Print

Print


Trixie

 

It’s worth having a look at how care is provided in Wales as a model that works well. I can’t point you to a publication on this but Billie Hunter or Marie Lewis probably could.

 Also, do look at the CMU studies from Scotland.

 

Regarding place of birth and rurality, as said earlier, the majority of freestanding midwifery units were in fact in rural areas like this. Also – re continuity -  take a look at the follow-up AMU study report as although this was mainly focused on AMU organisation and experience, we discussed how a number of services were developing integrated community or caseload and MU midwifery staffing  - still with core MU staff but with caseload or community team midwives having the MU as a base and providing cover for home births and back up for MU births – that kind of thing.

 

Link here: Bit.ly/amustudy

Or http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/volume-2/issue-7     

 

The main report of the MU study, led by Denis Walsh will be coming out soon. This looked at issues affecting uptake of MUs in England since the new guidelines were produced. As a sub-study to this project, we did an analysis of media reporting on closure of FMUs, as a number had closed in the period prior to the study. The aim was in part of learn more about prevailing discourse in relation to these units and how this might be affecting uptake or closures. We found a significant lack of awareness or reporting of the evidence – clinically or economically and media reporting was dominated by press release written by agencies that were proposing closure. Dissenting voices focused on the community impact and with some discussion about the risks to women of giving birth en-route to hospital, but these voices (mainly women and politicians) were cast in a less powerful position. You can find the paper via this link:

 

Rayment, J., McCourt, C., Scanlon, M., Culley, L., Spiby, H., Bishop, S., de Lima, L.A. An analysis of media reporting on the closure of freestanding midwifery units in England. Women and Birth: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.12.012

 

In the earlier Birthplace Organisational Case Studies we found that in our more rural case study areas, the rates of unplanned home birth were higher than those of planned homebirth owing to distance to get to hospital (a kind of transfer that tends not to get counted as women have to do it themselves). This is not the case in all areas though – there are some excellent models too. Some of the issues in relation to providing an adequate service to support home birth were published here:

 

McCourt C, Rance S, Rayment J, Sandall J. Organisational Strategies And Midwives' Readiness To Provide Care For Out Of Hospital Births: An Analysis From The Birthplace Organisational Case Studies. Midwifery, Special Issue: Place of Birth, 2012.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.004

I think some areas have improved their organization to support home birth since then, especially through caseload or homebirth teams, but in many areas I don’t see signs of improvement and that is reflected in the most recent National Maternity and Perinatal Audit.

 

 

 

 

Christine McCourt

Professor of Maternal Health & Centre Lead

Centre for Maternal & Child Health Research

School of Health Sciences

City, University of London

1 Myddelton Street

London EC1R 1UW

 

Tel: 0207 040 5863

Mob: 0791 235 1476

Twitter: @ProfMcCourt

 

ps://blogs.city.ac.uk/mchresearch/files/2015/06/cute-newborn-babycute-newborn-babies-21k444f-624x390.j

Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research | City ...

The Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research carries out high quality research that aims to improve the health and care of women, children, families and communities.

Read more...

 

 

Want to further your clinical and academic career? To find out more about City, University of London’s MSc Advanced Practice Midwifery programme please click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Trixie McAree <[log in to unmask]>
Reply to: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, Trixie McAree <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, 22 October 2019 at 12:16
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: distance to hospital

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and believe the content to be safe.

 

I would be very interested to hear about work done for rural communities, I am frequently asked about are there quantifiable additional risks for them. This is in regard to CoC in England, Cornwall, Devon, Lincolnshire versus working  London or Birmingham where it takes an hour to travel a mile (not quite) due to traffic.

Are there any definitive facts for me to talk about, or papers to refer to?

Thanks

Trixie

Professor Trixie McAree

 

Professor of Midwifery and Maternal Health

City South Campus

Birmingham City University

B15 3TN

0121 3316196

 

Birmingham Womens and Childrens NHS Foundation Trust

Mobil: 07894802961

 Https://orchid.org/0000-0001-7845-2195

 


On 22 Oct 2019, at 09:51, Pauline Dawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Christine

 

A primary rural maternity unit is a lot less risky than being born in a private car on the side of the road. BBAs rise hugely when these units close and that's not good for anyone except the accountants. And that's only if they are considering short term costs.

