Implementation of midwifery continuity of care models for Indigenous women in Australia: Perspectives and reflections for the United Kingdom

© 2018 Maternity models that provide midwifery continuity of care have been established to increase access to appropriate services for Indigenous Australian women. Understanding the development and implementation of continuity models for Indigenous women in Australia provides useful insights for the development and implementation of similar models in other contexts such as those for vulnerable and socially disadvantaged women living in the United Kingdom. To ensure better health outcomes for mothers and babies, it is crucial to promote culturally competent and safe public health models in which midwives work collaboratively with the multidisciplinary team

Project 20: Midwives’ insight into continuity of care models for women with social risk factors: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how

Introduction Continuity of care models are known to improve clinical outcomes for women and their babies, but it is not understood how. A realist synthesis of how women with social risk factors experience UK maternity care reported mechanisms thought to improve clinical outcomes and experiences. As part of a broader programme of work to test those theories and fill gaps in the literature base we conducted focus groups with midwives working within continuity of care models of care for women with social factors that put them at a higher chance of having poor birth outcomes. These risk factors can include poverty and social isolation, asylum or refugee status, domestic abuse, mental illness, learning difficulties, and substance abuse problems. Objective To explore the insights of midwives working in continuity models of care for women with social risk factors in order to understand the resources they provide, and how the model of care can improve women’s outcomes. Design Realist methodology was used to gain a deeper understanding of how women react to specific resources that the models of care offer and how these resources are thought to lead to particular outcomes for women. Twelve midwives participated, six from a continuity of care model implemented in a community setting serving an area of deprivation in London, and six from a continuity of care model for women with social risk factors, based within a large teaching hospital in London. Findings Three main themes were identified: ‘Perceptions of the model of care, ‘Tailoring the service to meet women’s needs’, ‘Going above and beyond’. Each theme is broken down into three subthemes to reveal specific resources or mechanisms which midwives felt might have an impact on women’s outcomes, and how women with different social risk factors respond to these mechanisms. Conclusions/implications for practice Overall the midwives in both models of care felt the service was beneficial to women and had a positive impact on their outcomes. It was thought the trusting relationships they had built with women enabled midwives to guide women through a fragmented, unfamiliar system and respond to their individual physical, emotional, and social needs, whilst ensuring follow-up of appointments and test results. Midwives felt that for these women the impact of a trusting relationship affected how much information women disclosed, allowing for enhanced, needs led, holistic care. Interesting mechanisms were identified when discussing women who had social care involvement with midwives revealing techniques they used to advocate for women and help them to regain trust in the system and demonstrate their parenting abilities. Differences in how each team provided care and its impact on women’s outcomes were considered with the midwives in the community-based model reporting how their location enabled them to help women integrate into their local community and make use of specialist services. The study demonstrates the complexity of these models of care, with midwives using innovative and compassionate ways of working to meet the multifaceted needs of this population

Association between SARS-CoV-2 exposure and antibody status among healthcare workers in two London hospitals: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Patient-facing (frontline) health-care workers (HCWs) are at high risk of repeated exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Aim: We sought to determine the association between levels of frontline exposure and likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity amongst HCW. Methods: A cross-sectional study was undertaken using purposefully collected data from HCWs at two hospitals in London, United Kingdom (UK) over eight weeks in May-June 2020. Information on sociodemographic, clinical and occupational characteristics was collected using an anonymised questionnaire. Serology was performed using split SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG lateral flow immunoassays. Exposure risk was categorised into five pre-defined ordered grades. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between being frontline and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity after controlling for other risks of infection. Findings: 615 HCWs participated in the study. 250/615 (40.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 IgM and/or IgG positive. After controlling for other exposures, there was non-significant evidence of a modest association between being a frontline HCW (any level) and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to non-frontline status (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.84-2.30, P=0.200). There was 15% increase in the odds of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity for each step along the frontline exposure gradient (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00-1.32, P=0.043). Conclusion: We found a high SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG seropositivity with modest evidence for a dose-response association between increasing levels of frontline exposure risk and seropositivity. Even in well-resourced hospital settings, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, in addition to other transmission-based precautions for inpatient care of SARS-CoV-2 patients could reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCW

Project20: Maternity care mechanisms that improve (or exacerbate) health inequalities. A realist evaluation

Background Women with low socioeconomic status and social risk factors are at a disproportionate risk of poor birth outcomes and experiences of maternity care. Specialist models of maternity care that offer continuity are known to improve outcomes but underlying mechanisms are not well understood. Aim To evaluate two UK specialist models of care that provide continuity to women with social risk factors and identify specific mechanisms that reduce, or exacerbate, health inequalities. Methods Realist informed interviews were undertaken throughout pregnancy and the postnatal period with 20 women with social risk factors who experienced a specialist model of care. Findings Experiences of stigma, discrimination and paternalistic care were reported when women were not in the presence of a known midwife during care episodes. Practical and emotional support, and evidence-based information offered by a known midwife improved disclosure of social risk factors, eased perceptions of surveillance and enabled active participation. Continuity of care offered reduced women’s anxiety, enabled the development of a supportive network and improved women’s ability to seek timely help. Women described how specialist model midwives knew their medical and social history and how this improved safety. Care set in the community by a team of six known midwives appeared to enhance these benefits. Conclusion The identification of specific maternity care mechanisms supports current policy initiatives to scale up continuity models and will be useful in future evaluation of services for marginalised groups. However, the specialist models of care cannot overcome all inequalities without improvements in the maternity system as a whole

