What makes a successful home birth service: An examination of the influential elements by review of one service

Midwifery

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 713-721

  Brintworth, Kate ^a   Sandall, Jane ^b  

^a LSA London Southside   (United Kingdom)

^b Social Science and Women's Health ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Caseload midwifery; Home birth; Innovation; Service organisation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICE; HOME CARE; HOME DELIVERY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDWIFE; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; NURSING CARE; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HOME CARE SERVICES; HOME CHILDBIRTH; HUMANS; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; MIDWIFERY; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; NURSING CARE; ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN;

EID: 84892529691     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.016     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Benoit C., Wrede S., Bourgeault I., Sandall J., De Vries R., van Teijlingen E.R. Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems: midwifery as a touchstone. Sociology of Health & Illness 2005, 27(6):722. [accessed online 14/11/2006]. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00471.x〉.
2. BirthchoiceUK, 2010. Homebirth Rates For The London Region. [online accessed 15/10/10]. http://www.birthchoiceuk.com/Tables/TableHB_LON.htm.
3. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 2011 2011, 343:d7400. [accessed 25/11/11].
4. CEMACE-Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries, 2009. The London Project. Private Report Commissioned by Metro Hospital.
5. Home Births: The Report of the 1994 Confidential Enquiry by the National Birthday Trust Fund 1997, Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth. G. Chamberlain, A. Wraight, P. Crowley (Eds.).
6. Declercq E., MacDorman M.F., Menacker F., Stotland N. Characteristics of planned and unplanned home births in 19 states. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2010, 116(1):93-99.
7. Department of Health Changing Childbirth. Part 1. Report of the Expert Maternity Group 1993, HMSO, London.
8. Department of Health National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity 2004, Department of Health, London.
9. Department of Health Maternity Matters: Choice, Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service 2007, Department of Health, London.
10. Department of Health, 2010. Transparency in Outcomes-a framework for the NHS. 〈〉 [accessed 20/11/10]. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_117583.
11. Devries R., Benoit C., Van Teijlingen E.R., Wrede S. Birth by Design. Pregnancy, Maternity Care, and Midwifery in North America and Europe 2001, Routledge, London.
12. Donnison J. Midwives and Medical Men. A History of the Struggle for the Control of Childbirth 1988, Heinemann, London. 2nd edn.
13. Exton R. The entrepreneur: a new breed of health service leader. Journal of Health Organisation Management 2008, 22(3):208-222.
14. Finlay S., Sandall J. 'Someone's rooting for you': continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare. Social Science & Medicine 2009, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.029.
15. Fitzgerald L., Ferlie E., Wood M., Hawkins C. Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Human Relations 2002, 55(12):1429-1449.
16. Fitzgerald, L., Lilley, C., Ferlie, E., Addicott, R., McGivern, G., Buchanan, D., 2006. Report to the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D. Managing Change and Role Enactment in the Professionalised Organisation. [accessed 10/10/10]. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/projdetails.phpref=08-1201-021.
17. Floyd L. Community midwives' views and experience of homebirth. Midwifery 1995, 11:3-10.
18. Foss C., Ellefsen B. The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2002, 40(2):242-248.
19. Green J.M., Renfrew M.J., Curtis P. Continuity of carer: what matters to women A review of the evidence. Midwifery 2000, 16:186-196.
20. Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Macfarlane F, Bate P., Kyriakidou O. Diffusions of innovations in service organisations: systematic review & recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 2004, 82(4):581-629.
21. Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Macfarlane F., Bate P., Kyriakidou O., Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 2005, 61:417-430.
22. Grimshaw J.M., Thomas R.E., MacLennan G., et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technology Assessment Report 2004, 8(6):1-72.
23. Hatem M., Sandall J., Devane D., Soltani H., Gates S. Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrance Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, 4. Art no: CD:004667. 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub2.
24. Hammersley M., Atkinson P.A. Ethnography: Principles in Practice 1995, Tavistock, London. 2nd edn.
25. Health Care Commission-H.C.C Towards Better Births. A Review of Maternity Services in England 2008, Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, London.