 

Sorry.. getting away from the original question here. I'm just doing some work for a remote rural community whose unit has recently closed.

 

Pauline

 

On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, 21:43 McCourt, Christine, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Sarah Denham’s PhD looked at community maternity units in Scotland, which has considerable rural and remote areas. Outcomes were also found to be very good. I can’t remember whether she had much detail on transfer issues but quite possibly, so worth contacting her. I’m not sure whether she is on the list so I can try contacting her otherwise.

 

 Although England is a small and very urbanised country, the FMUs are mainly in the more rural areas and small. The birthplace findings reflect that as the study looked at things as they are. I find it curious that often people want to dismiss the findings re FMUs (very safe, very cost effective, & enhanced maternal safety) on the basis that their local unit is small and rural.

 

Perhaps we need to “take back control” (Brexit pun) of the language a bit and talk about MUs as a way of improving safety, as most of the discourse is focused on an implict assumption that they are more risky and the risk must be managed and mitigated. (Risk needs to be managed of course, but our cultural understandings of risk do not reflect the science with respect to childbirth.)

 

 

From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of "Sandall, Jane" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply to: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "Sandall, Jane" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, 22 October 2019 at 07:09
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: distance to hospital

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and believe the content to be safe.

 

Is there anything in Australian birthplace? 

Jane sandall 

 

Please text me for urgent contact 07713743150

Sent from my iPhone

Professor Jane Sandall

King’s College, London

 

 

On 22 Oct 2019, at 00:33, Pauline Dawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks Christine,

 

I was just thinking that there might be observational studies where transfer time is related to outcomes for all that has occured in the last few years.

I know in the national maternal morbidity work that I was part of here delayed transfer was a factor in poor outcomes but we are talking numbers of hours. Also there is some Australian research where Born Before Arrival (BBA) is a measurement proxy but again very long distances there. These BBA data are around just getting to ANY maternity facility not transfers.

 

I have found a lot of the things you might want to study here in NZ eg transfer time and BBA aren't routinely collected in national datasets.

 

Fascinating conversation - thank you

 

Pauline

 

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:59 AM McCourt, Christine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Pauline - to my knowledge no, and it would be a rather challenging thing to research.

 

The Birthplace data are the most detailed I can think of without searching systematically, but our findings showed particularly good outcomes from freestanding midwifery units and the distance/travel time to hospital was higher than that for home births.

We were not able to assess the actual time to get to hospital but the time to being assessed in hospital, as the data available didn’t allow the distinction to be made – how long women waited on arrival before being seen.

The median overall transfer time, including time spent arranging transfer, waiting for the ambulance to arrive, travel time and any wait before first assessment in the OU, was 60 minutes for transfers from FMUs and 49 minutes for transfers from home.

 

It seems likely that time to be seen on arrival in a well-functioning system would be related to urgency of reason for transfer.  In two cases of urgent transfer from FMU observed directly in the Birthplace qualitative case studies, the OU staff were ready to receive and take on care straight away having been briefed by a midwife by telephone. This is no doubt a benefit of having an integrated maternity system under the NHS, as compared with experiences in some countries.

 

The key source with details on transfers from Birthplace is this follow-on analysis paper:

 

Rachel E Rowe, John Townend, Peter Brocklehurst, Marian Knight, Alison Macfarlane, Christine McCourt, Mary Newburn, Maggie Redshaw, Jane Sandall, Louise Silverton and Jennifer Hollowell. Duration and urgency of transfer in births planned at home and in freestanding midwifery units in national prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2013, 13:224 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/13/224

 

 

 

 

On 21/10/2019, 19:54, "A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. on behalf of Pauline Dawson" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and believe the content to be safe.

   

    

    This is great data!

   

    Further to my email though I don't think anyone has found an optimal time?

    Am I wrong??

   

    Pauline

   

    -----Original Message-----

    From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.

   

    ########################################################################

   

    To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:

    https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1

   

 


To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1

 


To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1

 


To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1

 


To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1

 


To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1



To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1