Mapping factors that may influence attrition and retention of midwives: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

An appropriately staffed midwifery workforce is essential for the provision of safe and high-quality maternity care. However, there is a global and national shortage of midwives. Understaffed maternity services are frequently identified as contributing to unsafe care provision and adverse outcomes for mothers and babies. While there is a need to recruit midwives through pre-registration midwifery programmes, this has significant resource implications, and is counteracted to a large extent by the high number of midwives leaving the workforce. It is increasingly recognised that there is a critical need to attend to retention in midwifery in order to develop and maintain safe staffing levels. The objective of this review is to collate and map factors that have been found to influence attrition and retention in midwifery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be used to guide the review process and reporting of the review. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases will be searched for relevant literature from date of inception to 21 July 2023. Research from high-income countries that explores factors that influence leaving intentions for midwives will be included. Literature from low-income and middle-income countries, and studies where nursing and midwifery data cannot be disaggregated will be excluded. Two reviewers will screen 20% of retrieved citations in duplicate, the first author will screen the remaining results. Data will be extracted using a preformed data extraction tool by the first author. Findings will be presented in narrative, tabular and graphical formats.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The review will collate data from existing research, therefore ethics approval is not required. Findings will be published in journals, presented at conferences and will be translated into infographics and other formats for online dissemination.

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts.

METHODS

We undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care.

RESULTS

The ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care.

"It's no ordinary job": Factors that influence learning and working for midwifery students placed in continuity models of care

BACKGROUND

Maternity policy and guidelines increasingly recommend or stipulate the increased provision of midwifery continuity of carer as a priority model of care. The scale up and sustainability of this model will require that student midwives are competent to provide continuity of carer at the point of qualification. Guidance relating to how to optimally prepare student midwives to work within continuity models is lacking.

AIM

To explore perspectives and experiences of working within and learning from student placement within continuity models of care.

METHODS

An online mixed methods survey aimed at midwifery students and qualified midwives with experience of working within or providing education relating to continuity models. Quantitative results were analysed through descriptive statistics while free text responses were brought together in themes.

FINDINGS

Benefits and challenges to placement within continuity models were identified. These provide recommendations that will enhance learning from and skill development within continuity models of care.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for continuity of mentorship and strong relationships between education and practice, and the provision of flexible curriculum content around this to enable students to prioritise appointments with women in their care. System level evaluation and support is needed to guide the optimal provision of continuity models, so that they are effective in improving outcomes and experiences. Foregrounding woman centred care as foundational to education and facilitating the critical deconstruction of dominant discourses that conflict with, and may prevent this form of practice, will promote the provision of care that is integral to these models.

Behavioural factors associated with fear of litigation as a driver for the increased use of caesarean sections: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the behavioural drivers of fear of litigation among healthcare providers influencing caesarean section (CS) rates.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and WHO Global Index (1 January 2001 to 9 March 2022).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted using a form specifically designed for this review and we conducted content analysis using textual coding for relevant themes. We used the WHO principles for the adoption of a behavioural science perspective in public health developed by the WHO Technical Advisory Group for Behavioural Sciences and Insights to organise and analyse the findings. We used a narrative approach to summarise the findings.

RESULTS

We screened 2968 citations and 56 were included. Reviewed articles did not use a standard measure of influence of fear of litigation on provider's behaviour. None of the studies used a clear theoretical framework to discuss the behavioural drivers of fear of litigation. We identified 12 drivers under the three domains of the WHO principles: (1) cognitive drivers: availability bias, ambiguity aversion, relative risk bias, commission bias and loss aversion bias; (2) social and cultural drivers: patient pressure, social norms and blame culture and (3) environmental drivers: legal, insurance, medical and professional, and media. Cognitive biases were the most discussed drivers of fear of litigation, followed by legal environment and patient pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of consensus on a definition or measurement, we found that fear of litigation as a driver for rising CS rates results from a complex interaction between cognitive, social and environmental drivers. Many of our findings were transferable across geographical and practice settings. Behavioural interventions that consider these drivers are crucial to address the fear of litigation as part of strategies to reduce CS.

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

The national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises.

AIM

To compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations.

METHOD

A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders.

FINDINGS

Both countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers' fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women's and families' values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events.

'There's only so much you can be pushed': Magnification of the maternity staffing crisis by the 2020/21 COVID-19 pandemic

This article includes Author Insights, a video abstract available at: https://vimeo.com/bjogabstracts/authorinsights17203

Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term

BACKGROUND

Routine vaginal examinations are undertaken at regular time intervals during labour to assess whether labour is progressing as expected. Unusually slow progress can be due to underlying problems, described as labour dystocia, or can be a normal variation of progress. Evidence suggests that if mother and baby are well, length of labour alone should not be used to decide whether labour is progressing normally. Other methods to assess labour progress include intrapartum ultrasound and monitoring external physical and behavioural cues. Vaginal examinations can be distressing for women, and overdiagnosis of dystocia can result in iatrogenic morbidity due to unnecessary intervention. It is important to establish whether routine vaginal examinations are effective, both as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress and to distinguish true labour dystocia, or whether other methods for assessing labour progress are more effective. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability, and consequences of routine vaginal examinations compared with other methods, or different timings, to assess labour progress at term.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and conference proceedings) and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 February 2021). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vaginal examinations compared with other methods of assessing labour progress and studies assessing different timings of vaginal examinations. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over trials and conference abstracts.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies identified by the search for inclusion in the review. Four review authors independently extracted data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies that randomised a total of 755 women, with data analysed for 744 women and their babies. Interventions used to assess labour progress were routine vaginal examinations, routine ultrasound assessments, routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations at different frequencies, and vaginal examinations as indicated. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis as there was only one study for each comparison.  All studies were at high risk of performance bias due to difficulties with blinding. We assessed two studies as high risk of bias and two as low or unclear risk of bias for other domains. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was low or very low.  Routine vaginal examinations versus routine ultrasound to assess labour progress (one study, 83 women and babies) Study in Turkey involving multiparous women with spontaneous onset of labour. Routine vaginal examinations may result in a slight increase in pain compared to routine ultrasound (mean difference -1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.10 to -0.48; one study, 83 women, low certainty evidence) (pain measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) in reverse: zero indicating 'worst pain', 10 indicating no pain). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; augmentation of labour; spontaneous vaginal birth; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Routine vaginal examinations versus routine rectal examinations to assess labour progress (one study, 307 women and babies) Study in Ireland involving women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations may have little or no effect on: augmentation of labour (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.68; one study, 307 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; one study, 307 women). We found insufficient data to fully assess: neonatal infections (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.07; one study, 307 babies); and admission to NICU (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.73; one study, 307 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; maternal pain. Routine four-hourly vaginal examinations versus routine two-hourly examinations (one study, 150 women and babies) UK study involving primiparous women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine two-hourly vaginal examinations, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may have little or no effect, with data compatible with both benefit and harm, on: augmentation of labour (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57; one study, 109 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; one study, 150 women). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to NICU; maternal pain. Routine vaginal examinations versus vaginal examinations as indicated (one study, 204 women and babies)  Study in Malaysia involving primiparous women being induced at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with vaginal examinations as indicated, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may result in more women having their labour augmented (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.31; one study, 204 women). There may be little or no effect on: • spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; one study, 204 women); • chorioamnionitis (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.21; one study, 204 women); • neonatal infection (RR 4.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 35.87; one study, 204 babies); • admission to NICU (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.56; one study, 204 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes of positive birth experience or maternal pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, we cannot be certain which method is most effective or acceptable for assessing labour progress. Further large-scale RCT trials are required. These should include essential clinical and experiential outcomes. This may be facilitated through the development of a tool to measure positive birth experiences. Data from qualitative studies are also needed to fully assess whether methods to evaluate labour progress meet women's needs for a safe and positive labour and birth, and if not, to develop an approach that does.

Companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis of national and organisational responses and perspectives

OBJECTIVES

To explore stakeholders' and national organisational perspectives on companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19, as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE) COVID-19 UK study.

SETTING

Maternity care provision in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional and service-user organisation leads (July-December 2020). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (September/October 2020) and data extracted from 78 documents from eight key governmental, professional and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (February-December 2020).

RESULTS

Six themes emerged: 'Postcode lottery of care' highlights variations in companionship and visiting practices between trusts/locations, 'Confusion and stress around 'rules'' relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship/visiting, 'Unintended consequences' concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship or visiting on women/birthing people and staff, 'Need for flexibility' highlights concerns about applying companionship and visiting policies irrespective of need, ''Acceptable' time for support' highlights variations in when and if companionship was 'allowed' antenatally and intrapartum and 'Loss of human rights for gain in infection control' emphasises how a predominant focus on infection control was at a cost to psychological safety and human rights.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies concerning companionship and visiting have been inconsistently applied within English maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some cases, policies were not justified by the level of risk, and were applied indiscriminately regardless of need. There is an urgent need to determine how to sensitively and flexibly balance risks and benefits and optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations.

First and second trimester ultrasound in pregnancy: A systematic review and metasynthesis of the views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends one ultrasound scan before 24 weeks gestation as part of routine antenatal care (WHO 2016). We explored influences on provision and uptake through views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers.

Methods

We undertook a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021230926). We derived summaries of findings and overarching themes using metasynthesis methods. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocIndex, LILACS, and AIM (Nov 25th 2020) for qualitative studies reporting views and experiences of routine ultrasound provision to 24 weeks gestation, with no language or date restriction. After quality assessment, data were logged and analysed in Excel. We assessed confidence in the findings using Grade-CERQual.

Findings

From 7076 hits, we included 80 papers (1994–2020, 23 countries, 16 LICs/MICs, over 1500 participants). We identified 17 review findings, (moderate or high confidence: 14/17), and four themes: sociocultural influences and expectations; the power of visual technology; joy and devastation: consequences of ultrasound findings; the significance of relationship in the ultrasound encounter. Providing or receiving ultrasound was positive for most, reportedly increasing parental-fetal engagement. However, abnormal findings were often shocking. Some reported changing future reproductive decisions after equivocal results, even when the eventual diagnosis was positive. Attitudes and behaviours of sonographers influenced service user experience. Ultrasound providers expressed concern about making mistakes, recognising their need for education, training, and adequate time with women. Ultrasound sex determination influenced female feticide in some contexts, in others, termination was not socially acceptable. Overuse was noted to reduce clinical antenatal skills as well as the use and uptake of other forms of antenatal care. These factors influenced utility and equity of ultrasound in some settings.

Conclusion

Though antenatal ultrasound was largely seen as positive, long-term adverse psychological and reproductive consequences were reported for some. Gender inequity may be reinforced by female feticide following ultrasound in some contexts. Provider attitudes and behaviours, time to engage fully with service users, social norms, access to follow up, and the potential for overuse all need to be considered.

A systematic integrative review of the literature on midwives and student midwives engaged in problematic substance use

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic integrative review was to review the literature in relation to problematic substance use (PSU) in midwifery populations. Associated aims were to aggregate existing knowledge about midwives and student midwives' personal engagement in PSU, to generate a holistic conceptualisation and synthesis of the existing literature regarding midwives and student midwives personally engaged in PSU and to present new understandings and perspectives to inform the development of future research questions. This review is the first of its kind.

DESIGN

Systematic searches were conducted in CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, PSYCInfo, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Findings were grouped into themes and subthemes relating to both midwives and student midwives and then analysed critically in relation to the wider literature. A quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The PRISMA statement was used to guide reporting.

SETTING

Included studies were conducted in Scotland, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies included a total of 6,182 participants.

FINDINGS

A total of 3 studies were included. All included study types comprised quantitative survey designs, yet one also included a mixed methods design with the use of semi structured interviews. Two overarching themes emerged relating to both midwives and student midwives engaged in problematic substance use. For midwives, three subthemes are described: harmful daily alcohol consumption, working hours and harmful daily alcohol consumption and features associated with harmful daily alcohol consumption. For student midwives, two subthemes are presented: escape avoidance and alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence available in relation to problematic substance use in midwifery populations in comparison to that available for other healthcare populations. Further research is required, and could usefully focus upon midwives and student midwives as distinct professions to be separated out from the wider healthcare workforce.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Problematic substance use among the healthcare workforce is associated with an increase in medical errors and inadequate care. Those affected can be reluctant to seek help, experience psychological distress and even contemplate suicide. Whilst evidence remains lacking for midwifery populations, they form a part of the general healthcare workforce and are exposed to similar workplace stressors. As such, it is likely that they too would be affected in similar ways.