Women, Midwives, and a Medical Model of Maternity Care in Switzerland

This paper presents a case study on the organisation of maternity healthcare in Switzerland, which has a costly healthcare system with high intervention rates within an obstetric-led maternity care model. Evidence has shown that midwifery care is associated with lower cost, higher satisfaction rates amongst women and less intervention. However, in the current model, midwives are both marginalised and underutilised. The paper focusses on the distribution of power and knowledge between midwives, women and the medical model. The varying power structures that shape the maternity care system in Switzerland are examined, using a case study approach that draws on Foucault’s concepts of the gaze, surveillance, disciplinary power, and the docile body. This paper will critically analyses the model of maternity care received by women in Switzerland and how it negatively impacts on both women’s personal and midwives’ professional autonomy whilst simultaneously driving up costs. A better understanding of the underlying power structures operating within the maternity care system may facilitate the implementation of more midwifery led care currently being endorsed by the Swiss Midwifery Association and some government agencies. This could result in reduced cost and lower intervention rates

Establishing a Europe-wide foundation for high quality midwifery education: The role of the European Midwives Association (EMA)

A cornerstone of European policy involves freedom of movement of individuals between member countries, which applies equally to those who use and provide maternity care. To promote and support safe, high quality maternity care, minimum standards for midwifery education and practice have been published, including Directives EEC/80/154 and EEC/80/155 which support the recognition of professional qualifications. These Directives established a minimum standard for midwifery education, including the duration and content of theoretical and practical education. Annex V of the Directives established a framework of professional activities to define and guide the scope of midwifery practice in EU member countries. The Directives were updated in 2013, with the European Midwives Association (EMA) an important partner in this process. While the degree of implementation of the Directives at individual country level varies, EMA has an ongoing role in ensuring, promoting and advancing high quality midwifery education and practice throughout the EU

Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators

Background: This paper critically reviews published tools and indicators currently used to measure maternity care performance within Europe, focusing particularly on whether and how current approaches enable systematic appraisal of processes of minimal (or non-) intervention in support of physiological or "normal birth". The work formed part of COST Actions IS0907: "Childbirth Cultures, Concerns, and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for optimal maternity care" (2011-2014) and IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health - an interdisciplinary whole system approach to understanding and contextualising physiological labour and birth (BIRTH) (2014-). The Actions included the sharing of country experiences with the aim of promoting salutogenic approaches to maternity care. Methods: A structured literature search was conducted of material published between 2005 and 2013, incorporating research databases, published documents in english in peer-reviewed international journals and indicator databases which measured aspects of health care at a national and pan-national level. Given its emergence from two COST Actions the work, inevitably, focused on Europe, but findings may be relevant to other countries and regions. Results: A total of 388 indicators were identified, as well as seven tools specifically designed for capturing aspects of maternity care. Intrapartum care was the most frequently measured feature, through the application of process and outcome indicators. Postnatal and neonatal care of mother and baby were the least appraised areas. An over-riding focus on the quantification of technical intervention and adverse or undesirable outcomes was identified. Vaginal birth (no instruments) was occasionally cited as an indicator; besides this measurement few of the 388 indicators were found to be assessing non-intervention or "good" or positive outcomes more generally. Conclusions: The tools and indicators identified largely enable measurement of technical interventions and undesirable health (or pathological medical) outcomes. A physiological birth generally necessitates few, or no, interventions, yet most of the indicators presently applied fail to capture (a) this phenomenon, and (b) the relationship between different forms and processes of care, mode of birth and good or positive outcomes. A need was identified for indicators which capture non-intervention, reflecting the reality that most births are low-risk, requiring few, if any, technical medical procedures.COST Action IS0907, ‘Childbirth Cultures, Concerns and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for optimal maternity care’COST Action IS1405, ‘Building Intrapartum Research Through Health - an interdisciplinary whole system approach to understanding and contextualising physiological labour and birth (BIRTH

Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: A critical exploration of tools and indicators

Background: This paper critically reviews published tools and indicators currently used to measure maternity care performance within Europe, focusing particularly on whether and how current approaches enable systematic appraisal of processes of minimal (or non-) intervention in support of physiological or "normal birth". The work formed part of COST Actions IS0907: "Childbirth Cultures, Concerns, and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for optimal maternity care" (2011-2014) and IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health - an interdisciplinary whole system approach to understanding and contextualising physiological labour and birth (BIRTH) (2014-). The Actions included the sharing of country experiences with the aim of promoting salutogenic approaches to maternity care. Methods: A structured literature search was conducted of material published between 2005 and 2013, incorporating research databases, published documents in english in peer-reviewed international journals and indicator databases which measured aspects of health care at a national and pan-national level. Given its emergence from two COST Actions the work, inevitably, focused on Europe, but findings may be relevant to other countries and regions. Results: A total of 388 indicators were identified, as well as seven tools specifically designed for capturing aspects of maternity care. Intrapartum care was the most frequently measured feature, through the application of process and outcome indicators. Postnatal and neonatal care of mother and baby were the least appraised areas. An over-riding focus on the quantification of technical intervention and adverse or undesirable outcomes was identified. Vaginal birth (no instruments) was occasionally cited as an indicator; besides this measurement few of the 388 indicators were found to be assessing non-intervention or "good" or positive outcomes more generally. Conclusions: The tools and indicators identified largely enable measurement of technical interventions and undesirable health (or pathological medical) outcomes. A physiological birth generally necessitates few, or no, interventions, yet most of the indicators presently applied fail to capture (a) this phenomenon, and (b) the relationship between different forms and processes of care, mode of birth and good or positive outcomes. A need was identified for indicators which capture non-intervention, reflecting the reality that most births are low-risk, requiring few, if any, technical medical procedures

