Comparison of care of private and ambulatory midwives

Czech version

Authors: L. Sikorová; K. Stichenwirthová
Authors‘ workplace: Lékařská fakulta, Ostrava ; Děkan: doc. MUDr. Arnošt Martínek, CSc. ; Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě
Published in: Prakt. Lék. 2012; 92(6): 353-356
Category: Of different specialties

Overview

The paper presents the results of an investigation that compares care provided by a self-employed midwife who is active in the community or in a non-state medical facility, with the care by a midwife working in the gynaecological department under the guidance of a gynaecologist. The sample consisted of clients of private and outpatient clinic midwives in Plzen and Ostrava (n=191). A modified EUROPEP questionnaire was used to chart the level of care. This included five domains – the relationship between midwife and client, the quality care provided by the midwife, provision of information, organization of services and availability of care. To compare satisfaction with the care provided depending on the facilities and city, a non-parametric Wilcoxon test for two selections was used. A chi² test and Fisher exact test were used to analyse the correlation of the descriptive characters to the city and facility. Care provided by midwives in Plzen was rated as superior in all domains of the EUROPEP questionnaire. The relationship between midwife and client was evaluated to be better in the private sector (p = 0.0054), the quality of provided care achieved higher average values for private midwives (p = 0.0007), clients were more satisfied with the information provided by private midwives (p = 0.0009), the organization of services between the sectors was not different (p = 0.0644) similarly as the availability of care (p = 0.0291).

Key words:
midwife, private sector, ambulance, satisfaction

Sources

1. Andraščíková, Š. Komunitní ošetřovatelství pro porodní asistentky. 1. vyd. Brno: NCO NZO, 2010, s. 14. ISBN 978-80-7013-500-6.

2. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Allow midwives to participate as full members of the healthcare team [on line]. Evidence Boost. 2006 [cit. 2012-04-03]. Dostupný na WWW:<http:// www.alberta-midwives.com/EvidenceBoost_ June_E.pdf>.

3. Fraser, D. Women’s perceptions of midwifery care: a longitudinal study to shape curriculum development. Birth, 1999, 26(2), p. 99-107.

4. International Confederation of Midwives. Definition of the Midife [on line]. 2005 [cit. 2012-04-03]. Dostupný na WWW: <http://www.internationalmidwives.org/Portals/5/Documentation/ICM%20Definition%20of%20the%20Midwife%202005.pdf>.

5. Janssen, B. M., Wiegers, T. A. Strengths and weaknesses of midwifery care from the perspective of women. Evidence Based Midwifery, 2006, 4(2), p. 53-59. Dostupný též na WWW: <http:// nvl002.nivel.nl/postprint/PPpp2276.pdf>. [cit. 2012-04-15].

6. Morgan, M., Fenwick, N., McKenzie, C., Wolfe, C. D. Quality of midwifery led care: assessing the eVects of diVerent models of continuity for women’s satisfaction. Qual Health Care, 1998, 7(2), p. 77-82. Dostupný také z WWW: <http://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483588/pdf/v007p00077.pdf>. [cit. 2012-03-25].

7. Seifert, B., Beneš V. a kol. Všeobecné praktické lékařství. 1. vyd. Praha: Galén, Karolinum, 2005. 292 s. ISBN 80-7262-369-9.

8. Unie porodních asistentek. Kdo je porodní asistentka? [on line]. 2010. [cit. 2012-04-12]. Dostupný na WWW: <http://www.unipa.cz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=63>.