place of birth facilitating change through sharing research and good - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Midwifery-led care and choice of place of birth facilitating change through sharing research and good practice

Thursday 2nd July 2015 University of Birmingham

#copobconf

Midwives’ views of their discussions with women about their options for where to give birth

Dr Cathy Shneerson, RGN, MN, MA, PhD. CLAHRC West Midlands, University of Birmingham.

02/07/2015

Presentation Overview

• Background to study
• Aims of study
• Evidence to date
• Study design and progress to date

Background to Study: National evidence

• The Birthplace Cohort study (2011) 1 - evidence regarding the safety
• f birth in different settings.
• For low risk null- and multiparous women, planned birth at home

was more cost effective than in other settings. 2

• Increased maternal satisfaction with non-OU settings. 3, 4
• Capacity issues.

Background to Study: Local evidence

• Focus groups with Birmingham women and systematic review

exploring women’s perceptions of homebirth. 5

• Some women did not recall discussion of the full range of birth
• ptions with their midwife.
• Place of birth discussion did not cover all options equally.
• Women unaware of practicalities of home birth.
• Anecdotal evidence from stakeholders: variation in the way place of

birth is discussed in community maternity services.

Issues and challenges

• Many women consider hospital birth the “default option”
• Media presentation of childbirth
• Some migrant communities unaware homebirth is an option.6
• Women often don’t know about the full range of birth place options.7
• Midwives beliefs may influence their place of birth conversations with

women.8

• Midwives role to provide women (at booking) with choice of where to give
• birth. Yet, content and delivery of discussions is unclear.

Aims of Study

• To explore midwives’ views of their place of birth discussions with

women, identify any challenges and share good practice.

• To agree across midwifery teams a standard of ‘what, where, when

and how’ place of birth is discussed with women.

• To establish a plan to translate this into practice.

The CLAHRC: The Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC)

• Aims to deliver high-quality service evaluation within short time-frame
• Close working relationship and partnership with hospital Trusts. Respond to

and engage with needs of service and service users-problem has come from the service.

• Iterative approach – research designed around changing service needs
• Combination of good research methodologies and flexibility of approach:

‘what works in practice?’

• Cathy Shneerson, Sara Kenyon and Beck Taylor overseeing study.

Study design

1. Systematic review of the evidence 2. Focus groups with community midwifery teams 3. Feedback focus group findings to midwives and identify issues for improvement 4. First workshop with midwives to prioritise areas for action and plan service improvement changes 5. Development of service improvements 6. Final workshop to finalise and agree improvements for implementation 7. Reporting on the process and results

Co-production

• Co-produced research aims to cross professional and organisational

boundaries.

• Encourages different key groups (community midwives, homebirth

midwives and public and patient representatives) to actively participate together, in the design, production, interpretation and implementation of findings.

• Helps ensure that the work gets at the real issues that practitioners

face, and identifies realistic solutions.

• Facilitated by the CLAHRC academic team.

Systematic Review9

• To establish, from midwives’ perspectives, how, what,

why and when place of birth discussions take place.

• To explore what interventions have been implemented

for use with midwives to improve their place of birth discussions with women and if so, whether they have been effective.

Systematic Review Process

Review Findings: Midwives’ perspectives on what influences their place of birth discussions with women

• Resource Issues: staffing, time pressures, closure of some maternity led units.
• Organisational and Professional Norms: hospital policies and pressures; peer
• pinion, pressure to conform, litigation concerns of going ‘against the grain’.
• Influence of Midwifery Colleagues: Tensions between opinions of midwifery

colleagues resulted in a lack of promotion of homebirth amongst their midwifery colleagues.

• Knowledge and Confidence of Midwives: differences in midwives’ knowledge and

confidence levels, particularly regarding homebirth. Some midwives lacked knowledge of Birthplace findings; some felt confident about promoting homebirth to women, whereas others would not consider offering homebirth as an option.

• Strategies for Improvement: training in the discussion about risk and the promotion of

homebirth; a leaflet focusing specifically on women’s birthplace choices.