Conscientious objection to participation in abortion by midwives and nurses:A systematic review of reasons

BackgroundFreedom of conscience is a core element of human rights respected by most European countries. It allows abortion through the inclusion of a conscience clause, which permits opting out of providing such services. However, the grounds for invoking conscientious objection lack clarity. Our aim in this paper is to take a step in this direction by carrying out a systematic review of reasons by midwives and nurses for declining, on conscience grounds, to participate in abortion.MethodWe conducted a systematic review of ethical arguments asking, "What reasons have been reported in the argument based literature for or against conscientious objection to abortion provision by nurses or midwives?" We particularly wanted to identify any discussion of the responsibilities of midwives and nurses in this area. Search terms were conscientious objection and abortion or termination and nurse or midwife or midwives or physicians or doctors or medics within the dates 2000-2016 on: HEIN legal, Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science including publications in English, German and Dutch. Final articles were subjected to a rigorous analysis, coding and classifying each line into reason mentions, narrow and broad reasons for or against conscientious objection.ResultsOf an initial 1085 articles, 10 were included. We identified 23 broad reasons, containing 116narrow reasons and 269 reason mentions. Eighty one (81) narrow reasons argued in favour of and 35 against conscientious objection. Using predetermined categories of moral, practical, religious or legal reasons, "moral reasons" contained the largest number of narrow reasons (n =  58). The reasons and their associated mentions in this category outnumber those in the sum of the other three categories.ConclusionsWe identified no absolute argument either for or against conscientious objection by midwives or nurses. An invisibility of midwives and nurses exists in the whole debate concerning conscientious objection reflecting a gap between literature and practice, as it is they whom WHO recommend as providers of this service. While the arguments in the literature emphasize the need for provision of conscientious objection, a balanced debate is necessary in this field, which includes all relevant health professionals

Key Maternity Care Stakeholders’ Views on Midwives’ Professional Autonomy

Advancement towards the professionalism of midwifery is closely linked to midwives’ professional autonomy. Although the perspectives of Belgian midwives on their professional autonomy have been studied, the views of other maternity care stakeholders are a blind spot. The aim of this study, therefore, was to explore maternity care stakeholders’ views on Belgian midwives’ professional autonomy. A qualitative exploratory study was performed using focus group interviews. A heterogenous group of 27 maternity care stakeholders participated. The variation between midwives, with different levels of autonomy, was reported. The analysis of the data resulted in five themes: (1) The autonomous midwife is adequately educated and committed to continuous professional further education, (2) The autonomous midwife is competent, (3) The autonomous midwife is experienced, (4) The autonomous midwife assures safe and qualitative care, and (5) The autonomous midwife collaborates with all stakeholders in maternity care. A maternity collaborative framework, where all maternity care professionals respect each other’s competences and autonomy, is crucial for providing safe and quality care. To achieve this, it is recommended to implement interprofessional education to establish strong foundations for interprofessional collaboration. Additionally, a regulatory body with supervisory powers can help ensure safe and quality care, while also supporting midwives’ professional autonomy and professionalisation

Establishing a Europe-wide foundation for high quality midwifery education:The role of the European Midwives Association (EMA)

A cornerstone of European policy involves freedom of movement of individuals between member countries, which applies equally to those who use and provide maternity care. To promote and support safe, high quality maternity care, minimum standards for midwifery education and practice have been published, including Directives EEC/80/154 and EEC/80/155 which support the recognition of professional qualifications. These Directives established a minimum standard for midwifery education, including the duration and content of theoretical and practical education. Annex V of the Directives established a framework of professional activities to define and guide the scope of midwifery practice in EU member countries. The Directives were updated in 2013, with the European Midwives Association (EMA) an important partner in this process. While the degree of implementation of the Directives at individual country level varies, EMA has an ongoing role in ensuring, promoting and advancing high quality midwifery education and practice throughout the EU

How Do Midwives View Their Professional Autonomy, Now and in Future?

