A concurrent mixed‐method study exploring the experiences of interprofessional collaboration among Canadian midwives and obstetricians

• Published in: Journal of advanced nursing 2024-10, Vol.80 (10), p.4323-4332
• Main Authors: El Hussein, Mohamed Toufic, Jacoby, Susan, Mclarnon, Matthew, Favell, Daniel, Dosani, Aliyah
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; advanced practice; Attitude of Health Personnel; Canada; Clinical outcomes; Collaboration; continuity; Cooperative Behavior; Female; Health status; Humans; Interagency collaboration; Interdisciplinary aspects; interprofessional collaboration; Interprofessional cooperation; Interprofessional Relations; Interviews; Male; Middle Aged; Midwifery; midwife‐led care; Midwives; Mixed methods research; Newborn babies; Nurse Midwives - psychology; nursing; Obstetricians; Obstetrics; Patients; Physicians; Pregnancy; qualitative analysis; Qualitative Research; Quantitative analysis; Reliability; Reproducibility of Results; scope of practice; validated tools; Validation studies; Women
• ISSN: 0309-2402; 1365-2648; 1365-2648
• DOI: 10.1111/jan.16183

Aim This study explores the experiences of interprofessional collaboration of Canadian midwives and obstetricians from midwives' perspective. Design A concurrent mixed‐methods approach that combined a small validation study and qualitative thematic analysis was used to provide evidence of the nature and importance of collaboration between Registered Midwives (RMs) and obstetricians. Method Eighteen RMs across Canada completed a demographic survey and the Midwifery‐Obstetrician Collaboration (MOC) scale in 2023. The quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the reliability of the Midwifery‐Obstetrician Collaboration (MOC) and accumulate preliminary evidence to support its validity. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants. After completing the interviews, themes were identified using thematic analysis. Results The primary themes identified were knowledge of midwifery scope affects collaboration, collaboration is necessary for effective patient care, midwife‐physician collaboration is impacted by power differentials and hierarchies, and proposed methods to improve physician‐midwife collaboration. Although a small sample size did not permit extensive statistical testing, the quantitative results supported the reliability of the MOC scale. In addition, a strong correlation between the MOC and the communication subscale of the Inter‐Professional Collaboration (IPC) scale provided evidence of the MOC's concurrent validity as a measure of collaboration between midwives and physicians. Conclusion This study provides support for the Midwifery‐Obstetrics Collaboration (MOC) Scale as an assessment tool to evaluate collaboration between midwives and OB/GYNs in obstetrics care. While the 18 RMs recruited for this study provided a fulsome analysis for the qualitative portion, a larger study is necessary to provide more extensive quantitative analysis to validate the MOC scale for continued use among RMs and OBs. Implications The implications of this study are to foster strong interprofessional relationships between midwives and OBs and to improve the health outcomes of pregnant women and newborns. Reporting Method The authors adhered to Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).