Bick, Debra, Rycroft-Malone, Jo and Fontenla, Maria. (2009) A case study evaluation of implementation of a care pathway to support normal birth in one English birth centre: anticipated benefits and unintended consequences. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol.9 (Articl). ISSN 1471-2393

Preview

PDF WRAP_Fontenia_1471-2393-9-47.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (254Kb)

Abstract

Background: The policy drive for the UK National Health Service (NHS) has focused on the need for high quality services informed by evidence of best practice. The introduction of care pathways and protocols to standardise care and support implementation of evidence into practice has taken place across the NHS with limited evaluation of their impact. A multi-site case study evaluation was undertaken to assess the impact of use of care pathways and protocols on clinicians, service users and service delivery. One of the five sites was a midwifery-led Birth Centre, where an adapted version of the All Wales Clinical Pathway for Normal Birth had been implemented. Methods: The overarching framework was realistic evaluation. A case study design enabled the capture of data on use of the pathway in the clinical setting, use of multiple methods of data collection and opportunity to study and understand the experiences of clinicians and service users whose care was informed by the pathway. Women attending the Birth Centre were recruited at their 36 week antenatal visit. Episodes of care during labour were observed, following which the woman and the midwife who cared for her were interviewed about use of the pathway. Interviews were also held with other key stakeholders from the study site. Qualitative data were content analysed. Results: Observations were undertaken of four women during labour. Eighteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and women, including the women whose care was observed and the midwives who cared for them, senior midwifery managers and obstetricians. The implementation of the pathway resulted in a number of anticipated benefits, including increased midwifery confidence in skills to support normal birth and promotion of team working. There were also unintended consequences, including concerns about a lack of documentation of labour care and negative impact on working relationships with obstetric and other midwifery colleagues. Women were unaware their care was informed by a care pathway. Conclusion: Care pathways are complex interventions which generate a number of consequences for practice. Those considering introduction of pathways need to ensure all relevant stakeholders are engaged with this and develop robust evaluation strategies to accompany implementation.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RG Gynecology and obstetrics
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Health and Social Studies
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Natural childbirth -- Great Britain, Midwives -- Great Britain, Labor (Obstetrics) -- Great Britain, Delivery (Obstetrics) -- Great Britain, Medical care -- Evaluation
Journal or Publication Title:	BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	1471-2393
Date:	5 October 2009
Volume:	Vol.9
Number:	Articl
Identification Number:	10.1186/1471-2393-9-47
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain) (NIHR)
Grant number:	SDO/78/2004 (NIHR)
References:	1. Department of Health. The NHS Plan. A Plan for Investment. A Plan for Reform. 2000. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGui dance/DH_4002960 2. Department of Health. National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services 2004 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAn dGuidance/DH_4089101 3.Department of Health/Partnerships for Children, Families, Maternity. Maternity Matters: choice, access and continuity of care in a safe service 2007. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAn dGuidance/DH_073312 4. Rycroft-Malone, J. Morrell C. & Bick D. Protocol-based care: The research agenda. Nursing Standard 2004; 19(6), 33-36. 5. Hunter B, Segrott J. Re-mapping client journeys and professional identities: A review of the literature on clinical pathways. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2008 45(4):608-25 6. Manias E, Street A. Legitimation of Nurses’ Knowledge Though Policies and Protocols in Clinical Practice Journal of Advanced Nursing 2000. (32) 4, pp1467-75 7. Parker D, Lawton R. Judging the use of clinical protocols by fellow professionals. Social Science & Medicine 2000. 51:669-677 8. McDonald R, Waring J, Harrison S, Walshe K, Boaden R. Rules and guidelines in clinical practice: a qualitative study in operating theatres of doctors’ and nurses’ views. Quality & Safety in health Care 2005. 14: 290-294 9. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K. Protocol Based Care Evaluation Project. Final report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation 2008. SDO/78/2004 10. MacArthur C, Winter HR, Bick D, Fortune H, Lilford R, Henderson C et al. Effects of redesigned community postnatal care on women’s health 4 months after birth: a cluster randomised controlled trial, The Lancet 2002, 359: 378-385 11. MacArthur C, Winter HR, Bick D, Fortune H, Lilford R, Henderson C et al. An RCT of protocol-based midwifery-led care 2003. Health Technology Assessment Report No 37. 12. Segaar D, Bolman C, Willemsen M, De Vries H. Identifying determinants of protocol adoption by midwives: a comprehensive approach. Health Education Research. 2007 22(1):14-26. 13. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K. Protocol based care: Impact on roles and service delivery. Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice 2008 14 (5): 867 – 873 14. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Seers K, Bick D. Protocol–based care: the standardization of decision making? Journal of Clinical Nursing 2009. 18: 1490 – 1500 15. Pawson R. & Tilley N. Realistic evaluation, Sage: London 1997 16. Yin R.K. Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1993 17. Yin R.K. Case study research. Designs and methods. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage 1994 18. Fox S. All-Wales clinical pathway for normal labour: a way to reducing unnecessary interventions? RCM Midwives Journal 2004 7(5), 216-219. 19. Ferguson P. Change through consensus and commitment: All Wales clinical pathway for normal labour. The Practising Midwife 2003. 6 (3): 4 – 5. 20. Spradley J. Participant Observation, Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York 1980 21. Huberman AM, Miles MB. Data management and analysis methods. In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (Editors) Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1998. California: Sage, pp179-210 22. Hunter B. The All Wales Clinical Pathway for Normal Labour: What are the Experiences of Midwives, Doctors, Managers and Mothers? Final Project Report. Institute of Health Research, School of Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea; 2007. 23. Spiby H, Green JM, Hucknall C, Richardson Foster H, Andrews A. Labouring to better effect: studies of services for women in early labour (The OPAL study). Final Report to the NHS Service Delivery and Organisation of Care Programme 2006. (SDO/64/2003) 24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. Clinical Guideline 55 2007. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Healtj. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/IPCNICEGuidance.pdf 25. Bosk CL, Dixon-Woods M, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Reality check for checklists. The Lancet. 2009. 374: 444-445 26. Rycroft-Malone J, Bick D. Standardising care using integrated care pathways: if they seem like a solution, did we ask the right questions? Editorial. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare. 2009. 7: 59 – 60. 27. Mander R, Smith GD. Saving Mothers' Lives (formerly Why Mothers die): reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer 2003-2005. Midwifery 2008. 24(1):8-12. 28. King’s Fund. Safer Births: Everybody’s Business. An Independent Enquiry into the Safety of Maternity Services in England 2008. London. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/research/publications/safe_births.html 29. Healthcare Commission. Investigation into 10 maternal deaths at, or following delivery at Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, between April 2002 and April 2005. August 2007. Accessed online: http://www.cqc.org.uk/ 30. Hindley C, Thomson A. The rhetoric of informed choice: perspectives from midwives on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Health Expectations. 2005. 8(4):306-14. 31. Linton A, Peterson MR, Williams TV. Effects of Maternal Characteristics on Cesarean Delivery Rates among US Department of Defense Healthcare Beneficiaries, 1996 – 2002. Birth 2004; 31 (1): 3 - 11 32. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J et al. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2006. 113: 647 - 656 33. NHS Litigation Service. Submission to the Health Committee Inquiry into Patient Safety: The current effectiveness of the NHS Litigation Authority in ensuring patient safety 2008 (available from www.nhsla.com) 34. Hughes D, Deery R, Lovatt A. A critical ethnographic approach to facilitating cultural shift in midwifery. Midwifery 2002; 18: 43 - 52
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/2178

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item