Background: Internationally, midwives’ professional autonomy is being challenged, resulting in their inability to practice to their full scope of practice. This situation contrasts with the increasing international calls for strengthening the midwifery profession. The aim of this study therefore is to explore Belgian midwives’ views on their current and future autonomy. Methods: An online survey among Belgian midwives was performed. Data were collected and analyzed using a quantitative approach, while quotes from respondents were used to contextualize the quantitative data. Results: Three hundred and twelve midwives from different regions and professional settings in Belgium completed the questionnaire. Eighty-five percentage of respondents believe that they are mostly or completely autonomous. Brussels’ midwives feel the most autonomous, while those in Wallonia feel the least. Primary care midwives feel more autonomous than hospital-based midwives. Older midwives and primary care midwives feel less recognized and respected by other professionals in maternity care. The majority of our respondents believe that in future midwives should be able to work more autonomously in constructive collaboration with other professionals. Conclusion: While Belgian midwives generally rated their own professional autonomy as high, a significant majority of respondents desire more autonomy in future. In addition, our respondents want to be recognized and respected by society and other health professionals in maternity care. It is recommended to prioritize efforts in enhancing midwives’ autonomy, while also addressing the need for increased recognition and respect from society and other maternity care professionals

Are there ways in which bullying can be prevented?

BackgroundBullying has been identified as one of the leading workplace stressors, with adverse consequences for the individual employee, groups of employees, and whole organisations. Employees who have been bullied have lower levels of job satisfaction, higher levels of anxiety and depression, and are more likely to leave their place of work. Organisations face increased risk of skill depletion and absenteeism, leading to loss of profit, potential legal fees, and tribunal cases. It is unclear to what extent these risks can be addressed through interventions to prevent bullying.ObjectivesTo explore the effectiveness of workplace interventions to prevent bullying in the workplace.Search methodsWe searched: the Cochrane Work Group Trials Register (August 2014); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, issue 1); PUBMED (1946 to January 2016); EMBASE (1980 to January 2016); PsycINFO (1967 to January 2016); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus; 1937 to January 2016); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS; 1951 to January 2016); Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA; 1987 to January 2016); ABI Global (earliest record to January 2016); Business Source Premier (BSP; earliest record to January 2016); OpenGrey (previously known as OpenSIGLE-System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe; 1980 to December 2014); and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaRandomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials of employee-directed interventions, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time-series studies of interventions of any type, aimed at preventing bullying in the workplace, targeted at an individual employee, a group of employees, or an organisation.Data collection and analysisThree authors independently screened and selected studies. We extracted data from included studies on victimisation, perpetration, and absenteeism associated with workplace bullying. We contacted study authors to gather additional data. We used the internal validity items from the Downs and Black quality assessment tool to evaluate included studies' risk of bias.Main resultsFive studies met the inclusion criteria. They had altogether 4116 participants. They were underpinned by theory and measured behaviour change in relation to bullying and related absenteeism. The included studies measured the effectiveness of interventions on the number of cases of self-reported bullying either as perpetrator or victim or both. Some studies referred to bullying using common synonyms such as mobbing and incivility and antonyms such as civility. Organisational/employer level interventionsTwo studies with 2969 participants found that the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workforce (CREW) intervention produced a small increase in civility that translates to a 5% increase from baseline to follow-up, measured at 6 to 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.28).One of the two studies reported that the CREW intervention produced a small decrease in supervisor incivility victimisation (MD -0.17; 95% CI -0.33 to -0.01) but not in co-worker incivility victimisation (MD -0.08; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.08) or in self-reported incivility perpetration (MD -0.05 95% CI -0.15 to 0.05). The study did find a decrease in the number of days absent during the previous month (MD -0.63; 95% CI -0.92 to -0.34) at 6-month follow-up. Individual/job interface level interventionsOne controlled before-after study with 49 participants compared expressive writing with a control writing exercise at two weeks follow-up. Participants in the intervention arm scored significantly lower on bullying measured as incivility perpetration (MD -3.52; 95% CI -6.24 to -0.80). There was no difference in bullying measured as incivility victimisation (MD -3.30 95% CI -6.89 to 0.29).One controlled before-after study with 60 employees who had learning disabilities compared a cognitive-behavioural intervention with no intervention. There was no significant difference in bullying victimisation after the intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.25), or at the three-month follow-up (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.15), nor was there a significant difference in bullying perpetration following the intervention (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.54), or at the three-month follow-up (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.81). Multilevel InterventionsA five-site cluster-RCT with 1041 participants compared the effectiveness of combinations of policy communication, stress management training, and negative behaviours awareness training. The authors reported that bullying victimisation did not change (13.6% before intervention and 14.3% following intervention). The authors reported insufficient data for us to conduct our own analysis.Due to high risk of bias and imprecision, we graded the evidence for all outcomes as very low quality.Authors' conclusionsThere is very low quality evidence that organisational and individual interventions may prevent bullying behaviours in the workplace. We need large well-designed controlled trials of bullying prevention interventions operating on the levels of society/policy, organisation/employer, job/task and individual/job interface. Future studies should employ validated and reliable outcome measures of bullying and a minimum of 6 months follow-up