MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: A comparison of partnership caseload midwifery care with conventional team midwifery care: labour and birth outcomes.
Author: Benjamin Y, Walsh D, Taub N.
Journal: Midwifery; 2001 Sep; 17(3):234-40. PubMed ID: 11502143.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: to compare the effects of partnership caseload midwifery care, with conventional team midwifery care. Comparisons of labour interventions and birth outcomes were made between the two models of care. DESIGN: a prospective, non-randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Women's Hospital at Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK in 1998. PARTICIPANTS: 303 women from the experimental group and 308 from the control group (611 in total) matched for age, ethnicity, marital status, parity, gravida and height who gave birth between April 1997 and August 1998. INTERVENTION: the control group received conventional team midwifery care during pregnancy, labour and birth, and the experimental group received care from midwives working in partnerships that provided continuity of care during pregnancy, labour and birth. KEY FINDINGS: 21% of women in the experimental group had an epidural compared with 32% of the controls (OR 0.56 95%, CI 0.39-0.81, P=0.002). The normal vaginal birth rate (74% v 66%, OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.02-2.05, P=0.038), upright birth posture rate (60% v 14%, OR 9.64, 95% CI 5.96-15.61, P= or <0.001), intact perineum rate (40% v 30%, OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05-2.35, P=0.027), and physiological third stage rate (37% v 1.5%, OR 38.69, 95% CI 11.98-124.89, P= or <0.001) were significantly higher in the experimental group. The induction of labour rate (16% v 23%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.98, P=0.042) was significantly lower in the experimental group. Women in the experimental group had more home births (17% v 1.3%, OR 15.38. 95% CI 5.48-43.14, P= or <0.001); used the midwife-led birthing suite more often (28% v 12%, OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.82-4.22, P= or <0.001); were more likely to take an early discharge (two to six hours) from hospital following birth (25% v 3%, OR 11.32. 95% CI 5.55-23.06, P= or <0.001); and were attended in birth more often by either their named midwife (67% v 5%, OR 39.65, 95% CI 22.38-70.25, P= or <0.001) or her partner (known midwife) (84% v 14%, OR 32.74, CI 20.96-51.14, P= or <0.001). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: partnership caseload midwifery care resulted in less interventionist labour and more normal birth than conventional team midwifery care. Women in the experimental group had more home births, birth in a midwife-led suite and opted for early discharge home postnatally more often than the controls. They also experienced much higher levels of continuity, particularly of a known midwife during labour and birth. The study findings should encourage other maternity units in the UK to pilot and evaluate the model to see if these benefits are transferable.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]