Background: In order to internalize the midwifery philosophy of care and to learn how to advocate for physiological childbirth, student midwives in the Netherlands need learning experiences that expose them to physiological childbirth practices. Increased hospital births, wide variation in non-urgent referrals and escalating interventions impact on learning opportunities for physiological childbirth. Midwifery educators need to find ways to support student agency in becoming advocates of physiological childbirth. Objective: To gather students’ opinions of what they need to become advocates of physiological childbirth. Methods: Focus groups with student midwives (n = 37), examining attitudes regarding what educational programs must do to support physiological childbirth advocacy. Results: Students reported feelings of personal power when the midwifery philosophy of care is internalized and expressed in practice. Students also identified dilemmas associated with supporting woman-centered care and promoting physiological childbirth. Perceived hierarchy in clinical settings causes difficulties, leading students to practice in accordance with the norms of midwife preceptors. Students are supported in the internalization and realization of the midwifery philosophy of care, including physiological childbirth, if they are exposed to positive examples of care in practice and have opportunities to discuss and reflect on these in the classroom. Key conclusion: Midwifery education should focus on strategies that include navigating dilemmas in practice and helping students to express the midwifery philosophy of care in communication with other professionals and with women. Preceptors need to be supported in allowing student midwives opportunities to realize the midwifery philosophy of care, also when this differs from preceptor practice.
Background: The dynamics of maternal and newborn care challenge midwifery education programs to keep up-to-date. To prepare for their professional role in a changing world, role models are important agents for student learning. Objective: To explore the ways in which Dutch and Icelandic midwifery students identify role models in contemporary midwifery education. Methods: We conducted a descriptive, qualitative study between August 2017 and October 2018. In the Netherlands, 27 students participated in four focus groups and a further eight in individual interviews. In Iceland, five students participated in one focus group and a further four in individual interviews. All students had clinical experience in primary care and hospital. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: During their education, midwifery students identify people with attitudes and behaviors they appreciate. Students assimilate these attitudes and behaviors into a role model that represents their ‘ideal midwife’, who they can aspire to during their education. Positive role models portrayed woman-centered care, while students identified that negative role models displayed behaviors not fitting with good care. Students emphasized that they learnt not only by doing, they found storytelling and observing important aspects of role modelling. Students acknowledged the impact of positive midwifery role models on their trust in physiological childbirth and future style of practice. Conclusion: Role models contribute to the development of students’ skills, attitudes, behaviors, identity as midwife and trust in physiological childbirth. More explicit and critical attention to how and what students learn from role models can enrich the education program.
Background: The maternity care system in the Netherlands is well known for its support of community-based midwifery. However, regular midwifery practices typically do not offer caseload midwifery care – one-to-one continuity of care throughout pregnancy and birth. Because we know very little about the outcomes for women receiving caseload care in the Netherlands, we compared caseload care with regular midwife-led care, looking at maternal and perinatal outcomes, including antenatal and intrapartum referrals to secondary (i.e., obstetrician-led) care. Methods: We selected 657 women in caseload care and 1954 matched controls (women in regular midwife-led care) from all women registered in the Dutch Perinatal Registry (Perined) who gave birth in 2015. To be eligible for selection the women had to be in midwife-led antenatal care beyond 28 gestational weeks. Each woman in caseload care was matched with three women in regular midwife-led care, using parity, maternal age, background (Dutch or non-Dutch) and region. These two cohorts were compared for referral rates, mode of birth, and other maternal and perinatal outcomes. Results: In caseload midwifery care, 46.9% of women were referred to obstetrician-led care (24.2% antenatally and 22.8% in the intrapartum period). In the matched cohort, 65.7% were referred (37.4% antenatally and 28.3% in the intrapartum period). In caseload care, 84.0% experienced a spontaneous vaginal birth versus 77.0% in regular midwife-led care. These patterns were observed for both nulliparous and multiparous women. Women in caseload care had fewer inductions of labour (13.2% vs 21.0%), more homebirths (39.4% vs 16.1%) and less perineal damage (intact perineum: 41.3% vs 28.2%). The incidence of perinatal mortality and a low Apgar score was low in both groups. Conclusions: We found that when compared to regular midwife-led care, caseload midwifery care in the Netherlands is associated with a lower referral rate to obstetrician-led care – both antenatally and in the intrapartum period – and a higher spontaneous vaginal birth rate, with similar perinatal safety. The challenge is to include this model as part of the current effort to improve the quality of Dutch maternity care, making caseload care available and affordable for more women.
Vulnerable pregnant women are an important and complex theme in daily practice of birth care professionals. Vulnerability is an important risk factor for maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Providing care for these women is often complex. First, because it is not always easy to identify vulnerability. Secondly, vulnerable women more often cancel their appointments with midwives and finally, many professionals are involved while they do not always know each other. Even though professionals are aware of the risks of vulnerability for future mothers and their (unborn) children and the complexity of care for these women, there is no international definition for ‘vulnerable pregnancies’. Therefore, we start this project with defining a mutual definition of vulnerability during pregnancy. In current projects of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (RUAS) we define a vulnerable pregnant woman as: a pregnant woman facing psychopathology, psychosocial problems, and/or substance abuse combined with lack of individual and/or social resources (low socioeconomic status, low educational level, limited social network). In the Netherlands, care for vulnerable pregnant women is fragmented and therefore it is unclear for birth care professionals which interventions are available and effective. Therefore, Dutch midwives are convinced that exchanging knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices throughout Europe could enhance their knowledge and provide midwives (SMB partners in this project) with tools to improve care for vulnerable pregnant women. The aim of this project is to exchange knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices in several European countries, in order to improve knowledge and skills of midwives. As a result, guidelines will be developed in order to exchange selected best practices which enable midwives to implement this knowledge in their own context. This contributes to improving care for vulnerable pregnant women throughout Europe.
