References

Alderwick H, Robertson R, Appleby J, Dunn P, Maguire DLondon: The King's Fund; 2015

Washington DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999

American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwife Alliance of North America, National Association of Certified professional Midwives. 2012. http://tinyurl.com/j6usnqv (accessed 6 June 2016)

Beck CT, Watson S Impact of birth trauma on breast-feeding: a tale of two pathways. Nurs Res. 2008; 57:(4)228-36 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNR.0000313494.87282.90

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 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7400

Coxon K, Sandall J, Fulop NJ 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)51-67 https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.859231

Creswell JW, Clark VLP, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2011

Dahlen HG, Kennedy HP, Anderson CM, Bell AF, Clark A, Foureur M, Ohm JE, Shearman AM, Taylor JY, Wright ML, Downe S The EPIIC hypothesis: intrapartum effects on the neonatal epigenome and consequent health outcomes. Med Hypotheses. 2013; 80:(5)656-62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.01.017

Department of Health. 2007. http://tinyurl.com/k6a3vqm (accessed 6 June 2016)

London: DH; 2010

Department 0f Health. 2016. http://tinyurl.com/gr3klvv (accessed 6 June 2016)

2010. http://tinyurl.com/h6hmocy (accessed 6 June 2016)

Dunne CL, Fraser J, Gardner GE Women's perceptions of social support during labour: development, reliability and validity of the Birth Companion Support Questionnaire. Midwifery. 2014; 30:(7)847-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.010

Firoz T, Chou D, von Dadelszen P, Agrawal P, Vanderkruik R, Tunçalp O, Magee LA, van Den Broek N, Say L Measuring maternal health: focus on maternal morbidity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2013; 91:794-6 https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.117564

Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe FGeneva: World Health Organization; 2010

Green JM Integrating Women's Views into Maternity Care Research and Practice. Birth. 2012; 39:(4)291-5 https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12003

Green J, Thorogood N, 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications; 2009

Hughes AJ, Fraser DM ‘SINK or SWIM’: the experience of newly qualified midwives in England. Midwifery. 2011; 27:(3)382-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2011.03.012

Hyde MJ, Mostyn A, Modi N, Kemp PR The health implications of birth by Caesarean section. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2012; 87:(1)229-43 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00195.x

Kane MT Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores. Journal of Educational Measurement. 2013; 50:(1)1-73 https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

Kennedy HP, Grant J, Walton C, Shaw-Battista J, Sandall J Normalizing birth in England: a qualitative study. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010; 55:(3)262-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2010.01.006

Kirkup BLondon: The Stationery Office; 2015

Koblinsky M, Chowdhury ME, Moran A, Ronsmans C Maternal morbidity and disability and their consequences: neglected agenda in maternal health. J Health Popul Nutr. 2012; 30:(2)124-30

Mays N, Pope C, Popay J Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10:6-20

McCourt C, Rayment J, Rance S, Sandall J Organisational strategies and midwives' readiness to provide care for out of hospital births: an analysis from the birthplace organisational case studies. Midwifery. 2012; 28:(5)636-45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.004

Messick S Meaning and values in test validation: the science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher. 1989; 18:(2)5-11 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015; 350 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258

Morgan DL Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research. Qualitative Inquiry. 2014; 20:(8)1045-53 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190 (accessed 16 June 2016)

Nursing and Midwifery Council. 2011. http://tinyurl.com/j9h7prr (accessed 6 June 2016)

O'Connell R, Downe S A metasynthesis of midwives' experience of hospital practice in publicly funded settings: compliance, resistance and authenticity. Health (London). 2009; 13:(6)589-609 https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459308341439

Ross-Davie MC, Cheyne H, Niven C Measuring the quality and quantity of professional intrapartum support: testing a computerised systematic observation tool in the clinical setting. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-163

Royal College of Midwives. 2015. http://tinyurl.com/zxow9hv (accessed 16 June 2016)

Stones W, Arulkumaran S Health-care professionals in midwifery care. Lancet. 2014; 384:(9949)1169-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60857-6

Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J Basic Concepts, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015a

Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J Biases in Responding, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015b

Ubbink DT, Guyatt GH, Vermeulen H Framework of policy recommendations for implementation of evidence-based practice: a systematic scoping review. BMJ Open. 2013; 3 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001881

Walsh D, Devane D A metasynthesis of midwife-led care. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22:(7)897-910 https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312440330

Wolming S, Wikström C The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2010; 17:(2)117-32 https://doi.org/10.1080/09695941003693856

2013. http://tinyurl.com/zhrqgah (accessed 6 June 2016)

Practitioners' views and barriers to implementation of the Keeping Birth Normal tool: A pilot study

02 July 2016
22 min read
Volume 24 · Issue 7

Abstract

Background:

Poor implementation of evidence in practice has been reported as a reason behind the continued rise in unnecessary interventions in labour and birth. A validated tool can enable the systematic measurement of care to target interventions to support implementation of evidence. The Keeping Birth Normal tool has been developed to measure and support implementation of evidence to reduce unnecessary interventions in labour and birth.

Aims:

This pilot sought the views of midwives about the usefulness and relevance of the Keeping Birth Normal tool in measuring and supporting practice; it also identified barriers to implementation.

Methods:

Five midwives supported by five preceptors tested the tool on a delivery suite and birth centre in a local NHS Trust. Mixed methods were employed. Participants completed a questionnaire about the relevance and usefulness of the tool. Semi-structured interviews explored participants' experience of using the tool in practice.

Findings:

The domains and items in the tool were viewed as highly relevant to reducing unnecessary interventions. Not all midwives were open to their practice being observed, but those who were reported benefits from critical reflection and role-modelling to support implementation. An important barrier is a lack of expertise among preceptors to support the implementation of skills to reduce unnecessary interventions. This includes skills in the use of rating scales and critical reflection. Where expertise is available, there is a lack of protected time for such structured supportive activity. Norms in birth environments that do not promote normal birth are another important barrier.

Conclusions:

Midwives found the items in the tool relevant to evidence-informed skills to reduce unnecessary interventions and useful for measuring and supporting implementation. To validate and generalise these findings, further evidence about the quality of items needs to be gathered. Successful implementation of the tool requires preceptors skilled in care that reduces unnecessary interventions, using rating scales, role-modelling and critical reflection. Such structured preceptorship requires protected time and can only thrive in a culture that promotes normal birth.

The use of unnecessary interventions in labour and birth continues to rise. A rate of > 19% is seen as medically unnecessary by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Gibbons et al, 2010); in Europe, caesarean section rates vary between 30–58%, except in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries where the rate is 16–17% (Zeitlin et al, 2013). The caesarean section rate in the UK is currently 26.2%, but wide variations of 18–34% are reported (NHS England, 2013). Morbidities associated with such interventions may have an impact on the long-term physical, mental and sexual health of women and disrupt maternal–infant relationships (Beck and Watson, 2008; Koblinsky et al, 2012; Firoz et al, 2013). Evidence that such interventions increase childhood asthma, obesity, diabetes, cancers and atopic diseases is increasing (Hyde et al, 2012; Dahlen et al, 2013).

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical newsletter updates each month