Women and Birth
Volume 22, Issue 1 , Pages 3-9, March 2009

An evaluation of Midwifery Group Practice. Part I: Clinical effectiveness

  • Deborah Turnbull

      Affiliations

    • School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, South Australia, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, Level 4, Hughes Building, Adelaide 5005, South Australia, Australia. Tel.: +61 8 8303 5738; fax: +61 8 8303 3770.
  • ,
  • Peter Baghurst

      Affiliations

    • Women's and Children's Hospital, CYWHS, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    • Disciplines of Paediatrics and Public Health, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • ,
  • Carmel Collins

      Affiliations

    • Women's and Children's Health Research Institute, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • ,
  • Chris Cornwell

      Affiliations

    • Women's and Children's Hospital, CYWHS, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • ,
  • Anne Nixon

      Affiliations

    • Women's and Children's Hospital, CYWHS, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • ,
  • Roslyn Donnelan-Fernandez

      Affiliations

    • Women's and Children's Hospital, CYWHS, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • ,
  • Georgia Antoniou

      Affiliations

    • Women's and Children's Hospital, CYWHS, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Received 16 June 2008; received in revised form 16 October 2008; accepted 17 October 2008.

Summary 

Background

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.

Keywords: Midwifery, Continuity of care, Evaluation, Clinical outcomes, Risk groups

 

PII: S1871-5192(08)00086-3

doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2008.10.001

Women and Birth
Volume 22, Issue 1 , Pages 3-9, March 2009