Advertisement

The development of a caseload midwifery service in rural Australia

Published:December 05, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.11.010

      Abstract

      Problem

      The past two decades have seen progressive decline in the number of rural birthing services across Australia.

      Background

      Despite health system pressures on small birthing units to close there have been examples of resistance and survival.

      Aim

      This descriptive study explored the evolution of a rural birthing service in a small town to offer insight into the process of transition which may be helpful to other small healthcare services in rural Australia.

      Methods

      Quantitative data derived from birth registers on number and types of birth from 1993–2011 were analysed. Interviews were conducted between January and August 2012 with nine participants (GP obstetricians, midwives, a health service manager and a consumer representative).

      Findings

      This rural maternity service developed gradually from a GP obstetrician-led service to a collaborative care team approach with midwifery leadership. This development was in response to a changing rural medical workforce, midwifery capacity and the needs and wants of women in the local community. Four major themes were developed from interview data: (1) development of the service (2) drivers of change (3) outcomes and (4) collaborative care and inter-professional practice.

      Discussion

      The success of this transition was reported to rest on strategic planning and implementation and respectful inter-professional practice and alignment of birth philosophy across the team. This team created a unified, progressive community-focused birthing service.

      Conclusion

      The development of collaborative care models that embrace and build on established inter-professional relationships can maximise existing rural workforce potential and create a sustainable rural service into the future.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Women and Birth
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Humphreys J.S.
        • Wakerman J.
        • Wells R.
        • Kuipers P.
        • Jones J.A.
        • Entwistle P.
        Beyond workforce: a systemic solution for health service provision in small rural and remote communities.
        Med J Aust. 2008; 188: S77
        • Commonwealth Government
        Improving maternity services in Australia: the report of the maternity services review.
        2009 (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/624EF4BED503DB5BCA257BF0001DC83C/$File/Improving%20Maternity%20Services%20in%20Australia%20-%20The%20Report%20of%20the%20Maternity%20Services%20Review.pdf. [Accessed December 2015])
        • Hoang H.
        • Le Q.
        • Kilpatrick S.
        Small rural maternity units without caesarean delivery capabilities: is it safe and sustainable in the eyes of health professionals in Tasmania?.
        Rural Remote Health. 2012; 12: 1-11
        • Kildea S.
        • McGhie A.C.
        • Gao Y.
        • Rumbold A.
        • Rolfe M.
        Babies born before arrival to hospital and maternity unit closures in Queensland and Australia.
        Women Birth. 2015; 28: 236-245
        • Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council
        National maternity services plan.
        Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra2011
        • Tracy S.
        • Dahlen H.
        • Tracy M.
        • Sullivan E.
        Does size matter? A population based study of birth in lower volume maternity hospitals for low risk women.
        BJOG. 2006; 113: 86-96
        • Sandall J.
        • Soltani H.
        • Gates S.
        • Shennan A.
        • Devane D.
        Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 8
        • Commonwealth of Australia
        Improving maternity services in Australia: report of the maternity services review.
        Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra2009
        • Hoang H.
        • Le Q.
        Trade-off between local access and safety considerations in childbirth: rural Tasmanian women's perspectives.
        Aust J Rural Health. 2012; 20: 144-149
        • Huf L.
        Rural doctors association of Australia response to the: improving maternity services in Australia: a discussion paper from the Australian Government.
        2013 (http://www.rdaa.com.au/Uploads/Documents/RDAA%20Submission%20to%20the%20Maternity%20Services%20Review_20101015110159.pdf. [Accessed October 2015])
        • Kruske S.
