Browsing by Author "Pacanowski, Lynne"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Factors influencing the utilisation of free-standing and alongside midwifery units in England: A Qualitative Research Study
    (BMJ Open, 2020-02-17) Walsh, Denis; Spiby, Helen; McCourt, Christine; Grigg, Celia; Coleby, Dawn; Bishop, Simon; Scanion, Miranda; Culley, Lorraine; Wilkinson, Jane; Pacanowski, Lynne; Thornton, Jim
    Objective: To identify factors influencing the provision, utilisation and sustainability of midwifery units (MUs) in England Design: Case studies, using individual interviews and focus groups, in six NHS Trust maternity services in England Setting & Participants NHS maternity services in different geographical areas of England Maternity care staff and service users from 6 NHS Trusts: 2 Trusts where more than 20% of all women gave birth in MUs, 2 Trusts where less than 10% of all women gave birth in MUs and 2 Trusts without MUs. Obstetric, midwifery and neonatal clinical leaders, managers, service user representatives and commissioners were individually interviewed (n=57). Twenty-six focus groups were undertaken with midwives (n=60) and service users (n=52). Main Outcome Measures: Factors influencing MU use Findings: The study findings identify several barriers to the uptake of MUs. Within a context of a history of obstetric-led provision and lack of decision-maker awareness of the clinical and economic evidence, most Trust managers and clinicians do not regard their MU provision as being as important as their obstetric unit (OU) provision. Therefore, it does not get embedded as an equal and parallel component in the Trust’s overall maternity package of care. The analysis illuminates how implementation of complex interventions in health services is influenced by a range of factors including the medicalisation of childbirth, perceived financial constraints, adequate leadership and institutional norms protecting the status quo. Conclusions: There are significant obstacles to MUs reaching their full potential, especially free-standing midwifery units (FMUs). These include the lack of commitment by providers to embed MUs as an essential service provision alongside their OUs, an absence of leadership to drive through these changes and the capacity and willingness of providers to address women’s information needs. If these remain unaddressed, childbearing women’s access to MUs will continue to be restricted.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    Factors influencing utilisation of ‘free-standing’ and ‘alongside’ midwifery units for low-risk births in England: a mixed-methods study
    (National Institute for Health Research, 2020-03-02) Walsh, Denis; Spiby, Helen; McCourt, Christine; Coleby, Dawn; Grigg, Celia; Bishop, Simon; Scanlon, Miranda; Culley, Lorraine; Wilkinson, jane; Pacanowski, Lynne; Thornton, Jim
    Abstract Background Midwifery-led units (MUs) are recommended for ‘low-risk’ births by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence but according to the National Audit Office were not available in one-quarter of trusts in England in 2013 and, when available, were used by only a minority of the low-risk women for whom they should be suitable. This study explores why. Objectives To map the provision of MUs in England and explore barriers to and facilitators of their development and use; and to ascertain stakeholder views of interventions to address these barriers and facilitators. Design Mixed methods – first, MU access and utilisation across England was mapped; second, local media coverage of the closure of free-standing midwifery units (FMUs) were analysed; third, case studies were undertaken in six sites to explore the barriers and facilitators that have an impact on the development of MUs; and, fourth, by convening a stakeholder workshop, interventions to address the barriers and facilitators were discussed. Setting English NHS maternity services. Participants All trusts with maternity services. Interventions Establishing MUs. Main outcome measures Numbers and types of MUs and utilisation of MUs. Results Births in MUs across England have nearly tripled since 2011, to 15% of all births. However, this increase has occurred almost exclusively in alongside units, numbers of which have doubled. Births in FMUs have stayed the same and these units are more susceptible to closure. One-quarter of trusts in England have no MUs; in those that do, nearly all MUs are underutilised. The study findings indicate that most trust managers, senior midwifery managers and obstetricians do not regard their MU provision as being as important as their obstetric-led unit provision and therefore it does not get embedded as an equal and parallel component in the trust’s overall maternity package of care. The analysis illuminates how provision and utilisation are influenced by a complex range of factors, including the medicalisation of childbirth, financial constraints and institutional norms protecting the status quo. Limitations When undertaking the case studies, we were unable to achieve representativeness across social class in the women’s focus groups and struggled to recruit finance directors for individual interviews. This may affect the transferability of our findings. Conclusions Although there has been an increase in the numbers and utilisation of MUs since 2011, significant obstacles remain to MUs reaching their full potential, especially FMUs. This includes the capacity and willingness of providers to address women’s information needs. If these remain unaddressed at commissioner and provider level, childbearing women’s access to MUs will continue to be restricted. Future work Work is needed on optimum approaches to improve decision-makers’ understanding and use of clinical and economic evidence in service design. Increasing women’s access to information about MUs requires further studies of professionals’ understanding and communication of evidence. The role of FMUs in the context of rural populations needs further evaluation to take into account user and community impact.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    Mapping midwifery and obstetric units in England
    (Elsevier, 2017-09-21) Walsh, Denis; Spiby, Helen; Grigg, Celia; McCourt, Christine; Culley, Lorraine; Bishop, Simon; Wilkson, Jane; Coleby, Dawn; Pacanowski, Lynne; Byers, Sonia; Thornton, Jim; Dodwell, Miranda
    Objective to describe the configuration of midwifery units, both alongside&free-standing, and obstetric units in England. Design national survey amongst Heads of Midwifery in English Maternity Services Setting National Health Service (NHS) in England Participants English Maternity Services Measurements descriptive statistics of Alongside Midwifery Units and Free-standing Midwifery Units and Obstetric Units and their annual births/year in English Maternity Services Findings alongside midwifery units have nearly doubled since 2010 (n = 53–97); free-standing midwifery units have increased slightly (n = 58–61). There has been a significant reduction in maternity services without either an alongside or free-standing midwifery unit (75–32). The percentage of all births in midwifery units has trebled, now representing 14% of all births in England. This masks significant differences in percentage of all births in midwifery units between different maternity services with a spread of 4% to 31%. Key conclusions In some areas of England, women have no access to a local midwifery unit, despite the National Institute for Health&Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommending them as an important place of birth option for low risk women. The numbers of midwifery units have increased significantly in England since 2010 but this growth is almost exclusively in alongside midwifery units. The percentage of women giving birth in midwifery units varies significantly between maternity services suggesting that many midwifery units are underutilised. Implications for practice Both the availability and utilisation of midwifery units in England could be improved.