Advertisement

Optimising the continuity experiences of student midwives: an integrative review

Published:February 03, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2020.01.007

      Abstract

      Background

      In several countries, midwifery students undertake continuity of care experiences as part of their pre-registration education. This is thought to enable the development of a woman-centred approach, as well as providing students with the skills to work in continuity models. A comprehensive overview of factors that may promote optimal learning within continuity experiences is lacking.

      Aim

      To identify barriers and facilitators to optimal learning within continuity experiences, in order to provide a holistic overview of factors that may impact on, modify and determine learning within this educational model.

      Methods

      An integrative literature review was undertaken using a five-step framework which established the search strategy, screening and eligibility assessment, and data evaluation processes. Quality of included literature was critically appraised and extracted data were analysed thematically.

      Findings

      Three key themes were identified. A central theme was relationships, which are instrumental in learning within continuity experiences. Conflict or coherence represents the different models of care in which the continuity experience is situated, which may conflict with or cohere to the intentions of this educational model. The final theme is setting the standards, which emerged from the lack of evidence and guidance to inform the implementation of student placements within continuity experiences.

      Conclusion

      The learning from continuity experiences must be optimised to prepare students to be confident, competent and enthusiastic to work in continuity models, ultimately at the point of graduation. This will require an evidence-based approach to inform clear guidance around the intent, implementation, documentation and assessment of continuity experiences.

