risk (MGP n = 46, 7.4%, ‘Other’ n = 564, 15.9%) women in MGP, with similar proportions of Moderate Risk women (MGP n = 354, 57.3%, ‘Other’ n = 2211, 62.3%). Significant differences include: fewer assisted deliveries for Moderate Risk women in MGP (27.7% MGP, 46.1% ‘Other’); fewer labour inductions (Low Risk: 12.8% MGP, 25.1% ‘Other’; Moderate Risk: 21.8% MGP, 29.5% ‘Other’; High Risk: 19.6% MGP, 34.9% ‘Other’); less epidural analgesia (Low Risk: 22.5% MGP, 49.0% ‘Other’; Moderate Risk: 20.3% MGP, 38.4% ‘Other’; High Risk: 17.4% MGP, 32.6% ‘Other’); and differences in the overall pattern of perineal trauma. No significant differences were found in the incidence of post-partum haemorrhage, antenatal hospital admissions, or neonatal admission to Special or Intensive Care. Conclusions: MGP is clinically effective when practiced in a routine setting.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDeborah Turnbull, Peter Baghurst, Carmel Collins, Chris Cornwell, Anne Nixon, Roslyn Donnelan-Fernandez, Georgia Antoniou
dc.description.urihttp://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/707424/description#description
dc.identifier.citationWomen and Birth, 2009; 22(1):3-9
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.wombi.2008.10.001
dc.identifier.issn1871-5192
dc.identifier.issn1878-1799
dc.identifier.orcidTurnbull, D. [0000-0002-7116-7073]
dc.identifier.orcidCollins, C. [0000-0003-3308-9948]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/53972
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2008.10.001
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectPregnancy Complications
dc.subjectPregnancy Outcome
dc.subjectPrenatal Care
dc.subjectHealth Care Surveys
dc.subjectNurse's Role
dc.subjectNurse-Patient Relations
dc.subjectNursing Methodology Research
dc.subjectMidwifery
dc.subjectPregnancy
dc.subjectModels, Nursing
dc.subjectInfant, Newborn
dc.subjectObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital
dc.subjectGroup Practice
dc.subjectAustralia
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectOutcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
dc.titleAn evaluation of midwifery group practice. Part I: Clinical effectiveness
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Psychology publications