MiPP review and restructure

The current membership of Midwives in Private Practice (MiPP) is 31 midwives, whose home addresses are predominantly across the Melbourne metropolitan area, and a few in rural Victoria.  MiPP is recognised within Victoria as a professional stakeholder, representing privately practising midwives.


MiPP has, since its inception in the late 1980s, functioned as a collective of privately practising midwives who provide primary maternity care in our communities.

Midwives who practise within caseload or group practice models of care are not able to predict their availability for meetings or professional development or even family birthdays!  The 'needs' of mothers and babies in our care, particularly around the time of labour and birth, take precedence in our lives.  Despite this obvious restriction, MiPP members have

• attended MiPP meetings, usually bi-monthly, 
• prepared submissions to relevant reviews by government, statutory and professional bodies, and 
• provided occasional comment to the media on issues that concern our members. 

Decision-making is by consensus, and communication between meetings is by email.
Since the mid-1990s, MiPP has been a Participating Organisation in Maternity Coalition (MC). Recently, the MC management committee announced a review of its Constitution, in which MC intends to delete the category of ‘Participating Organsiation’ from its structure, and change its name to 'Maternity Choices Australia'. Under the new Constitution, MiPP would be able to become a Branch of MC.    This constitutional review has prompted MiPP to reconsider its organisational structure.

Another significant proposed change to the Constitution is in the Statement of Purposes:
change from:
“... a national (Australian) umbrella organisation made up of individuals and groups who share a commitment to improving the care of women in pregnancy ...” 
to:
“... a national (Australian) consumer advocacy organisation made up of individuals and groups who share a commitment to improving the care of women in pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period.”

The options that MiPP has at this time are:
1. Continue our organisational relationship with MC. Members are welcome to vote on changes to the Constitution.
2. Leave MC and set up an independent association
3. Leave MC and establish a new organisational relationship under another body
4. Other?




The following is a summary of responses to other questions in the survey:

The midwives 

• Four of the 14 respondents have been members of MiPP for more than 11 years; three for 6-10 years; and seven for less than 5 years. 
• These midwives report having attended 182 planned homebirths, as the primary carer (‘first midwife’) in the year 2013. 
• These midwives report that in the year 2013, they attended 77 births in hospital after transfer of care from planned homebirth, and 73 planned hospital births. 
• Additional midwifery services, apart from the primary caseload (for planned homebirth) include antenatal and postnatal consultations, lactation/breastfeeding consultations, counselling, and maternal and child health visits. 
• Only two of those midwives who completed the survey are not eligible/endorsed, or working towards eligibility or endorsement to prescribe 

Comments 

Members value MiPP for mutual support, sharing, networking and professional contact with other privately practising midwives.

Since the federal government’s maternity reforms implemented in 2010, there have been significant changes in the way midwives are able to work in private practice, enabling Medicare rebates for clients, and as midwife prescribers.  Victorian midwives do not yet have collaborative agreements with public hospitals, one of the key promises in the reform package.

Your comments are welcome.

Homebirth backup arrangements

Melbourne's MIPPs were invited to meet with midwifery management at the Women's Hospital today, to hear about changes that will be implemented to the hospital's homebirth backup arrangements from 1 January 2013.

The Women's has, for many years, provided a 'booking' process by which midwives have made a backup arrangement with the hospital for women planning homebirth.  This arrangement will be ceased from 1 January.  Women for whom midwives are providing private care will be seen in the Emergency department, and admitted without having previously made a booking.

The hospital has reached this position after reviewing its processes.  The 'booking' was of a clerical nature only - the hospital has had no professional clinical review of the paperwork, including results of blood test and other investigations, until or if the woman has actually been admitted. 

The Women's is a busy, complex place: there were more than 7,300 births in the past 12 months.  The number of women who present without having had prior care from the hospital antenatal services is small.


How does this change impact on private midwifery care in the community?  

• A woman whose midwife refers her to the Women's is able to expect appropriate maternity care.  
• The midwife who is caring for the woman privately in the community is able to phone the hospital Emergency department, and provide verbal and written handover at the initial triage, and after admission.  Sometimes midwives who phone the hospital have reported difficulty, when the phone is not picked up within what seems a reasonable period of time.  The advice is always to put the woman's and baby's needs first, and to present at the hospital without calling if needed.

How does this change impact on collaboration between private midwives and public hospitals?

• It doesn't.
• The hospital is not under any obligation to accept collaborative arrangements with midwives, even though, under the federal government's Medicare reforms, there is a legislative/ bureaucratic expectation that midwives who provide Medicare rebates for women will establish collaborative arrangements with hospitals [Click here].

What does the National Health law require in terms of collaboration between a midwife and a hospital?

• The National Health law appears to envisage hospital births: a setting for which no midwife in Victoria, or in most of the nation, is able to have clinical privileges.  The issue of hospital backup for homebirth is not specifically addressed.  Rather the law requires arrangements that cover consultation, referral and transfer of care: the very process that backup arrangements cover.
• The National Health (Collaborative arrangements for Midwives) Determination 2010 states:

...

Part 2                 Collaborative arrangements

5              Collaborative arrangements — general

         (1)   For the definition of authorised midwife in subsection 84 (1) of the Act, each of the following is a kind of collaborative arrangement for an eligible midwife:

                (a)    the midwife is employed or engaged by 1 or more obstetric specified medical practitioners, or by an entity that employs or engages 1 or more obstetric specified medical practitioners;

               (b)    a patient is referred, in writing, to the midwife for midwifery treatment by a specified medical practitioner;

                (c)    an agreement mentioned in section 6 for the midwife;

               (d)    an arrangement mentioned in section 7 for the midwife.