      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

        • Allen J.
        • Kildea S.
        • Tracy M.B.
        • Hartz D.L.
        • Welsh A.W.
        • Tracy S.K.
        The impact of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care, on women’s perceptions of antenatal care quality: survey results from the [email protected] randomized controlled trial for women of any risk.
        Birth. 2019; 46: 439-449https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12436
        • Forster D.A.
        • McLachlan H.L.
        • Davey M.
        • Biro M.A.
        • Farrell T.
        • Gold L.
        • et al.
        Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) increases women’s satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0798-y
        • Homer C.S.
        • Leap N.
        • Edwards N.
        • Sandall J.
        Midwifery continuity of carer in an area of high socio-economic disadvantage in London: a retrospective analysis of Albany Midwifery Practice outcomes using routine data (1997–2009).
        Midwifery. 2017; 48: 1-10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.009
        • McLachlan H.
        • Forster D.
        • Davey M.
        • Farrell T.
        • Flood M.
        • Shafiei T.
        • et al.
        The effect of primary midwife-led care on women’s experience of childbirth: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial.
        BJOG. 2015; 123: 465-474https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13713
        • 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. 2016; 4 (CD004667)https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub5
        • Tracy S.K.
        • Hartz D.L.
        • Tracy M.B.
        • Allen J.
        • Forti A.
        • Hall B.
        • et al.
        Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: [email protected], a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2013; 382: 1723-1732https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61406-3
        • Tracy S.K.
        • Welsh A.
        • Hall B.
        • Hartz D.
        • Lainchbury A.
        • Bisits A.
        • et al.
        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.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-46
        • Australian Health Ministers׳ Advisory Council
        National Maternity Services Plan: Implementation for the Middle Years, 2014-15.
        2016
        • National Maternity Review
        BETTER BIRTHS, Improving Outcomes Of Maternity Services In England.
        2016
        • Scottish Government
        The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan For Maternity And Neonatal Care In Scotland.
        2017
        • Sandall J.
        • Coxon K.
        • Mackintosh N.
        • Rayment-Jones H.
        • Locock L.
        • Page L.
        (Writing on Behalf Of The Sheila Kitzinger Symposium). Relationships: The Pathway To Safe, High-Quality Maternity Care Report From The Sheila Kitzinger Symposium At Green Templeton College.
        (October 2015)2016
        • Dawson K.
        • Newton M.
        • Forster D.
        • McLachlan H.
        Comparing caseload and non-caseload midwives’ burnout levels and professional attitudes: a national, cross-sectional survey of Australian midwives working in the public maternity system.
        Midwifery. 2018; 63: 60-67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.026
        • Dixon L.
        • Guilliland K.
        • Pallant J.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Fenwick J.
        • McAra-Couper J.
        • et al.
        The emotional wellbeing of New Zealand midwives: comparing responses for midwives in caseloading and shift work settings.
        N Z Coll Mid J. 2017; 53: 5-14https://doi.org/10.12784/nzcomjnl53.2017.1.5-14
        • Fenwick J.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Gamble J.
        • Creedy D.K.
        The emotional and professional wellbeing of Australian midwives: a comparison between those providing continuity of midwifery care and those not providing continuity.
        Women Birth. 2018; 31: 38-43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.06.013
        • Hunter B.
        • Fenwick J.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Henley J.
        Midwives in the United Kingdom: levels of burnout, depression, anxiety and stress and associated predictors.
        Midwifery. 2019; 79: 102526https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.08.008
        • Harvie K.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Fenwick J.
        Australian midwives’ intentions to leave the profession and the reasons why.
        Women Birth. 2019; 32: e584-e593https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.01.001
        • Hunter B.
        • Henley J.
        • Fenwick Sidebotham M.
        • Pallant J.
        Work, Health and Emotional Lives of Midwives in the United Kingdom: The UK WHELM Study.
        2017
        • Cummins A.M.
        • Catling C.
        • Homer C.S.
        Enabling new graduate midwives to work in midwifery continuity of care models: a conceptual model for implementation.
        Women Birth. 2018; 31: 343-349https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.11.007
        • Evans J.
        • Taylor J.
        • Browne J.
        • Ferguson S.
        • Atchan M.
        • Maher P.
        • et al.
        The future in their hands: graduating student midwives’ plans, job satisfaction and the desire to work in midwifery continuity of care.
        Women Birth. 2018; 33: e59-e66https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.11.011
        • Hollins Martin C.J.
        • Macarthur J.
        • Martin C.R.
        • McInnes R.
        Midwives’ views of changing to a Continuity of Midwifery Care (CMC) model in Scotland: a baseline survey.
        Women Birth. 2019; (pii: S1871-5192(19)30375-0)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.08.005
        • Taylor B.
        • Cross-Sudworth F.
        • Goodwin L.
        • Kenyon S.
        • MacArthur C.
        Midwives’ perspectives of continuity based working in the UK: a cross-sectional survey.
        Midwifery. 2019; 75: 127-137https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.05.005
        • Newton M.S.
        • McLachlan H.L.
        • Forster D.A.
        • Willis K.F.
        Understanding the ‘work’ of caseload midwives: a mixed-methods exploration of two caseload midwifery models in Victoria, Australia.
        Women Birth. 2016; 29: 223-233https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.10.011
        • Australian Nursing and Midwfery Council
        Midwife Accreditation Standards 2014.
        2014
        • Nursing and Midwifery Council
        Realising Professionalism: Standards For Education And Training Part 3: Standards For Pre-Registration Midwifery Programmes.
        2019
