Plans are set for the Virtual International Day of the Midwife on May 5th. The program, which spans the 24-hour period, with speakers from the various continents, has now been finalised, and it looks to be a very interesting and diverse program: http://internationaldayofthemidwife.wikispaces.com/International+Day+of+the+Midwife+2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
MIPP submission to Senate Inquiry
Inquiry into the administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)
MIPP has made a joint submission with Australian Private Midwives Association (APMA). To access all the submissions received by the committee,
click here
The matters addressed in this submission are in response to our experiences during the recent transition from individual State and Territory-based regulation of the midwifery profession to the national regulation of the midwifery profession under AHPRA.
We draw to the attention of the Inquiry the following matters, which will be discussed in more detail in the body of this submission:
1. AHPRA’s administration of the registration process for Medicare benefits
.1 Midwives are required by AHPRA to provide a reference from hospital midwife manager or obstetrician when applying for notation as eligible for Medicare benefits. This is an unreasonable request for many privately practising midwives.
.2 ‘Prescribing’ course. Midwives who apply to AHPRA for notation as eligible for Medicare benefits are required to sign an undertaking to complete within 18 months of recognition as an eligible midwife, an accredited and approved program of study determined by the Board to develop midwives’ knowledge and skills in prescribing ...” There is at present no such course available for midwives.
.3 Some midwives have experienced unacceptable delays and a lack of fairness in processing applications for notation as eligible midwife.
.4 We draw to the attention of the Inquiry the implications for consumers/ private clients of midwives whose applications have been delayed without good reason.
.5 We assert that there is a strong potential for misunderstanding in the obstetric and hospital midwifery communities as to the meaning of collaboration. Legislation that privileges obstetricians, placing them in a supervisory role for midwives, must be repealed.
2. The administration by AHPRA of complaints against privately practising midwives
.1 A privately practising midwife’s registration had been suspended prior to the changeover to the new legislation. This midwife has been unable to work and earn a living, yet she has not yet been given an opportunity to present her case in person, or to have her suspension lifted.
.2 At least two midwives have recently had conditions (supervised hospital practice) placed on their registrations without any investigation into the complaint. This is as effective as a suspension, with the midwife losing her ability to earn a living while the conditions apply.
3. Professional Indemnity Insurance. AHPRA, through the Nursing and Midwifery Board (NMBA), is currently in the process of drafting requirements for insurance for midwives. We wish to draw this to the attention of the Inquiry, as midwives in private practice are the only professional group unable to purchase indemnity insurance to meet the requirements of the national legislation.
MIPP has made a joint submission with Australian Private Midwives Association (APMA). To access all the submissions received by the committee,
click here
The matters addressed in this submission are in response to our experiences during the recent transition from individual State and Territory-based regulation of the midwifery profession to the national regulation of the midwifery profession under AHPRA.
We draw to the attention of the Inquiry the following matters, which will be discussed in more detail in the body of this submission:
1. AHPRA’s administration of the registration process for Medicare benefits
.1 Midwives are required by AHPRA to provide a reference from hospital midwife manager or obstetrician when applying for notation as eligible for Medicare benefits. This is an unreasonable request for many privately practising midwives.
.2 ‘Prescribing’ course. Midwives who apply to AHPRA for notation as eligible for Medicare benefits are required to sign an undertaking to complete within 18 months of recognition as an eligible midwife, an accredited and approved program of study determined by the Board to develop midwives’ knowledge and skills in prescribing ...” There is at present no such course available for midwives.
.3 Some midwives have experienced unacceptable delays and a lack of fairness in processing applications for notation as eligible midwife.
.4 We draw to the attention of the Inquiry the implications for consumers/ private clients of midwives whose applications have been delayed without good reason.
.5 We assert that there is a strong potential for misunderstanding in the obstetric and hospital midwifery communities as to the meaning of collaboration. Legislation that privileges obstetricians, placing them in a supervisory role for midwives, must be repealed.
2. The administration by AHPRA of complaints against privately practising midwives
.1 A privately practising midwife’s registration had been suspended prior to the changeover to the new legislation. This midwife has been unable to work and earn a living, yet she has not yet been given an opportunity to present her case in person, or to have her suspension lifted.
.2 At least two midwives have recently had conditions (supervised hospital practice) placed on their registrations without any investigation into the complaint. This is as effective as a suspension, with the midwife losing her ability to earn a living while the conditions apply.
3. Professional Indemnity Insurance. AHPRA, through the Nursing and Midwifery Board (NMBA), is currently in the process of drafting requirements for insurance for midwives. We wish to draw this to the attention of the Inquiry, as midwives in private practice are the only professional group unable to purchase indemnity insurance to meet the requirements of the national legislation.
Friday, April 8, 2011
A flawed analysis
This week's leading story on Medscape OB/GYN and Women's Health [Medscape_OBGYN@mp.medscape.com]
Planned Home vs Hospital Birth: A Meta-Analysis Gone Wrong
Soon after the Wax et al article was published, the Midwives Alliance of North America published a similar critique.
Click here for the MANA press release, published by midwivesVictoria blog at the time.
Wax and colleagues were mirrored at about the same time by a similarly outrageous 2010 publication by Kennare et al in the Medical Journal of Australia.
Planned home and hospital births in South Australia, 1991-2006: differences in outcomes (MJA 2010;192:76-80)
The authors of the Australian study, which looked retrospectively at data, claimed that "planned homebirths had a perinatal mortality rate similar to that for planned hospital births, but a sevenfold higher risk of intrapartum death and a 27-fold higher risk of death from intrapartum asphyxia." Huge confidence intervals and small numbers were clear limitations, as well as decisions about inclusions and exclusions, yet the flawed conclusions have been circulated widely in a shrowd-waving "doctor knows best" campaign.
Planned Home vs Hospital Birth: A Meta-Analysis Gone Wrong
A Flawed Analysis
The highly charged debate over the safety of home birth was inflamed by the publication of a meta-analysis by Joseph R. Wax and coworkers,[1] which concluded that "less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate." The statistical analysis upon which this conclusion was based was deeply flawed, containing many numerical errors, improper inclusion and exclusion of studies, mischaracterization of cited works, and logical impossibilities. In addition, the software tool used for nearly two thirds of the meta-analysis calculations contains serious errors that can dramatically underestimate confidence intervals (CIs), and this resulted in at least 1 spuriously statistically significant result. Despite the publication of statements and commentaries querying the reliability of the findings,[2-6] this faulty study now forms the evidentiary basis for an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion,[7] meaning that its results are being presented to expectant parents as the state-of-the-art in home birth safety research.
In this article we describe in detail numerous mistakes in design, methodology, and reporting in the Wax meta-analysis that place clinicians and patients at risk for being misinformed.
Soon after the Wax et al article was published, the Midwives Alliance of North America published a similar critique.
Click here for the MANA press release, published by midwivesVictoria blog at the time.
Wax and colleagues were mirrored at about the same time by a similarly outrageous 2010 publication by Kennare et al in the Medical Journal of Australia.
Planned home and hospital births in South Australia, 1991-2006: differences in outcomes (MJA 2010;192:76-80)
The authors of the Australian study, which looked retrospectively at data, claimed that "planned homebirths had a perinatal mortality rate similar to that for planned hospital births, but a sevenfold higher risk of intrapartum death and a 27-fold higher risk of death from intrapartum asphyxia." Huge confidence intervals and small numbers were clear limitations, as well as decisions about inclusions and exclusions, yet the flawed conclusions have been circulated widely in a shrowd-waving "doctor knows best" campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)