Recreating the Village: The Patient Experience with Group Perinatal Care

A. Biringer, Natalie Morson, S. Walji, T. Makuwaza, Susannah C. Merritt, Natalie Tregaskiss, Milena Forte
{"title":"Recreating the Village: The Patient Experience with Group Perinatal Care","authors":"A. Biringer, Natalie Morson, S. Walji, T. Makuwaza, Susannah C. Merritt, Natalie Tregaskiss, Milena Forte","doi":"10.1370/afm.21.s1.3473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Group perinatal care (GPC) offers a “one stop” approach to clinical care and perinatal education. It has been shown to be associated with high levels of patient satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes. Co-facilitation of GPC (including postpartum care) by midwives (MW) and family medicine residents (FMR) in a family health team (FHT) has not been previously assessed. Objective: To explore the experience of participants in the academic FHT model of GPC. Study design: Descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with participants who had completed GPC. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted by team members. Setting: Academic family health team (FHT), Toronto, Canada. Participants: 18 patients who had participated in GPC at the Mount Sinai Academic FHT who delivered between November 7, 2016 and October 26, 2018. Findings: The major theme was the value of the relationships established and the positive consequences of those relationships. Participants describe relationships with health care providers that were built on comprehensiveness, continuity and credibility. Relationships with other GPC participants were facilitated but also developed organically, continued outside the structure of GPC and persisted well beyond perinatal care. The consequences of these relationships included creating support networks, shared knowledge and experience with their partners, improved self-confidence during the pregnancy and labour journey, decreased anxiety and extended commitment to breastfeeding. Conclusions: Participants in GPC at the Mount Sinai Academic FHT, in essence, became part of a social network for their labour, birth and early parenting journey by developing relationships with their healthcare providers, partners and fellow participants through the group process. This resulted in informational and emotional support which positively affected their experience. In","PeriodicalId":20389,"journal":{"name":"Pregnancy and Women’s Health Care International Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pregnancy and Women’s Health Care International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.21.s1.3473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Group perinatal care (GPC) offers a “one stop” approach to clinical care and perinatal education. It has been shown to be associated with high levels of patient satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes. Co-facilitation of GPC (including postpartum care) by midwives (MW) and family medicine residents (FMR) in a family health team (FHT) has not been previously assessed. Objective: To explore the experience of participants in the academic FHT model of GPC. Study design: Descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with participants who had completed GPC. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted by team members. Setting: Academic family health team (FHT), Toronto, Canada. Participants: 18 patients who had participated in GPC at the Mount Sinai Academic FHT who delivered between November 7, 2016 and October 26, 2018. Findings: The major theme was the value of the relationships established and the positive consequences of those relationships. Participants describe relationships with health care providers that were built on comprehensiveness, continuity and credibility. Relationships with other GPC participants were facilitated but also developed organically, continued outside the structure of GPC and persisted well beyond perinatal care. The consequences of these relationships included creating support networks, shared knowledge and experience with their partners, improved self-confidence during the pregnancy and labour journey, decreased anxiety and extended commitment to breastfeeding. Conclusions: Participants in GPC at the Mount Sinai Academic FHT, in essence, became part of a social network for their labour, birth and early parenting journey by developing relationships with their healthcare providers, partners and fellow participants through the group process. This resulted in informational and emotional support which positively affected their experience. In
再造村庄:集体围产期护理的患者体验
背景:团体围产期护理(GPC)提供了一个“一站式”的方法,临床护理和围产期教育。它已被证明与高水平的患者满意度和改善的临床结果有关。助产士(MW)和家庭医学住院医师(FMR)在家庭保健小组(FHT)中共同促进GPC(包括产后护理)的工作以前没有进行过评估。目的:探讨GPC学术FHT模型的参与者体验。研究设计:采用半结构化电话访谈对完成GPC的参与者进行描述性定性研究。采访录音并逐字抄写。小组成员进行专题分析。工作地点:加拿大多伦多学术家庭健康小组。参与者:在2016年11月7日至2018年10月26日期间在西奈山学术FHT参加GPC的18例患者。研究发现:主要的主题是建立关系的价值和这些关系的积极后果。参与者描述了与保健提供者建立在全面性、连续性和可信性基础上的关系。与其他GPC参与者的关系得到促进,但也有机地发展,继续在GPC结构之外,并持续远远超出围产期护理。这些关系的结果包括建立支持网络,与伴侣分享知识和经验,在怀孕和分娩过程中提高自信,减少焦虑,延长对母乳喂养的承诺。结论:在西奈山学术FHT的GPC参与者,本质上,通过与他们的医疗保健提供者、合作伙伴和其他参与者在小组过程中发展关系,成为他们分娩、分娩和早期育儿旅程的社会网络的一部分。这导致了信息和情感上的支持,对他们的经历产生了积极的影响。在
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信