The impact of funding models on the integration of Ontario midwives: a qualitative study.
Fees, medical
Health services
Integration
Maternal health services
Midwifery
Ontario
Qualitative research
Reimbursement mechanisms
Remuneration
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:
11 Oct 2023
11 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
30
03
2023
accepted:
03
10
2023
medline:
13
10
2023
pubmed:
12
10
2023
entrez:
11
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada's largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers. Using a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal 'integration' as circumstances in which midwives' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis. We interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs. Significant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada's largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal 'integration' as circumstances in which midwives' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Significant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37821937
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10104-7
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-10104-7
pmc: PMC10568882
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1087Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Midwifery. 2021 Dec;103:103146
pubmed: 34592575
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jun;279:113975
pubmed: 33964590
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jul;31(7):662-3
pubmed: 19761642
Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40
pubmed: 10940958
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Mar 12;20(1):197
pubmed: 32164698
Int J Integr Care. 2016 Oct 28;16(4):6
pubmed: 28316546
Qual Health Res. 2001 Jul;11(4):522-37
pubmed: 11521609
Midwifery. 2013 Jun;29(6):646-52
pubmed: 22863239
CJEM. 2007 Jul;9(4):275-81
pubmed: 17626692
Health Policy. 2021 Apr;125(4):442-449
pubmed: 33509635
CMAJ. 2020 Aug 31;192(35):E1011-E1017
pubmed: 32868274
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014 Jul;36(7):590-597
pubmed: 25184977
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Oct;24(10):608-10
pubmed: 26038586
Res Nurs Health. 1995 Apr;18(2):179-83
pubmed: 7899572
Health Aff (Millwood). 2008 May-Jun;27(3):759-69
pubmed: 18474969
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2005 Nov-Dec;32(6):413-20
pubmed: 16301909
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;16(1):238-45
pubmed: 20367842
Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84
pubmed: 20014004
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007 Nov;29(11):880-886
pubmed: 17977491
Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):573-6
pubmed: 25384822
Midwifery. 2018 Nov;66:88-96
pubmed: 30165272
Healthc Policy. 2017 Feb;12(3):12-18
pubmed: 28277201