Maternity Care Plans: A retrospective review of a process aiming to support women who decline standard care

Women and Birth

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 303-309

  Jenkinson, Bec ^a   Kruske, Sue ^a   Stapleton, Helen ^a   Beckmann, Michael ^a,b   Reynolds, Maree ^b   Kildea, Sue ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b MATER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Hospitals; Maternity; Policy; Refusal to treat; Treatment refusal

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREECH EXTRACTION; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTENT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTRAPARTUM CARE; MATERNAL ATTITUDE; MATERNAL CARE; MATERNITY CARE PLAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT REFUSAL; VAGINAL DELIVERY; YOUNG ADULT; AUSTRALIA; BIRTH; CLINICAL PATHWAY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LABOR COMPLICATION; OBSTETRIC DELIVERY; PATIENT ABANDONMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PREGNANCY; REPEAT CESAREAN SECTION; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; COHORT STUDIES; CRITICAL PATHWAYS; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PARTURITION; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PREGNANCY; REFUSAL TO TREAT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT REFUSAL; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84947496199     PISSN: 18715192     EISSN: 18781799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Department of Health Changing childbirth. Part 1: Report of the Expert Maternity Group 1993, HMSO, London, UK.
2. Department of Health and Ageing Improving Maternity Services in Australia: the report of the Maternity Services Review 2009, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
3. Brazier M. Do no harm - do patients have responsibilities too?. Camb Law J 2006, 65(2):397-422.
4. Frosch D.L., May S.G., Rendle K.A.S., Tietbohl C., Elwyn G. Authoritarian physicians and patients' fear of being labeled 'difficult' among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff 2012, 31(5):1030-1038.
5. Kruske S., Young K., Jenkinson B., Catchlove A. Maternity care providers' perceptions of women's autonomy and the law. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013, 13(1):84.
6. Hall W.A., Tomkinson J., Klein M.C. Canadian care providers' and pregnant women's approaches to managing birth: minimizing risk while maximizing integrity. Qual Health Res 2012, 22(5):575-586.
7. Charles S. The ethics of vaginal birth after cesarean. Hastings Cent Rep 2012, 42(4):24-27.
8. Iris O., Amalia L., Moshe M., Arnon W., Eyal S. Refusal of treatment in obstetrics: a maternal-fetal conflict. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2009, 22(7):612-615.
9. Ribak R., Harlev A., Ohel I., Sergienko R., Wiznitzer A., Sheiner E. Refusal of emergency caesarean delivery in cases of non-reassuring fetal heart rate is an independent risk factor for perinatal mortality. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011, 158(1):33-36.
10. Savulescu J. Future people, involuntary medical treatment in pregnancy and the duty of easy rescue. Utilitas 2007, 19(1):1-20.
11. Scott R. The pregnant woman and the good Samaritan: can a woman have a duty to undergo a caesarean section?. Oxf J Leg Stud 2000, 20(3):407-436.
12. Berkowitz R.L. Should refusal to undergo a Cesarean delivery be a criminal offense?. Obstet Gynecol 2004, 104(6):1220-1221.
13. Burrows J. The parturient woman: can there be room for more than one person with full and equal rights inside a single human skin?. J Adv Nurs 2001, 33(5):689-695.
14. Australian College of Midwives National midwifery guidelines for consultation and referral 2008, Australian College of Midwives Inc. 2nd ed.
15. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) The RANZCOG Code of Ethical Practice 2006, RANZCOG.
16. Australian Medical Association (AMA) Maternal decision making 2013, [accessed 29.07.14]. https://ama.com.au/position-statement/maternal-decision-making-2013.
17. FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health Ethical issues in obstetrics and gynaecology 2012, FIGO, London.
18. Scott R. Why I wrote... Rights, duties and the body: law and ethics of the maternal-fetal conflict. Clin Ethics 2010, 5(3):164-169.
19. Cuttini M., Habiba M., Nilstun T., Donfrancesco S., Garel M., Arnaud C., et al. Patient refusal of emergency cesarean delivery: a study of obstetricians' attitudes in Europe. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108(5):1121-1129.
20. Willis E. Introduction: taking stock of medical dominance. Health Sociol Rev 2006, 15(5):421-431.
21. Ransom S.B., Studdert D.M., Dombrowski M.P., Mello M.M., Brennan T.A. Reduced medicolegal risk by compliance with obstetric clinical pathways: a case-control study. Obstet Gynecol 2003, 101(4):751-755.
22. Parker M. False dichotomies: EBM, clinical freedom and the art of medicine. Med Humanit 2005, 31(1):23-30.
23. Scamell M. 'She can't come here!' Ethics and the case of birth centre admission policy in the UK. J Med Ethics 2014, 813-816.