Project 20: Midwives’ insight into continuity of care models for women with social risk factors: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how

Introduction: Continuity of care models are known to improve clinical outcomes for women and their babies, but it is not understood how. A realist synthesis of how women with social risk factors experience UK maternity care reported mechanisms thought to improve clinical outcomes and experiences. As part of a broader programme of work to test those theories and fill gaps in the literature base we conducted focus groups with midwives working within continuity of care models of care for women with social factors that put them at a higher chance of having poor birth outcomes. These risk factors can include poverty and social isolation, asylum or refugee status, domestic abuse, mental illness, learning difficulties, and substance abuse problems. Objective: To explore the insights of midwives working in continuity models of care for women with social risk factors in order to understand the resources they provide, and how the model of care can improve women's outcomes. Design: Realist methodology was used to gain a deeper understanding of how women react to specific resources that the models of care offer and how these resources are thought to lead to particular outcomes for women. Twelve midwives participated, six from a continuity of care model implemented in a community setting serving an area of deprivation in London, and six from a continuity of care model for women with social risk factors, based within a large teaching hospital in London. Findings: Three main themes were identified: ‘Perceptions of the model of care, ‘Tailoring the service to meet women's needs’, ‘Going above and beyond’. Each theme is broken down into three subthemes to reveal specific resources or mechanisms which midwives felt might have an impact on women's outcomes, and how women with different social risk factors respond to these mechanisms. Conclusions/implications for practice: Overall the midwives in both models of care felt the service was beneficial to women and had a positive impact on their outcomes. It was thought the trusting relationships they had built with women enabled midwives to guide women through a fragmented, unfamiliar system and respond to their individual physical, emotional, and social needs, whilst ensuring follow-up of appointments and test results. Midwives felt that for these women the impact of a trusting relationship affected how much information women disclosed, allowing for enhanced, needs led, holistic care. Interesting mechanisms were identified when discussing women who had social care involvement with midwives revealing techniques they used to advocate for women and help them to regain trust in the system and demonstrate their parenting abilities. Differences in how each team provided care and its impact on women's outcomes were considered with the midwives in the community-based model reporting how their location enabled them to help women integrate into their local community and make use of specialist services. The study demonstrates the complexity of these models of care, with midwives using innovative and compassionate ways of working to meet the multifaceted needs of this population

Project20: interpreter services for pregnant women with social risk factors in England: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how?

Background: Black and minority ethnic women and those with social risk factors such as deprivation, refugee and asylum seeker status, homelessness, mental health issues and domestic violence are at a disproportionate risk of poor birth outcomes. Language barriers further exacerbate this risk, with women struggling to access, engage with maternity services and communicate concerns to healthcare professionals. To address the language barrier, many UK maternity services offer telephone interpreter services. This study explores whether or not women with social risk factors find these interpreter services acceptable, accessible and safe, and to suggest solutions to address challenges. Methods: Realist methodology was used to refine previously constructed programme theories about how women with language barriers access and experience interpreter services during their maternity care. Twenty-one longitudinal interviews were undertaken during pregnancy and the postnatal period with eight non-English speaking women and their family members. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis to confirm, refute or refine the programme theories and identify specific contexts, mechanisms and outcomes relating to interpreter services. Results: Women with language barriers described difficulties accessing maternity services, a lack of choice of interpreter, suspicion around the level of confidentiality interpreter services provide, and questioned how well professional interpreters were able to interpret what they were trying to relay to the healthcare professional during appointments. This resulted in many women preferring to use a known and trusted family member or friend to interpret for them where possible. Their insights provide detailed insight into how poor-quality interpreter services impact on their ability to disclose risk factors and communicate concerns effectively with their healthcare providers. A refined programme theory puts forward mechanisms to improve their experiences and safety such as regulated, high-quality interpreter services throughout their maternity care, in which women have choice, trust and confidence. Conclusions: The findings of this study contribute to concerns highlighted in previous literature around interpreter services in the wider healthcare arena, particularly around the lack of regulation and access to high-quality interpretation. This is thought to have a significant effect on pregnant women who are living socially complex lives as they are not able to communicate their concerns and access support. This not only impacts on their safety and pregnancy outcomes, but also their wider holistic needs. The refined program theory developed in this study offers insights into the mechanisms of equitable access to appropriate interpreter services for pregnant women with language barriers

