| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1766 | 555 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 660 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 359 | 4 | 0 |
| EPUB Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The Midwifery Unit Self-Assessment (MUSA) Toolkit: embedding stakeholder engagement and co-production of improvement plans in European midwifery units
Search for other papers by Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Cassandra Yuill in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Ellen Thaels in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Nazihah Uddin in
Current site
Google Scholar
Background:
For women with straightforward pregnancies midwifery units (MUs) are associated with improved maternal outcomes and experiences, similar neonatal outcomes, and lower costs than obstetric units. There is growing interest and promotion of MUs and midwifery-led care among European health policymakers and healthcare systems, and units are being developed and opened in countries for the first time or are increasing in number. To support this implementation, it is crucial that practice guidelines and improvement frameworks are in place, in order to ensure that MUs are and remain well-functioning.
Aims and objectives:
This project focused on the stakeholder engagement and collaboration with MUs to implement the Midwifery Unit Self-Assessment (MUSA) Tool in European MUs. A rapid participatory appraisal was conducted with midwives and stakeholders from European MUs to explore the clarity and usability of the tool, to understand how it helps MUs identifying areas for further improvement, and to identify the degree of support maternity services need in this process.
Key conclusions:
Engagement and co-production principles used in the case studies were perceived as empowering by all stakeholders. A fresh-eye view from the external facilitators on dynamics within the MU and its relationship with the obstetric unit was highly valued. However, micro-, meso- and macro-levels of organisational change and their associated stakeholders need to be further represented in the MUSA-Tool. The improvement plans generated from it should also reflect these micro-, meso- and macro-level considerations in order to identify the key actors for further implementation and integration of MUs into European health services.
-
Aughey, H. et al. (2019) National maternity and perinatal audit: clinical report 2019, https://maternityaudit.org.uk/FilesUploaded/NMPA%20Clinical%20Report%202019.pdf.
-
Blotkamp, A. and NMPA Project Team (2019) National Maternity and Perinatal Audit: Organisational Report 2019, London: Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists.
-
Boesveld, I.C., Hermus, M.A.A., de Graaf, H.J. et al. (2017) Developing quality indicators for assessing quality of birth centre care: a mixed-methods study, BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 17: 259. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1439-9
-
Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J. and Balain, S. (2007) A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity, Implementation Science, 2(1): 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-1
-
Currie, G., Lockett, A., Finn, R., Martin, G. and Waring, J. (2012) Institutional work to maintain professional power: recreating the model of medical professionalism, Organization Studies, 33(7): 937–62. doi: 10.1177/0170840612445116
-
Healy, M. and Gillen, P. (2016) Planning birth in and admission to a midwife-led unit: development of a GAIN evidence based guideline, Evidence Based Midwifery, 14(3): 82–86.
-
Journal Officiel De La République Française (2020) Loi No 2020-1576 du 14 Décembre 2020 de Financement de la Sécurité Sociale pour 2021.
-
McCourt, C., Rayment, J., Rance, S. and Sandall, J. (2016) Place of birth and concepts of wellbeing: an analysis from two ethnographic studies of midwifery units in England, Anthropology in Action, 23(3): 17–29. doi: 10.3167/aia.2016.230303
-
Murray, S.A., Tapson, J., Turnbull, L., McCallum, J. and Little, A. (1994) Listening to local voices: adapting rapid appraisal to assess health and social needs in general practice, BMJ, 1994(308): 698. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6930.698
-
Newburn, M. and Rocca-Ihenacho, L. (2018) Midwifery Unit Network: The First Three Years, London: Midwifery Unit Network & City, University of London.
-
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) (2019) NICE indicator process guide, https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/Get-involved/Meetings-In-Public/indicator-advisory-committee/ioc-process-guide.pdf.
-
Rayment, J., Rocca-Ihenacho, L., Newburn, M., Thaels, E., Batinelli, L. and McCourt, C. (2020) The development of midwifery unit standards for Europe, Midwifery, 86: 102661. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2020.102661
-
Rocca-Ihenacho, L., Batinelli, L., Thaels, E., Rayment, J., Newburn, M. and McCourt, C. (2018) Midwifery Unit Standards, London: City, University of London.
-
Scarf, V.L. et al. (2018) Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Midwifery, 62: 240–55. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.03.024
-
Schroeder, E., Petrou, S., Patel, N., Hollowell, J., Puddicombe, D., Redshaw, M. and Brocklehurst, P. (2012) Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study, BMJ, 344: e2292. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2292
-
Scott, W.R. (1995) Institutions and Organizations, London: Sage.
-
Smith, T., McNeil, K., Mitchell, R., Boyle, B. and Ries, N. (2019) A study of macro-, meso- and micro-barriers and enablers affecting extended scopes of practice: the case of rural nurse practitioners in Australia, BMC Nursing, 18(14): 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12912-018-0325-8
-
Thaels, E., Rocca-Ihenacho, L. and Batinelli, L. (2019) Midwifery Unit Self-Assessment Tool, London: City, University of London.
-
Walsh, D. et al. (2018) Mapping midwifery and obstetric units in England, Midwifery, 56: 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.09.009
-
Walsh, D. et al. (2020) Factors influencing the utilisation of free-standing and alongside midwifery units in England: a qualitative research study, BMJ Open, 10(2).
Search for other papers by Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Cassandra Yuill in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Ellen Thaels in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Nazihah Uddin in
Current site
Google Scholar
| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1766 | 555 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 660 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 359 | 4 | 0 |
Institutional librarians can find more information about free trials here
We are a leading social science publisher
committed to making a difference.
Help and advice
Bristol University Press and
Policy Press
bristoluniversitypress.co.uk