24. van der Weijden T., Pieterse A.H., Koelewijn-van Loon M.S., Knaapen L., Légaré F., Boivin A., et al. How can clinical practice guidelines be adapted to facilitate shared decision making? A qualitative key-informant study. BMJ Qual Saf 2013, 22(10):855-863.
25. World Health Organisation (WHO) WHO statement: the prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth 2014, [accessed 15.12.14]. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/maternal_perinatal/statement-childbirth/en/.
26. Danerek M., Maršál K., Cuttini M., Lingman G., Nilstun T., Dykes A.-K. Attitudes of midwives in Sweden toward a woman's refusal of an emergency cesarean section or a cesarean section on request. Birth 2011, 38(1):71-79.
27. Chigbu C., Ezenyeaku C., Ezenkwele E. Obstetricians' opinions and attitudes toward maternal refusal of recommended cesarean delivery in Nigeria. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009, 105(3):248-251.
28. Samuels T.-A., Minkoff H., Feldman J., Awonuga A., Wilson T.E. Obstetricians, health attorneys, and court-ordered cesarean sections. Womens Health Issues 2007, 17(2):107-114.
29. Campo M. Trust, power and agency in childbirth: women's relationships with obstetricians. Outskirts 2010, 22.
30. Pinkerton J.V., Finnerty J.J. Resolving the clinical and ethical dilemma involved in fetal-maternal conflicts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 175(2):289-295.
31. Chervenak F.A., McCullough L.B. Clinical guides to preventing ethical conflicts between pregnant women and their physicians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990, 162(2):303-307.
32. Deshpande N.A., Oxford C.M. Management of pregnant patients who refuse medically indicated cesarean delivery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2012, 5(3/4):e144.
33. Mater Health Services Non-standard maternity care - consultation, informed choice and documentation. Policy No. MHS-WCH-W-OG-343 2010, 3. Mater Health Services.
34. Mater Health Services MHS annual review 2014, http://research.mater.org.au/News-and-Events/Publications.aspx.
35. Mater Health Services Mater Mothers' Hospitals Annual Clinical Report 2009 incorporating selected clinical outcomes for 2008 2009, Mater Health Services, Brisbane.
36. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) Categorisation of urgency for caesarean section 2006, RANZCOG.
37. Little M.O., Lyerly A.D., Mitchell L.M., Armstrong E.M., Harris L.H., Kukla R., et al. Mode of delivery: toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112(4):913.
38. Berwick D.M. What 'patient-centered' should mean: confessions of an extremist. Health Aff 2009, 28(4):w555-w565.
39. Thompson R., Miller Y. Birth control: to what extent do women report being informed and involved in decisions about pregnancy and birth procedures?. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14(1):62.
40. Kotaska A. In the literature: combating coercion: breech birth, parturient choice, and the evolution of evidence-based maternity care. Birth 2007, 34(2):176-180.
41. Mater Health Services Vaginal birth after Caesarean Section Policy No. MHS-WCH-W-069 2012, 10. Mater Health Services.
42. Mater Health Services Vaginal Breech Birth Policy No. MHS-WCH-W-OG-151 2012, 11. Mater Health Services.
43. Browner C.H., Press N. The production of authoritative knowledge in American prenatal care. Med Anthropol Q 1996, 10(2):141-156.
44. Margo C.E. Quality care and practice variation: the roles of practice guidelines and public profiles. Surv Ophthalmol 2004, 49(3):359-371.
45. White-Corey S. Birth plans: tickets to the OR?. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2013, 38(5):268-273.
46. Lothian J. Birth plans: the good, the bad, and the future. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2006, 35(2):295-303.
47. Kornelsen J., Grzybowski S. Cultures of risk and their influence on birth in rural British Columbia. BMC Fam Pract 2012, 13(1):108.
48. Ireland S., Wulili Narjic C., Belton S., Kildea S. Niyith Nniyith Watmam (the quiet story): exploring the experiences of Aboriginal women who give birth in their remote community. Midwifery 2011, 27(5):634-641.
49. Cherniak D., Fisher J. Explaining obstetric interventionism: technical skills, common conceptualisations, or collective countertransference?. Womens Stud Int Forum 2008, 31(4):270-277.
50. AHMAC National Maternity Services Plan 2011, Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
51. Wäckerle A., Blöchlinger-Wegmann B., Burkhardt T., Krähenmann F., Kurmanavicius J., Zimmermann R. Notes on a stick: use and acceptability of woman-held maternity notes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010, 153(2):156-159.
52. Katz Rothman B. Pregnancy, birth and risk: an introduction. Health Risk Soc 2014, 16(1):1-6.
53. Ebert L., Bellchambers H., Ferguson A., Browne J. Socially disadvantaged women's views of barriers to feeling safe to engage in decision-making in maternity care. Women Birth 2014, 27(2):132-137.
54. Harris L.H. Counselling women about choice. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 15(1):93-107.