26. Hingstman L., Boon H. Obstetric care in the Netherlands: regional differentiation in home delivery. Social Science & Medicine 1988, 26(1):71-78.
27. Hoddinot P., Simpson J.A., Pill R. General practice consultation rates for mothers and babies in the first year after birth according to place of birth. A descriptive study in one general practice. Primary Health Care Research and Development 2002, 3:212-225.
28. Hodnett E. Attaining and maintaining best practices in the use of caesarean sections, an analysis of Four Ontario Hospitals. Report of the Caesarean section Working Group of the Women's Health Council 2000, Ontario Women's Health Council.
29. Hollowell, J., Puddicombe, D., Rowe, R., et al., 2011. The Birthplace National Prospective Cohort Study: Perinatal and Maternal Outcomes by Planned Place of Birth. Birthplace in England Research Programme. Final Report Part 4. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. [accessed 25/11/11]. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/projdetails.phpref=08-1604-140.
30. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies 1995, Harper Collins, New York. 2nd edn.
31. Lavender T., Chapple J. An exploration of midwives' views of the current system of maternity care in England. Midwifery 2004, 20:324-334.
32. Leadbeater C., Cross S. Civic Entrepreneurship 1999, Demos, London.
33. Lee G. The concept of 'continuity'-what does it mean. Reflections on Midwifery 1997, Balliere Tindall, London. M.J. Kirkham, E.R. Perkins (Eds.).
34. Madi B.C., Crow R. A qualitative study of information about available options for childbirth venue and pregnant women's preference for a place of delivery. Midwifery 2003, 19:328-336.
35. Mackenzie Bryers H., van Teijlingen E. Risk, theory, and medical models: a critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery 2010, 26:488-496.
36. Malhotra Y. From information management to knowledge management. Knowledge Management for the Information Professional 2000, Information Today, Medford, NJ. T.K. Srikantaiah, M.E.D. Koenig (Eds.).
37. McCourt C. Supporting choice and control Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit. Social Science and Medicine 2006, 62:1307-1318.
38. McCourt, C., Rance, S., Rayment, J., Sandall, J., 2011. Birthplace Qualitative Organisational Case Studies: How Maternity Care Systems may Effect the Provision of Care in Different Birth Settings. Birthplace in England Research Programme. Final Report Part 6. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. [accessed 25/11/11]. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/projdetails.phpref=08-1604-140.
39. NCT National Childbirth Trust, 2009. An Investigation into Choice of Place of Birth. [accessed 19/05/10]. http://www.nctpregnancyandbabycare.com/about-us/what-we-do/policy/choiceofplaceofbirth.
40. NICE, 2007. Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and their Babies during Childbirth. [downloaded October 2007]. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance.
41. NICE, 2011. NICE Clinical Guideline Update and Quality Standard: Intrapartum Care Draft Scope for Consultation 18 October-8 November 2011. [downloaded 20 October 2011]. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG/WaveR/109/ScopeConsultation/DraftScope/pdf/English.
42. Nove A., Berrington A., Mathews Z. Home births in the UK, 1955-2006. Population Trends, Winter 2008, 133:20-27. Office for National Statistics.
43. Olsen O., Jewell D. Home versus hospital birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, (3). Art. no.: CD000352. 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.
44. Redshaw, M., Rowe, R., Schroeder, L., et al., 2011. Mapping Maternity Care: The Configuration of Maternity Care in England. Birthplace in England Research Programme. Final Report Part 3. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. [accessed 25/11/11]. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/projdetails.phpref=08-1604-140.
45. Sandall, J., Davies, J., Warwick, C., 2001. Evaluation of the Albany Practice. Final Report March 2001. King's College London. Available online at: [accessed 01/03/2007]. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nmvc/research/project/mwhrg/albany_final_rpt.pdf.
46. Sandall J., Declan D., Soltani H., Hatem M., Gates S. Improving quality and safety in maternity care: the contribution of midwife-led care. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 2010, 55(3):255-261.
47. Scott T., Mannion R., Davies H.T.O., Marshall M.N. Implementing culture change in health care: theory and practice. International Journal for Quality in Healthcare 2003, 15(2):111-118.
48. Spiby, H., Green, J., Renfrew, M., Crawshaw, S., Stewart, P., 2008. Report to the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D. Improving care at the primary/secondary interface: a trial of community-based support in early labour. The ELSA trial Managing Change and Role Enactment in the Professionalised Organisation.
49. Winstanley D., Sorabji D., Dawson S. When the pieces don't fit a stakeholder power matrix to analyse public sector restructuring. Public Money and Management 1995, 15(2):19-26.