Sustainability of hospital-based midwife-led antenatal care consultation - a qualitative study.
Implementation
Midwife-led antenatal consultation
Qualitative study
Sustainability
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Aug 2021
23 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
14
03
2021
accepted:
07
08
2021
entrez:
24
8
2021
pubmed:
25
8
2021
medline:
26
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
All evidence-based knowledge and improvement strategies for quality care must be implemented so patients can benefit from them. In Germany, national expert standards (NES) contribute to quality care in nursing and midwifery. The NES defines for several action levels a dedicated level of quality, which is operationalized by structure, process, and outcome (SPO) criteria. An NES to promote normal childbirth was developed and implemented in 2014. The first action level involves midwife-led antenatal consultation (ML-AC) being conducted in a structured way. Most implementation processes aim to accomplish sustainability, but implementation studies rarely use definitions or a theory of sustainability, even when assessing sustainability. This lack led to the assumption that intervention sustainability after implementation is still a largely unexplored domain. The aim of this study is to investigate the sustainability of midwife-led antenatal consultation (ML-AC) implemented at two hospitals, in Germany. In a qualitative approach, 34 qualitative interviews were conducted (between March and October 2017) using semi-structured interview guides. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analyzed thematically using framework method. Four groups of stakeholders in two hospitals offering ML-AC were interviewed: managers (n = 8), midwives conducting ML-AC (n = 10), pregnant women who attended ML-AC (n = 8), and physicians working in obstetrics (n = 8) at the hospitals. The interviewees identified key benefits of ML-AC on a personal and unit level, e.g., reduced obstetric interventions, easier admission processes. Furthermore, the participants defined key requirements that are needed for routinized and institutionalized ML-AC, such as allocating working time for ML-AC, and structural organization of ML-AC. All study participants saw a need to establish secure long-term funding. Additionally, the interviewed staff members stated that ML-AC topics need evaluating and adapting in the future. Implementing ML-AC in the hospital setting has led to manifold benefits. However, reimbursement through the health care system will be needed to sustain ML-AC. Hospitals implementing ML-AC will need to be aware that adaptations of the NES are necessary to accomplish routinization and institutionalization. After initial implementation, sustaining ML-AC will generally require on-going monitoring and evaluating of benefits, routinization/institutionalization and further development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
All evidence-based knowledge and improvement strategies for quality care must be implemented so patients can benefit from them. In Germany, national expert standards (NES) contribute to quality care in nursing and midwifery. The NES defines for several action levels a dedicated level of quality, which is operationalized by structure, process, and outcome (SPO) criteria. An NES to promote normal childbirth was developed and implemented in 2014. The first action level involves midwife-led antenatal consultation (ML-AC) being conducted in a structured way. Most implementation processes aim to accomplish sustainability, but implementation studies rarely use definitions or a theory of sustainability, even when assessing sustainability. This lack led to the assumption that intervention sustainability after implementation is still a largely unexplored domain. The aim of this study is to investigate the sustainability of midwife-led antenatal consultation (ML-AC) implemented at two hospitals, in Germany.
METHODS
METHODS
In a qualitative approach, 34 qualitative interviews were conducted (between March and October 2017) using semi-structured interview guides. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analyzed thematically using framework method. Four groups of stakeholders in two hospitals offering ML-AC were interviewed: managers (n = 8), midwives conducting ML-AC (n = 10), pregnant women who attended ML-AC (n = 8), and physicians working in obstetrics (n = 8) at the hospitals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The interviewees identified key benefits of ML-AC on a personal and unit level, e.g., reduced obstetric interventions, easier admission processes. Furthermore, the participants defined key requirements that are needed for routinized and institutionalized ML-AC, such as allocating working time for ML-AC, and structural organization of ML-AC. All study participants saw a need to establish secure long-term funding. Additionally, the interviewed staff members stated that ML-AC topics need evaluating and adapting in the future.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Implementing ML-AC in the hospital setting has led to manifold benefits. However, reimbursement through the health care system will be needed to sustain ML-AC. Hospitals implementing ML-AC will need to be aware that adaptations of the NES are necessary to accomplish routinization and institutionalization. After initial implementation, sustaining ML-AC will generally require on-going monitoring and evaluating of benefits, routinization/institutionalization and further development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34425804
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06863-w
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06863-w
pmc: PMC8381521
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
858Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec 03;15:535
pubmed: 26634343
Implement Sci. 2010 Oct 14;5:76
pubmed: 20946658
Midwifery. 2016 Nov;42:67-73
pubmed: 27769011
Implement Sci. 2017 Sep 2;12(1):110
pubmed: 28865479
Lancet. 2008 Nov 1;372(9649):1579-89
pubmed: 18984192
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:801614
pubmed: 24058914
Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 17;8:22
pubmed: 23414420
Health Educ Res. 1998 Mar;13(1):87-108
pubmed: 10178339
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 14;7:17
pubmed: 22417162
Am J Public Health. 2011 Nov;101(11):2059-67
pubmed: 21940916
Public Health Nurs. 2011 Jan-Feb;28(1):91-102
pubmed: 21198819
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2019 Apr;223(2):99-108
pubmed: 30759485
Lancet. 2016 Oct 29;388(10056):2176-2192
pubmed: 27642019
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun 28;20(1):588
pubmed: 32594912
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Jul 9;19(1):206
pubmed: 31286892
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007 Dec;33(12 Suppl):37-47
pubmed: 18277638
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 8;19(1):460
pubmed: 31286979
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 Mar-Apr;14(2):117-23
pubmed: 18287916
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
J Adv Nurs. 2015 Jul;71(7):1484-98
pubmed: 25708256
Clin Transl Sci. 2012 Feb;5(1):48-55
pubmed: 22376257
Implement Sci. 2016 Apr 21;11:55
pubmed: 27097827
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Implement Sci. 2008 Apr 22;3:21
pubmed: 18430200
Women Birth. 2020 Jul;33(4):343-351
pubmed: 31474386
Implement Sci. 2015 Dec 24;10:173
pubmed: 26701601
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
pubmed: 14568747
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007 Oct 26;7:26
pubmed: 17963491
Implement Sci. 2015 Jun 11;10:88
pubmed: 26062907
Lancet. 2014 Sep 20;384(9948):1129-45
pubmed: 24965816