JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH  October 2009

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH October 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

teams caseload and safety

From:

"Sandall, Jane" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research." <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:47:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (174 lines)

To clarify the sub-group analyses in the Cochrane Review on Midwife-led care vs other models of care states the following.

The following outcomes were considered in the following subgroup analyses. It is hypothesised that differential effects and outcomes are due to the levels of continuity with care provider (caseload models of care offer higher levels of personal relationship continuity).

Comparison 2: variation in midwifery models of care (caseload or one to one versus team) 
Two trials randomised 2804 women to compare a caseload model of care (defined as one midwife carrying responsibility for a defined caseload of women in partnership with a midwife partner) with other models of care (North Stafford 2000; Turnbull 1996). Caseload size was reported to be 35 to 40 women (North Stafford 2000) and 32.4 women per midwife (Turnbull 1996). Nine trials randomised 9472 women to compare team models of midwifery (defined as a group of midwives sharing responsibility for a caseload of women) with other models of care (Biro 2000; Flint 1989; Harvey 1996; Hicks 2003; Homer 2001; Kenny 1994; MacVicar 1993; Rowley 1995; Waldenstrom 2001).

There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment effects between subgroups for 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 (interaction chi squared = 5.62, P = 0.02), and fetal loss and neonatal death at greater than or equal to 24 weeks (interaction chi squared 5.25, P = 0.02). 
The risk ratio for fetal loss or neonatal death greater than or equal to 24 weeks was 0.48 (95% CI 0.23, 1.03) in the two caseload trials and 1.44 (95% CI 0.86, 2.42) in the seven team trials. 

Interaction tests provide an appropriate test of differences between the subgroups, but need to be interpreted with caution because the number of outcome events in these analyses was low, subgroup analyses are by their nature observational (not randomised), and the increase in the number of analyses performed caused by subgroup analyses may have led to some statistically significant results arising by chance. 

The link to the review is below.
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004667/frame.html

To summarise the above. The two trials of caseload midwifery had significantly fewer babies with low apgars, fetal loss and neonatal death at greater than 24 weeks. Bearing in mind the caveat about interaction tests, at the very least, such findings should inform further research and thinking about why such findings have occurred.
Professor Jane Sandall
Professor of Social Science & Women's Health
Programme Director (Innovations) NIHR King's Patient Safety and Service Quality Research Centre
Department of Public Health Sciences
King's College London School of Medicine,
Floor 7, Capital House, 42 Weston St
London SE1 3QD, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 6261/6604
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://www.kingspssq.org.uk/
http://myprofile.cos.com/sandall
________________________________________
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Della Forster [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 October 2009 04:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: team midwifery

I think that it is important to keep in mind though that the two caselaod trial included in the hatem et al review do not on their on provide evidence of the safety outcomes of caseload models and I we can not say that caseload models are significantly safer than team odels - while this may well be the case we don't have this evidence at the moment

Della Forster

________________________________

From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. on behalf of Sandall, Jane
Sent: Mon 12/10/2009 6:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: team midwifery


Dear Debra
If you look at our Cochrane review midwife-led care vs other models of care, which had a range of positive outcomes, you will see that 2 studies offered caseload and 9 offered team care. No home birth care was offered in any trial in this review. Levels of intrapartum continuity ranged from 63-98% in the midwife led models of care vs 0.3-21% for other models of care. Caseload size was 32-40 women in the caseload models.
So the evidence is there to support team midwifery, although when you compare outcomes between the two models,  there were statistically significantly fewer babies with lower apgar scores,  and fetal loss after 24 weeks in the caseload models. So there might be 'dose response' with the level of continuity.
Hatem M, Sandall, J. (Joint First Author and Contact Author) Devane D, Soltani H. Gates,S. (2008) Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4.

We also did some work in London, assessing the implementation and impact of a move to caseload midwifery.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/1to1caseload
You can see the women's views about this model here.

Finlay, S. Sandall,J. (in press online ) "Someone's rooting for you": Continuity and Advocacy in Bureaucratic Maternal Health Care Systems, Social Science and Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.029

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4X26XPX-4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_alid=1044081259&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5925&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=7&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=14c392461040fbe84f3538bc5d8f327e



Three community based group practices working in deprived areas offered total midwifery care to women at all risk levels. Six midwives were in the groups and ended up doing 35 births a year each. They booked more women than this and this varied by level of mobility of women. The midwives carried their own caseload, and did the majority of births in home or hospital and antenatal and postnatal care in office hours but shared on call for out of hours in different ways. The outcomes -  more home births, more births in MW led unit, higher breastfeeding and reduction of DNA rates. Access and experience  and some safety issues improved. See attached poster.



So lessons- women want to know who their midwife is, who to contact and to feel that the midwife knows them. teams larger than 8 have very little evidence to support them and plenty against in terms of very fragmented care. Most caseloads are around 40 women booked per midwife depending on level of complexity, It is possible for midwives to carry responsibility for their own caseload of women, provide care during office hours and share out of hours care with the team. It is better for women to develop a relationship with a midwife in the antenatal period rather than try to get her to see a different midwife each time. Expectations have to be managed about what can be offered in the intrapartum period. caseload size has to be managed otherwise they tend to creep up. Sticky areas to be addressed are - managing inductions, still having to cover GP clinics, making sure performance is audited and monitored by process and outcome rather than time sheets, training of midwives (see our web site for some audit and training assessment materials), managing on call incl different methods of payment.



Hope this is helpful

Jane


Professor Jane Sandall
Professor of Social Science & Women's Health
Programme Director (Innovations) NIHR King's Patient Safety and Service Quality Research Centre


Department of Public Health Sciences

King's College London School of Medicine,

Floor 7, Capital House, 42 Weston St

London SE1 3QD, UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 6261/6604
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://www.kingspssq.org.uk/
http://myprofile.cos.com/sandall
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/campuses/guys.html>

________________________________

From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maggie Banks [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 October 2009 05:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: team midwifery


Hello Deborah. Caseloads when midwives are employed by District Health Boards in NZ tend to be 40-50 women a year per midwife too - usually 40 - and they tend to work in pairs with someone from another pair providing the relief for holidays. I know when midwives work in shifts there are 4.5 midwives needed to cover 3 midwives for relief, holidays, education etc  and 1.5 do not carry a caseload. As far as I know large teams have been abandoned in NZ because continuity of carer is so hit and miss and women are dissatisfied with large teams.

kind regards
Maggie Banks


Check out Birthspirit Midwifery Journal <http://www.birthspirit.co.nz/BirthspiritMidwiferyJournal/Issue2.php>


15  Te Awa Road, RD 3, Hamilton, New Zealand 3283
Ph  64 7 8564612
Fax 64 7 8563070
www.birthspirit.co.nz <http://www.birthspirit.co.nz/>
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>



________________________________

From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Della Forster
Sent: Monday, 12 October 2009 2:31 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: team midwifery



We go on 40 women per eft for teams of about 8 - that covers antenatal, most birth suite shifts and some postnatal coverage on shifts (at least one per day) with some ability to do dom care



So not that dissimilar to caseload numbers



Della Forster (Victoria, Australia)



________________________________

From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debra Kroll
Sent: Monday, 12 October 2009 10:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: team midwifery



We are reconfiguring out community teams. Does anyone have up to date numbers on how many women should be allocated per midwife if the midwives:

a) work in teams

b) and provide antenatal, intrapartum (on shifts) and postnatal care



I do not appear to find this information for teams (only for caselaoding)



Thanks



Debra Kroll
Midwifery Lecturer in Practice UCLH /City University
Supervisor of Midwives



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4427 (20090915) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager