Breastfeeding and Human Lactation Curriculum Survey of Midwifery Programs in the United States

INTRODUCTION

The health attributes and advantages of breastfeeding are well documented in the literature. Current research identifies the importance of comprehensive lactation knowledge among health care professionals to improve breastfeeding outcomes. Educational curricula to incorporate lactation content is necessary for student preparedness to provide competent care. Midwives are in a unique position to support, promote, and manage breastfeeding. The purpose of this study was to survey Accreditation Commission for Midwifery Education (ACME)-accredited midwifery education programs in the United States for their breastfeeding curricular content including opportunities for clinical experiences in managing and counseling breastfeeding parents.

METHODS

A descriptive survey was deployed online to midwifery programs listed by the American College of Nurse-Midwives, with a response completion rate of 44.7%. Data collection included program descriptors, hours of lactation content, educational topics, faculty preparation, use of simulation, and clinical breastfeeding experiences.

RESULTS

Descriptive analyses revealed differences among the midwifery education programs surveyed regarding the amount of lactation content and clinical opportunities. Two programs offer a course specific to breastfeeding, with the remaining programs providing lactation content threaded throughout their curricula; 29.4% of programs offer 3 to 4 hours of lactation content, 35.3% report 5 to 8 hours of content, and 11.8% provide at least 10 hours of content. One program reports 18+ hours of content provided in both didactic and clinical settings. All programs report providing breastfeeding clinical opportunities for students; 18% of programs offer simulation experiences. No programs report using standardized lactation clinical competencies.

DISCUSSION

Midwives play a pivotal role in breastfeeding promotion, counseling, and clinical support. Standardization of didactic lactation education will assist programs in future curriculum mapping. Given the variability of clinical settings and patient access, creating clinical competencies and providing lactation simulation experiences may offer midwifery students a broader opportunity to gain critical skills in lactation management to best support breastfeeding families.

How Collaborative Practice Agreements Impede the Administration of Vital Women's Health Services

INTRODUCTION

Women's health services delivered by nurse practitioners (NP) and certified nurse-midwives (CNM) are safe and effective, often providing a crucial point of access in underserved regions. However, restrictive and unnecessary regulatory requirements, such as collaborative practice agreements, create artificial barriers to practice.

METHODS

This analysis used a subsample of respondents from a large national study focused on the common challenges and practice restrictions introduced by collaborative practice agreements. This cohort included respondents licensed in all 22 states that place some level of restriction on one or both roles. This study used univariable and multivariable logistic regression to examine the financial and administrative constraints collaborative practice agreements place on NPs and CNMs.

RESULTS

The median fee to establish a collaborative agreement was $500 (n = 25; interquartile range [IQR], $175-$1200; range, $30-$3000). The monthly median fee to maintain a collaborative agreement was $500 (n = 29; IQR, $250-$1200; range, $100-$2000). NPs and CNMs working in rural areas and remotely are more likely to encounter barriers to practice. Similarly, the loss or lack of supervising physicians and fees were also identified as impediments to care.

DISCUSSION

Removing unnecessary regulatory requirements permits NPs and CNMs to be full market participants, thereby allowing them to address health care disparities in women's health and primary care settings. Targeted legislative efforts should seek to improve access to these vital services and re-establish evidence-based patient care and safety best practices as the drivers of health care regulation.

A Literature Review of Midwifery-Led Care in Reducing Labor and Birth Interventions

Certified nurse-midwives are usually recognized as independently practicing advanced practice registered nurses because they provide maternity care to pregnant women in various states. In the United States, certified nurse-midwives are historically underused. Culture favors physician-led care, with 90% of all births attended by physicians. Midwifery-led care is considered high-touch/low-intervention and is guided by a philosophy of care that regards pregnancy and childbirth as normal life events for most women. Evidence from the literature supports midwifery-led care as being safe, effective, and associated with fewer interventions.

Association between provider type and cesarean birth in healthy nulliparous laboring women: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Term nulliparous women have the greatest variation across hospitals and providers in cesarean rates and therefore present an opportunity to improve quality through optimal care. We evaluated associations between provider type and mode of birth, including examination of intrapartum management in healthy, laboring nulliparous women.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected perinatal data from a United States academic medical center (2005-2012). The sample included healthy nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset and term, singleton, vertex fetus managed by either obstetricians or certified nurse-midwives. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to compare labor interventions and mode of birth by provider type.

RESULTS

A total of 1339 women received care by an obstetrician (n = 749) or nurse-midwife (n = 590). The cesarean rate was 13.4% (179/1339). Adjusting for maternal and pregnancy characteristics, care by obstetricians was associated with an increased risk of unplanned cesarean birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.48 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.04-2.12]) compared with care by midwives. Obstetricians more frequently used oxytocin augmentation (aOR 1.41 [95% CI 1.10-1.80]), neuraxial anesthesia (aOR 1.69 [95% CI 1.29-2.23]), and operative vaginal delivery with forceps or vacuum (aOR 2.79 [95% CI 1.75-4.44]). Adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes were not different by provider type across all modes of birth, but were more frequent in women with cesarean than vaginal births.

DISCUSSION

In low-risk nulliparous laboring women, care by obstetricians compared with nurse-midwives was associated with increased risk of labor interventions and operative birth. Changes in labor management or increased use of nurse-midwives could decrease the rate of a first cesarean in low-risk laboring women.