INTRODUCTION: Integrated care is considered to be a means to reduce costs, improve the quality of care and generate better patient outcomes. At present, little is known about integrated care in maternity care systems. We developed questionnaires to examine integrated care in two different settings, using the taxonomy of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of these questionnaires.METHODS: We used data collected between 2013 and 2015 from two studies: the Maternity Care Network Study (634 respondents) and the Dutch Birth Centre Study (56 respondents). We assessed the feasibility, discriminative validity, and reliability of the questionnaires.RESULTS: Both questionnaires showed good feasibility (overall missing rate < 20%) and reliability (Cronbach's Alpha coefficient > 0.70). Between-subgroups post-hoc comparisons showed statistically significant differences on integration profiles between regional networks (on all items, dimensions of integration and total integration score) and birth centres (on 50% of the items and dimensions of integration).DISCUSSION: Both questionnaires are feasible and can discriminate between sites with different integration profiles in The Netherlands. They offer an opportunity to better understand integrated care as one step in understanding the complexity of the concept.
DOCUMENT
Women want positive birth experiences with high quality maternity care that is neither too much, too soon, nor too little, too late. Research confirms the effectiveness of midwifery care, and the midwifery approach to birth as physiologic may counter the upward trend of the unnecessary medicalization of birth. The role of guardian of physiologic birth is seen as central to midwifery practice; however, medical hegemony has led to the subordination of midwives, which inhibits them in fulfilling the role as guardian of physiologic birth. Learning to become powerful advocates of physiologic birth creates midwives able to speak up for effective, evidence-based maternity care and challenge the unnecessary use of obstetric intervention. Midwifery education has a role to fulfil in molding midwives who are able to assume this role. This brief report describes the development of an educational prototype aimed at increasing student midwife agency as an advocate of physiologic birth. This was done using rapid prototyping (RP) methodology, in which important stakeholders gave input and feedback during the educational design and development process. Input from stakeholders led to the inclusion of persuasive communication strategies and discussion and debate as teaching methodologies in order to increase student midwife agency to argue for physiologic birth. Reflective evidence-based practice, using the Optimality Index-Netherlands, allowed students to reflect on their practice while providing a framework for discussion. Working with the RP methodology allowed for the development of a prototype that reflected the needs of midwifery stakeholders and was mindful of material and human resources.
DOCUMENT
Background: Most studies on birth settings investigate the association between planned place of birth at the start of labor and birth outcomes and intervention rates. To optimize maternity care it also is important to pay attention to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores the association between the initial preferred place of birth and model of care, and the course of pregnancy and labor in low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Methods: As part of a Dutch prospective cohort study (2007–2011), we compared medical indications during pregnancy and birth outcomes of 576 women who initially preferred a home birth (n = 226), a midwife-led hospital birth (n = 168) or an obstetrician-led hospital birth (n = 182). Data were obtained by a questionnaire before 20 weeks of gestation and by medical records. Analyses were performed according to the initial preferred place of birth. Results: Low-risk nulliparous women who preferred a home birth with midwife-led care were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.25-0.66). Preferring a birth with midwife-led care – both at home and in hospital - was associated with lower odds of induced labor (OR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.95 respectively OR 0.42 95% CI 0.21-0.85) and epidural analgesia (OR 0.32 95% CI 0.18-0.56 respectively OR 0.34 95% CI 0.19-0.62) compared to preferring a birth with obstetrician-led care. In addition, women who preferred a home birth were less likely to experience augmentation of labor (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.32-0.93) and narcotic analgesia (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.21-0.79) compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care. We observed no significant association between preferred place of birth and mode of birth. Conclusions: Nulliparous women who initially preferred a home birth were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy. Women who initially preferred a birth with midwife-led care – both at home and in hospital – experienced lower rates of interventions during labor. Although some differences can be attributed to the model of care, we suggest that characteristics and attitudes of women themselves also play an important role.
MULTIFILE
Vulnerable pregnant women are an important and complex theme in daily practice of birth care professionals. Vulnerability is an important risk factor for maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Providing care for these women is often complex. First, because it is not always easy to identify vulnerability. Secondly, vulnerable women more often cancel their appointments with midwives and finally, many professionals are involved while they do not always know each other. Even though professionals are aware of the risks of vulnerability for future mothers and their (unborn) children and the complexity of care for these women, there is no international definition for ‘vulnerable pregnancies’. Therefore, we start this project with defining a mutual definition of vulnerability during pregnancy. In current projects of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (RUAS) we define a vulnerable pregnant woman as: a pregnant woman facing psychopathology, psychosocial problems, and/or substance abuse combined with lack of individual and/or social resources (low socioeconomic status, low educational level, limited social network). In the Netherlands, care for vulnerable pregnant women is fragmented and therefore it is unclear for birth care professionals which interventions are available and effective. Therefore, Dutch midwives are convinced that exchanging knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices throughout Europe could enhance their knowledge and provide midwives (SMB partners in this project) with tools to improve care for vulnerable pregnant women. The aim of this project is to exchange knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices in several European countries, in order to improve knowledge and skills of midwives. As a result, guidelines will be developed in order to exchange selected best practices which enable midwives to implement this knowledge in their own context. This contributes to improving care for vulnerable pregnant women throughout Europe.