         (2)   For subsection (1), the arrangement must provide for:

                (a)    consultation between the midwife and an obstetric specified medical practitioner; and

               (b)    referral of a patient to a specified medical practitioner; and

                (c)    transfer of a patient’s care to an obstetric specified medical practitioner.

         (3)   A collaborative arrangement, other than an arrangement mentioned in section 7, may apply to more than 1 patient.

         (4)   However, an acknowledgement mentioned in paragraph 7 (1) (c) may apply for more than 1 patient.

6              Agreement between eligible midwife and 1 or more specified medical practitioners

         (1)   An agreement may be made between:

                (a)    an eligible midwife; and

               (b)    1 or more specified medical practitioners.

         (2)   The agreement must be in writing and signed by the eligible midwife and the other parties mentioned in paragraph (1) (b).

...

In practice, a woman who books for homebirth with a Medicare-authorised midwife, is advised by her midwife on steps they need to take in order to fulfill the requirements collaborative arrangements.  For example, a referral to the midwife, signed by an specified medical practitioner (defined in section 4) for provision of antenatal and postnatal midwifery services, covers the part of the care that attracts Medicare rebate.  The arrangement includes hospital backup, should consultation, referral or transfer of care be indicated. 

There is a big black hole in the National Health law as far as birth at home is concerned, and the hospitals are understandably going about the job of tightening up their processes. 

Enough from me for today.   Your comments are very welcome.

Colalboration gone wrong!

The Australian Government’s $120.5 million Budget package Providing More Choice in Maternity Care – Access to Medicare and PBS for Midwives, promised that Australian women would have

“more choice in maternity care whilst maintaining our strong record of safe, high quality maternity services.” 

The National Maternity Services Plan (the Plan), endorsed by the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference in November 2010, provided governments with a strategic national framework to guide policy and program development.  The plan declares that primary maternity services will be  

“woman centred, reflecting the needs of each woman within a safe and sustainable quality system."

Year one of the Plan committed jurisdictions to developing 

“consistent approaches to the provision of clinical privileges within public maternity services, to enable admitting and practice rights for eligible midwives and medical practitioners.”

How is implementation of the Plan progressing?

Midwives report little action or hope of conclusion, on matters to do with provision of clinical privileges for Medicare-eligible midwives within public maternity services, except in Queensland.  Anecdotally we are aware of instances of increasing resistance within some public hospitals to the implementation of programs of clinical privileging for private midwives.


Earlier this week I received an early morning call from a distressed colleague.  Having worked with a woman who was planning homebirth for some hours, this midwife arranged to transfer the woman's care to a major public maternity hospital in Melbourne, where the woman had made a back-up booking.

The midwife, who believes she has had a good relationship with the hospital for many years, was distressed that the doctor who admitted her client refused to accept any verbal hand-over, and rudely walked away when the midwife attempted to carry out a professional conversation with him.

It would appear that efforts are being made within public maternity hospitals to derail any plans to enable admitting and practice rights for eligible midwives.

Within the obstetric community there is a strongly held position that a doctor or midwife who is willing to assist women in 'bad choices' is seen as encouraging 'bad choices'.  Women who have attempted to make arrangements with hospitals to facilitate normal birth in situations of acknowledged complexity, such as twins, breech babies, or even birth after a previous caesarean, have been given no choice.  "If you come here, this is what will happen!"  This is an often repeated scenario in both public and private hospitals.  These women have often sought private midwives to attend them in the relative 'safety' of their own homes.


This post is just skimming the surface of a complex issue.

Collaboration with medical and nursing colleagues, within hospital systems, is a basic expectation in all midwifery. 

Midwives are required, by regulation and by definition, to collaborate. 

“... This care includes preventative measures, the promotion of normal birth, the detection of complications in mother and child, the accessing of medical care or other appropriate assistance (emphasis added) and the carrying out of emergency measures.   ” 

(From ICM Definition of the Midwife, 2011)



Midwives also have an expectation of ethical professional behaviour towards those in our care.  The current Code of Ethics for Midwives lists 'values' - which in themselves describe the standard to which we aspire.  There is no place for bullying and domineering behaviours in midwifery.

1. Midwives value quality midwifery care for each woman and her infant(s).
2. Midwives value respect and kindness for self and others.
3. Midwives value the diversity of people.
4. Midwives value access to quality midwifery care for each woman and her infant(s).
5. Midwives value informed decision making.
6. Midwives value a culture of safety in midwifery care.
7. Midwives value ethical management of information.
8. Midwives value a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable environment promoting health and wellbeing.

 (From Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia)

Midwives need a system that recognises us and treats us fairly.

We call on midwives to continue to stand in partnership with women, demanding equity and fairness in all maternity services provided by our governments - federal and state. Collaboration requires both parties to participate, the hospital and/or doctor, as well as the midwife.  There is no such thing as one-way collaboration.  Midwives are committed to the wellbeing and safety of mothers and babies in our care, and it is our duty to demand that the health care systems support us in achieving this goal.

Mandatory reporting

There is a great deal of discussion and some dismay in the world of private midwifery, since we learned that a 'mandatory reporting' notification was made of a midwife who was deemed to be practising without insurance.

We understand that this midwife was in a public hospital with a woman who had planned homebirth. After transfer of care to the hospital, the midwife continued in a supportive role with the woman: the usual practice in Australia when women transfer from planned home birth to hospital care.