4.4 Article

Workload of primary-care midwives

期刊

MIDWIFERY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 425-432

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2006.06.007

关键词

midwives; the Netherlands; primary care; workload

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: to assess the actual workload of primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. Background: In 2060, a strike and large demonstration before parliament convinced everyone of the shortage of midwives and their excessive workload. The government reacted by increasing the capacity of the midwifery schools and lowering the 'standard caseload' for a full-time working midwife. To assess whether this would lead to sufficient improvement of the situation, more insight was needed of the actual workload of midwives in primary care. Method: a 4-year prospective survey of the work of primary-care midwives, during 3 weeks each year, including all midwives working in a representative sample of midwifery practices. On average, 224 midwives participated each year. During 3 weeks in the summer and autumn, midwives kept a diary of their work, with an accurate timetable, covering 24 hours a day. They also filled out questionnaires about practice organisation, work schedules and experiences of workload. Findings: primary-care midwives worked an average of 29 hours a week, and about 74% of their time (22 hours a week) was spent on client-retated activities. On average, a midwife was on call during 53 hours a week, and 17 of the 29 hours of work took place during on-call-hours. This meant that an average midwife was involved in her work 65 hours a week. The time spent on direct client care increased by nearly 20%. In particular, the average time spent with a woman during tabour and birth increased by almost one-third. Conclusion: primary-care midwives spend an average of 29 hours per week working, and this has remained constant between 2001 and 2004. In client-related care, there has been a shift towards fewer clients per midwife but more time per client. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据