Search

This paper uses a discourse-rhetorical approach to analyze how Ontario midwives and their clients interactionally accomplish the healthcare communicative process of "informed choice." Working with four excerpts from recorded visits between Ontario midwives and women, the analysis focuses on the discursive rendering during informed choice conversations of two contrasting kinds of evidence - professional standards and story-telling - related to potential interventions during labour. We draw on the concepts of discursive hybridity (Sarangi and Roberts 1999) and recontextualization (Linell 1998; Sarangi 1998) to trace the complex and creative ways in which the conversational participants reconstruct the meanings of these evidentiary sources to address their particular care contexts. This analysis shows how, though very different in their forms, both modes of evidence function as hybrid and flexible discursive resources that perform both instrumental and social-relational healthcare work., (Copyright © 2013 Longwoods Publishing.)

Background: Nearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada's largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers. Methods: Using a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal 'integration' as circumstances in which midwives' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs. Conclusions: Significant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Approaches to screening for GDM continue to evolve, introducing potential variability of care. This study explored the impact of these variations on GDM counselling and screening from the perspectives of pregnant individuals. Methods: Following a Corbin and Strauss approach to qualitative, grounded theory we recruited 28 individuals from three cities in Ontario, Canada who had a singleton pregnancy under the care of either a midwife, family physician or obstetrician. Convenience and purposive sampling techniques were used. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim between March and December 2020. Transcripts were analysed inductively resulting in codes, categories and themes. Results: Three themes were derived from the data about GDM screening and counselling: 'informing oneself', 'deciding' and 'screening'. All participants, regardless of geographical region, or antenatal care provider, moved through these three steps during the GDM counselling and screening process. Differences in counselling approaches between pregnancy care providers were noted throughout the 'informing' and 'deciding' stages of care. Factors influencing these differences included communication, healthcare autonomy and patient motivation to engage with health services. No differences were noted within care provider groups across the three geographic regions. Participant experiences of GDM screening were influenced by logistical challenges and personal preferences towards testing. Conclusion: Informing oneself about GDM may be a crucial step for facilitating decision‐making and screening uptake, with an emphasis on information provision to facilitate patient autonomy and motivation. Patient or Public Contribution: Participants of our study included patients and service users. Participants were actively involved in the study design due to the qualitative, patient‐centred nature of the research methods employed. Analysis of results was structured according to the emergent themes of the data which were grounded in patient perspectives and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Bulletin of Medical History is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Despite the significant variability in the role and integration of midwifery across provincial and territorial health systems, there has been limited scholarly inquiry into whether, how and under what conditions midwifery has been assigned roles and integrated into Canada's health systems.Methods: We use Yin's (2014) embedded single-case study design, which allows for an in-depth exploration to qualitatively assess how, since the regulation of midwives in 1994, the Ontario health system has assigned roles to and integrated midwives as a service delivery option. Kingdon's agenda setting and 3i + E theoretical frameworks are used to analyze two recent key policy directions (decision to fund freestanding midwifery-led birth centres and the Patients First primary care reform) that presented opportunities for the integration of midwives into the health system. Data were collected from key informant interviews and documents.Results: Nineteen key informant interviews were conducted, and 50 documents were reviewed in addition to field notes taken during the interviews. Our findings suggest that while midwifery was created as a self-regulated profession in 1994, health-system transformation initiatives have restricted the profession's integration into Ontario's health system. The policy legacies of how past decisions influence the decisions possible today have the most explanatory power to understand why midwives have had limited integration into interprofessional maternity care. The most important policy legacies to emerge from the analyses were related to payment mechanisms. In the medical model, payment mechanisms privilege physician-provided and hospital-based services, while payment mechanisms in the midwifery model have imposed unintended restrictions on the profession's ability to practice in interprofessional environments.Conclusions: This is the first study to explain why midwives have not been fully integrated into the Ontario health system, as well as the limitations placed on their roles and scope of practice. The study also builds a theoretical understanding of the integration process of healthcare professions within health systems and how policy legacies shape service delivery options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]