Review Findings: What interventions have been implemented and were they effective?

Types of intervention and their effectiveness:

• Informed choice leaflets
• Midwife facilitated Birthplace workshops and decision aid tool
• ‘Birthplace’ app for women
• Educational, change management and marketing initiatives

Limited evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions in improving midwives discussions with women about where they choose to give birth. The credibility of findings was weakened by moderate to high risk of bias for most studies. Barriers to intervention implementation:

• Personal experiences and philosophies of midwives influenced level of engagement with intervention.
• Midwives limited the amount of information they provided, depending on their assessment of women’s risk
• Little value placed on interventions as vehicles for change
• Interventions used inappropriately (wrong time, to block discussion, as a substitute for conversation, to save time).
• Difficulties using interventions with women from non-English speaking backgrounds.
• Some midwives assumed decision-making responsibility for women when deciding whether to deliver intervention – based

around their social background, age, literacy levels, etc…

Focus Groups

• To establish the ‘what, where, when and how’ of midwives’

perspectives of place of birth discussions.

• 6 focus groups: 4 community teams, the homebirth team and a team

leaders meeting.

• Group size: 4 - 10 midwives.
• Held in community team settings between May-June 2015.
• Survey to gauge knowledge and confidence in discussing place of

birth options with women.

• Thematic analysis used to analyse focus group data – similarities

and differences found with existing literature.

Feeding back to midwives

• Feedback visits carried out with each participating team.
• Findings from each specific focus group shared to check they

resonate with the teams.

• List of issues and priorities for change (and possible solutions)

identified with team members and three most important ones prioritised.

• The CLAHRC team have pooled these ideas and are collating a list
• f priorities for change (informed from focus group findings and

systematic reviews).

Next Steps…

• First workshop: priorities for change to be fed back to midwives, July

2015.

• Workshop subgroups will review and identify top priority issues, and

consider possible actions and solutions.

• Michie and West’s Behaviour Change Wheel (e.g. whether the

solution involves staff training, persuasion, or role modelling)10 will help structure discussions.

• Plans will be made to develop and implement the agreed solutions

and to put these changes into practice.

• Final workshop (Sept 2015): The first midwifery workshop members

and PPI representatives will finalise improvements for implementation.

• Explore how any agreed service changes could, if possible, be

evaluated.

Conclusion

• Background: existing evidence; issues and challenges
• Study Aims
• Study Design (co-production)
• Systematic review
• Focus Groups and feedback
• Next Steps…

References

1. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d7400 2. Schroeder E, Petrou S, Patel N, Hollowell J, Puddicombe D, Redshaw M, Brocklehurst P. Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012;344:e2292. 3. Royal College of Midwives/Royal College of Obstetricians. Joint statement on home births. 2007. Available from https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/home_births_rcog_rcm0607.pdf. 4. Hodnett E.D., Downe S., Walsh D. & Weston J. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. 5. Naylor-Smith J. What are women’s views on homebirth? A study to inform the development of practical strategies that will promote birth at home as a choice for low-risk, multiparous women. A thesis submitted to the University

• f Birmingham for the degree of Master of Health Research (MRes) September 2014.

6. Birmingham City Council. Demographic briefing: 2010 births and deaths. 2011. Available from http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Planning-and- Regeneration%2FPageLayout&cid=1223408131581&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWrapper. 7. Coxon K, Sandall J, Fulop N J. To what extent are women free to choose where to give birth? How discourses of risk, blame and responsibility influence birth place decisions. Health, Risk & Society 2014;16(1):52-67. 8. Finlay S, Sandall J. "Someone's rooting for you": continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal

• healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2009 Oct;69(8):1228-35.

9. Shneerson, C, Taylor, B, Kenyon, S. A systematic review to examine the evidence regarding discussions by midwives, with women, around their options for where to give birth (unpublished) 10. Michie, S, van Stralen, M, West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing change interventions. Implementation Science. 2011; 6:42..

Thank you for listening!

Cathy Shneerson University of Birmingham email: c.l.shneerson@bham.ac.uk