Project20: Does continuity of care and community-based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Social factors associated with poor childbirth outcomes and experiences of maternity care include minority ethnicity, poverty, young motherhood, homelessness, difficulty speaking or understanding English, migrant or refugee status, domestic violence, mental illness and substance abuse. It is not known what specific aspects of maternity care work to improve the maternal and neonatal outcomes for these under-served, complex populations. METHODS: This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal clinical birth outcomes for women with social risk factors accessing different models of maternity care. Quantitative data on pregnancy and birth outcome measures for 1000 women accessing standard care, group practice and specialist models of care at two large, inner-city maternity services were prospectively collected and analysed using multinominal regression. The level of continuity of care and place of antenatal care were used as independent variables to explore these potentially influential aspects of care. Outcomes adjusted for women's social and medical risk factors and the service attended. RESULTS: Women who received standard maternity care were significantly less likely to use water for pain relief in labour (RR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62) and have skin to skin contact with their baby shortly after birth (RR 0.34, CI 0.14-0.80) compared to the specialist model of care. Antenatal care based in the hospital setting was associated with a significant increase in preterm birth (RR 2.38, CI 1.32-4.27) and low birth weight (RR 2.31, CI 1.24-4.32), and a decrease in induction of labour (RR 0.65, CI 0.45-0.95) compared to community-based antenatal care, this was despite women's medical risk factors. A subgroup analysis found that preterm birth was increased further for women with the highest level of social risk accessing hospital-based antenatal care (RR 3.11, CI1.49-6.50), demonstrating the protective nature of community-based antenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights how community-based antenatal care, with a focus on continuity of carer reduced health inequalities and improved maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes for women with social risk factors. The findings support the current policy drive to increase continuity of midwife-led care, whilst adding that community-based care may further improve outcomes for women at increased risk of health inequalities. The relationship between community-based models of care and neonatal outcomes require further testing in future research. The identification of specific mechanisms such as help-seeking and reduced anxiety, to explain these findings are explored in a wider evaluation

Project20: maternity care mechanisms that improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors in the UK - a mixed-methods, realist evaluation

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how women access and engage with different models of maternity care, whether specialist models improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors, and if so, how? DESIGN: Realist evaluation. SETTING: Two UK maternity service providers. PARTICIPANTS: Women accessing maternity services in 2019 (n=1020). METHODS: Prospective observational cohort with multinomial regression analysis to compare measures of access and engagement between models and place of antenatal care. Realist informed, longitudinal interviews with women accessing specialist models of care were analysed to identify mechanisms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of access and engagement, healthcare-seeking experiences. RESULTS: The number of social risk factors women were experiencing increased with deprivation score, with the most deprived more likely to receive a specialist model that provided continuity of care. Women attending hospital-based antenatal care were more likely to access maternity care late (risk ratio (RR) 2.51, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.70), less likely to have the recommended number of antenatal appointments (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99) and more likely to have over 15 appointments (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.50 to 9.61) compared with community-based care. Women accessing standard care (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) and black women (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) were less likely to have appointments with a known healthcare professional compared with the specialist model. Qualitative data revealed mechanisms for improved access and engagement including self-referral, relational continuity with a small team of midwives, flexibility and situating services within deprived community settings. CONCLUSION: Inequalities in access and engagement with maternity care appears to have been mitigated by the community-based specialist model that provided continuity of care. The findings enabled the refinement of a realist programme theory to inform those developing maternity services in line with current policy

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Background Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. Objectives To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. Main results We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low‐certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low‐certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference in postpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low‐certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care on third or fourth‐degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) and fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models. Authors' conclusions Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low‐ and middle‐income countries

A realist review to explore how midwifery continuity of care may influence preterm birth in pregnant women

Background: Midwifery continuity of care models are the only health system intervention associated with both a reduction in preterm birth (PTB) and an improvement in perinatal survival; however, questions remain about the mechanisms by which such positive outcomes are achieved. We aimed to uncover theories of change by which we can postulate how and why continuity of midwifery care models might affect PTB. Methods: We followed Pawson's guidance for conducting a realist review and performed a comprehensive search to identify existing literature exploring the impact of continuity models on PTB in all pregnant women. A realist methodology was used to uncover the context (C), mechanisms (M), and outcomes (O) and to develop a group of CMO configurations to illuminate middle-range theories. Results: Eleven papers were included from a wide variety of settings in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. The majority of study participants had low socioeconomic status or social risk factors and received diverse models of midwifery continuity of care. Three themes—woman-midwife partnership, maternity pathways and processes, and system resources—encompassed ten CMO configurations. Building relationships, trust, confidence, and advocacy resulted in women feeling safer, less stressed, and more secure and respected, and encouraged them to access and engage in antenatal care with more opportunities for early prevention and diagnosis of complications, which facilitated effective management when compliance to guidelines was ensured. Organizational infrastructure, innovative partnerships, and robust community systems are crucial to overcome barriers, address women's complex needs, ensure quality of care, and reduce PTB risk. Conclusions: Pregnant women living in different contexts in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States at low and mixed risk of complications and with low socioeconomic status or social risk factors experienced continuity models in similar ways, and similar underlying mechanisms may have influenced PTB outcomes. Further research is required to understand how continuity models may influence behavioral change, physiological stress levels, ethnic disparities in PTB and care coordination, and navigation of health services