        • Schultz T.
        • Eales S.
        • Kildea S.
        A retrospective, descriptive study of maternal and neonatal transfers, and clinical outcomes of a primary maternity unit in rural Queensland, 2009–2011.
        Women Birth. 2015; 28: 30-39
        • Scherman S.
        • Smith J.
        • Davidson M.
        The first year of a midwifery-led model of care in Far North Queensland.
        Med J Aust. 2008; 2: 85-88
        • Turnbull S.
        • Frazier J.
        Women offered home birth option. 2012; (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/04/20/3481914.htm. [Accessed December 2015])
        • Australian College of Midwives
        National midwifery guidelines for consultation and referral.
        3rd ed. issue 2. ACT: Australian College of Midwives, Deakin West2014
        • Australian Bureau of Statistics
        2011 Census QuickStats.
        2011 (www.censusdata.abs.gov.au. [Accessed 13 October 2016])
        • Hammersley M.
        What's wrong with Ethnography?.
        Routledge, London1992
        • Ritchie J.
        • Lewis J.
        • Nicholls C.M.
        • Ormston R.
        Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers.
        Sage, 2013
        • Braun V.
        • Clarke V.
        Using thematic analysis in psychology.
        Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77-101
        • Q.S.R. international
        NVIVO qualitative data analysis software version 10.
        2012
        • Hartz D.
        • Foureur M.
        • Tracy S.
        Australian caseload midwifery: the exception or the rule.
        Women Birth. 2011; 25: 39-46
        • Tracy S.K.
        • Hartz D.
        • Nicholl M.
        • McCann Y.
        • Latta D.
        An integrated service network in maternity — the implementation of a midwifery-led unit.
        Aust Health Rev. 2005; 29: 332-339
        • Laws P.J.
        • Tracy S.K.
        • Sullivan E.A.
        Perinatal outcomes of women intending to give birth in birth centers in Australia.
        Birth. 2010; 37: 28-36
        • Rural Doctors Association of Australia
        Maternity services for rural Australia.
        2006 (http://www.rdaa.com.au/Uploads/Documents/Maternity%20Services%20for%20Rural%20Australia_20101116031918.pdf. [Accessed December 2015])
        • NSW Ministry of Health
        Maternity — towards normal birth in NSW.
        2010
        • Downe S.
        • Finlayson K.
        • Fleming A.
        Creating a collaborative culture in maternity care.
        J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2010; 55: 250-254
        • Homer C.S.
        • Davis G.K.
        • Brodie P.M.
        • Chapman M.G.
        Collaboration in maternity care: a randomised controlled trial comparing community‐based continuity of care with standard hospital care.
        BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 108: 16-22
        • Carroll V.
        • Reeve C.
        • Humphreys J.
        • Wakerman J.
        • Carter M.
        Re-orienting a remote acute care model towards a primary health care approach: key enablers.
        Rural Remote Health. 2015; 15: 2942
        • Beasley S.
        • Ford N.
        • Tracy S.K.
        • Welsh A.W.
        Collaboration in maternity care is achievable and practical.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 52: 576-581
      1. Pregnancy birth and beyond — website. List of publicly funded homebirth programs.
        2015 (http://www.pregnancy.com.au/birth-choices/homebirth/publicly-funded-homebirth/list-of-publicly-funded-homebirth-programs.shtml. [Accessed December 2015])
        • McMurtrie J.
        • Catling‐Paul C.
        • Teate A.
        • Caplice S.
        • Chapman M.
        • Homer C.
        The St. George homebirth program: an evaluation of the first 100 booked women.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49: 631-636
        • Campbell D.G.
        • Greacen J.H.
        • Giddings P.H.
        • Skinner L.P.
        Regionalisation of general practice training — are we meeting the needs of rural Australia?.
        Med J Aust. 2011; 194: S71
        • Loy C.S.
        • Warton R.B.
        • Dunbar J.A.
        Workforce trends in specialist and GP obstetric practice in Victoria.
        Med J Aust. 2007; 186: 26
        • Van Wagner V.
        • Osepchook C.
        • Harney E.
        • Crosbie C.
        • Tulugak M.
        Remote midwifery in Nunavik, Quebec, Canada: outcomes of perinatal care for the Inuulitsivik Health Centre, 2000–2007.
        Birth. 2012; 39: 230-237