        • Tierney O.
        • Sweet L.
        • Houston D.
        • Ebert L.
        The continuity of care experience in Australian midwifery education—what have we achieved?.
        Women Birth. 2017; 30: 200-205https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.10.006
        • Whittemore R.
        • Knafl K.
        The integrative review: updated methodology.
        J Adv Nurs. 2005; 52: 546-553https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
        • Moher D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Clarke M.
        • Ghersi D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Stewart L.A.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
        Syst. Rev. 2015; 4https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
        • McArthur A.
        • Klugárová J.
        • Yan H.
        • Florescu S.
        Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion.
        Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015; 13: 188-195https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000060
        • Hong Q.N.
        • Pluye P.
        • Fàbregues S.
        • Bartlett G.
        • Boardman F.
        • Cargo M.
        • et al.
        Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018.
        2018
        • Dawson K.
        • Newton M.
        • Forster D.
        • McLachlan H.
        Exploring midwifery students׳ views and experiences of caseload midwifery: a cross-sectional survey conducted in Victoria, Australia.
        Midwifery. 2015; 31: e7-e15https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.09.007
        • Gamble J.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Gilkison A.
        • Davis D.
        • Sweet L.
        Acknowledging the primacy of continuity of care experiences in midwifery education.
        Women Birth. 2019; (pii: S1871-5192(19)30476-7)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.002
        • Tickle N.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Fenwick J.
        • Gamble J.
        Women’s experiences of having a Bachelor of Midwifery student provide continuity of care.
        Women Birth. 2016; 29: 245-251https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.11.002
        • Gray J.
        • Leap N.
        • Sheehy A.
        • Homer C.S.
        Students’ perceptions of the follow-through experience in 3 year bachelor of midwifery programmes in Australia.
        Midwifery. 2013; 29: 400-406https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.015
        • Gray J.E.
        • Leap N.
        • Sheehy A.
        • Homer C.S.
        The ‘follow-through’ experience in three-year Bachelor of Midwifery programs in Australia: a survey of students.
        Nurse Educ. Pract. 2012; 12: 258-263https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.04.013
        • McKellar L.
        • Charlick S.
        • Warland J.
        • Birbeck D.
        Access, boundaries and confidence: the ABC of facilitating continuity of care experience in midwifery education.
        Women Birth. 2014; 27: e61-e66https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2014.08.005
        • Rawnson S.
        A qualitative study exploring student midwives’ experiences of carrying a caseload as part of their midwifery education in England.
        Midwifery. 2011; 27: 786-792https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2010.07.004
        • Carter A.G.
        • Wilkes E.
        • Gamble J.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Creedy D.K.
        Midwifery students׳ experiences of an innovative clinical placement model embedded within midwifery continuity of care in Australia.
        Midwifery. 2015; 31: 765-771https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.04.006
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Fenwick J.
        Midwifery students’ experiences of working within a midwifery caseload model.
        Midwifery. 2019; 74: 21-28https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.03.008
        • Sweet L.P.
        • Glover P.
        An exploration of the midwifery continuity of care program at one Australian University as a symbiotic clinical education model.
        Nurse Educ. Today. 2013; 33: 262-267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.11.020
        • McLachlan H.L.
        • Newton M.
        • Nightingale H.
        • Morrow J.
        • Kruger G.
        Exploring the ‘follow-through experience’: a statewide survey of midwifery students and academics conducted in Victoria, Australia.
        Midwifery. 2013; 29: 1064-1072https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.12.017
        • Ebert L.
        • Tierney O.
        • Jones D.
        Learning to be a midwife in the clinical environment; tasks, clinical practicum hours or midwifery relationships.
        Nurse Educ. Pract. 2016; 16: 294-297https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.08.003
        • Gray J.
        • Taylor J.
        • Newton M.
        Embedding continuity of care experiences: an innovation in midwifery education.
        Midwifery. 2016; 33: 40-42https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.11.014
        • Cummins A.M.
        • Denney-Wilson E.
        • Homer C.
        The challenge of employing and managing new graduate midwives in midwifery group practices in hospitals.
        J. Nurs. Manag. 2016; 24: 614-623https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12364
        • Griffiths M.
        • Fenwick J.
        • Gamble J.
        • Creedy D.K.
        Midwifery student evaluation of practice: the MidSTEP tool — perceptions of clinical learning experiences.
        Women Birth. 2019; (pii: S1871-5192(19)30335-X)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.010
        • Griffiths M.
        • Fenwick J.
        • Carter A.G.
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Gamble J.
        Midwives transition to practice: expectations and experiences.
        Nurse Educ. Pract. 2019; 41: 102641https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.102641
        • Sidebotham M.
        • Fenwick J.
        • Carter A.
        • Gamble J.
        Using the five senses of success framework to understand the experiences of midwifery students enroled in an undergraduate degree program.
        Midwifery. 2015; 31: 201-207https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.08.007
        • Allen J.
        • Kildea S.
        • Stapleton H.
        How optimal caseload midwifery can modify predictors for preterm birth in young women: integrated findings from a mixed methods study.
        Midwifery. 2016; 41: 30-38https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.07.012
        • Symon A.
        • Pringle J.
        • Cheyne H.
        • Downe S.
        • Hundley V.
        • Lee E.
        • et al.
        Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0944-6