A story of scrutiny and fear: Australian midwives' experiences of an external review of obstetric services, being involved with litigation and the impact on clinical practice

Midwifery

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 268-285

  Hood, Laraine ^a   Fenwick, Jennifer ^a,b   Butt, Janice ^a,b  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Fear; Legal proceedings; Litegation; Midwifery; Practice; Scrunity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; EDUCATION; EXPERT WITNESS; FEAR; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL ERROR; MIDDLE AGED; NURSE MIDWIFE; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; OBSTETRICS; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; AUSTRALIA; CLINICAL AUDIT; COMMUNICATION; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEAR; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALPRACTICE; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; MEDICAL ERRORS; MIDDLE AGED; NURSE MIDWIVES; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; OBSTETRICS; ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 77955549617     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Amu O., Rajendran S., Bolaji I.I. Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request?. British Medical Journal 1998, 317:463-465.
2. Aslam M.F., Gilmour K.G., Fawdry R.D.S. Who wants a caesarean section? A study of women's personal experience of vaginal and caesarean delivery. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2003, 23:364-366.
3. Atkinson R., Flint J. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Social Research Update 2001, University of Surrey, Department of Sociology, Guildford. N. Gilbert (Ed.).
4. Ball L., Curtis P., Kirkham M. Why do Midwives Leave? 2002, Women's Informed Childbearing and Health Research Group, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
5. Burns N., Grove S. Understanding Nursing Research 2003, WB Saunders, Sydney. third edn.
6. Charles S.C., Wilbert J.R., Franke K.J. Sued and nonsued physicans' self-reported reactions to malpractice litigation. American Journal of Psychology 1985, 142:437-440.
7. Child, A., Glover, P., 2000. Review of Obstetric and Gynaecological Services-King Edward Hospital for Women-Perth, Western Australia. Confidential Report. Perth.
8. Couch C.E., Thiebaud S. Who supports physicians in malpractice cases?. Physician Executive 2002, 28:30-33.
9. Douglas N., Robinson N., Fahy K. Inquiry into Obstetric and Gynaecological Services at King Edward Memorial Hospital 1990-2000 2001, Government of Western Australia, State Law Publishers, Perth.
10. Ellison L. The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness 2001, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
11. Faunce T.A., Bolsin N.C. Three Australian whistle blowing sagas: lessons for internal and external regulation. Medical Journal of Australia 2004, 181:44-47.
12. Fereday J., Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5:1-10.
13. Fossey E., Harvey C., McDermott F., Davidson L. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2002, 36:717-732.
14. Health Care Commission, 2006. Investigation into 10 Maternal Deaths at, or Following Delivery at, Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, between 2002 and April 2005. Commission for Health Care, Audit and Inspection, London.
15. Healy, W.J., 2007. Fear and Loathing on the Witness Stand. Decision Points Litigation Library. (last accessed 14 January 2007). http://www.decisionquest.com.
16. Henderson R.F., North N., Patterson G. Investigations of complaints and quality of health care. Journal of Health and Medicine 2005, 12:366-372.
17. Hunter B. Conflicting ideologies as a source of emotion work in midwifery. Midwifery 2004, 20:261-272.
18. Hunter B. Emotion work and boundary maintenance in hospital-based midwifery. Midwifery 2005, 21:254-266.
19. Jenkins G., Merz J.F., Sankar P. A qualitative study of women's views on medical confidentiality. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005, 31:499-504.
20. Johanson R., Newburn M., Macfarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far?. British Medical Journal 2002, 324:892-895.
21. Jones C. The utilitarian argument for medical confidentiality: a pilot study of patients' views. Journal of Medical Ethics 2003, 29:348-352.
22. Kirkham M. The culture of midwifery in the National Health Service in England. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999, 30:732-739.
23. Kirkham M., Stapleton H. Midwives support needs as childbirth changes. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2000, 32:465-472.
24. MacLennan A.H., Spencer M.K. Projections of Australian obstetricians ceasing practice and the reasons. Medical Journal of Australia 2002, 176:425-428.
25. McFarlin B.L. Elective caesarean birth: Issues and ethics of an informed decision. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 2004, 49:421-429.
26. McVicar A. Workplace stress in nursing: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2003, 44:633-642.
27. Minichiello V., Aroni R., Timewell E., et al. In-depth Interviewing 1995, Addison-Wesley, Longman Australia Pty Limited, Melbourne. second edn.
28. Molloy D. Caesarean section: the end point in reproductive emancipation for women?. Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2004, 6:187-188.
29. Morse J.M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Olsen K., Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2002, 1:1-19.
30. National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007. Conduct in Human Research. NHMRC Publications, Canberra. (last accessed 28 November 2007). http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/e72.pdf.
31. Reime B., Klein M.C., Kelly A., et al. Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004, 111:1388-1393.
32. Riding A. The crown court witness service: little help in the witness box. The Howard Journal 1999, 38:411-420.
33. Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2004, 53:304-310.
34. In Place of Fear: Recognising and Confronting the Problem of Bullying in Midwifery. Debating Midwifery Services Series 1996, Royal College of Midwives, RCM, London.
35. Singh T., Justin C.W., Haloob R.K. An audit on trends of vaginal delivery after one previous caesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2004, 24:135-138.
36. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research 1998, Sage Publishers, Newbury Park, CA. second edn.
37. Symon A. Involvement in litigation: emotional responses. British Journal of Midwifery 1998, 6:439-442.
38. Symon A. Litigation: the Views of Midwives and Obstetricians 1998, Hochland & Hochland Ltd., Hale, Cheshire.
39. Symon A. Litigation and changes in professional behaviour: a qualitative appraisal. Midwifery 2000, 16:15-21.
40. Tito F. Review of Professional Indemnity Arrangements for Health Care Professionals: Final Report 1996, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
41. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. The Lancet 2000, 356:1677-1680.
42. Wagner, M., 2000b. Natural Birthing Options: Technology in Birth-First do no Harm. (last accessed 10 May 2005). http://www.mercola.com/2000.
43. Walshe K., Shortell S.M. When things go wrong: how health care organizations deal with major failures. Health Affairs 2004, 23:103-111.
44. Wilson L.L., Fulton M. Risk management: how doctors, hospitals and MDOs can limit the costs of malpractice litigation. Medical Journal of Australia 2000, 172:77-80.