General Practitioners providing obstetric care in New Zealand. What differentiates GPs who continue to deliver babies?
Zara Mason 1 , Chrys Jaye 1 , Dawn Miller 11 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of Otago, New Zealand
2 University of Otago, Department of General Practice and Rural Health, New Zealand
Correspondence to: Dr Chrys Jaye, University of Otago, Department of General Practice and Rural Health, Otago, New Zealand. Email: chrystal.jaye@otago.ac.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 9(1) 9-15 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC16046
Published: 7 March 2017
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2017.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
AIM: To identify factors that have enabled some New Zealand general practitioner obstetricians (GPOs) to continue providing maternity care and factors implicated in decisions to withdraw from maternity care.
METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and one focus group (n = 3) were conducted with 23 current and former GPOs. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Current and former GPOs practiced maternity care because they enjoyed being involved in the birth process and delivery suite environment. Their maternity practice was framed by a philosophy of lifelong continuity of care for patients.
CONCLUSION: GPOs still practicing in New Zealand do so because they find maternity care highly rewarding despite their perceptions that the current maternity care model is incompatible with general practice. They have often developed local solutions that support their practice, particularly around shared care arrangements.
Keywords: Obstetric; maternity; general practice
References
[1] Loy CS, Warton RB, Dunbar JA. Workforce trends in specialist and GP obstetric practice in Victoria. MJA 2007; 186 26–30.[2] Price D, Howard M, Shaw E, et al. Family medicine obstetrics. Collaborative interdisciplinary program for a declining resource. Can Fam Physician 2005; 51 68–74.
[3] Smits AK, Clark E, Nichols M, Saultz J. Factors influencing cessation of pregnancy care in Oregon. Fam Med 2004; 36 490–5.
[4] Wiegers TA. General practitioners and their role in maternity care. Health Policy 2003; 66 51–9.
| General practitioners and their role in maternity care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3svktVCqtw%3D%3D&md5=24191d79ddef03747b922c114644b618CAS |
[5] Ferguson W. Viewpoint: The decline of general practitioner involvement in maternity care and its possible consequences for maternal and infant health. N Z Med J 1999; 112 410–1.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2Fnt1Chsw%3D%3D&md5=666bd8dead2d8574d73d5803af6c5a3dCAS |
[6] Ministry of Health. Maternity consumer survey. 2014. [cited 2016 August 24] Available from: www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/maternity-consumer-survey-2014-sep15.pdf
[7] Ministry of Health. Notice Pursuant to Section 88 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2007. [cited 2016 August 24] Available from: www.health.govt.nz/publication/section-88-primary-maternity-services-notice-2007
[8] Simmers D. The few: New Zealand’s diminishing number of rural GPs providing maternity services. N Z Med J 2006; 119 U2151.
[9] Lancaster G, Gosman K, Lawrenson R, Gibbons V. Midland Region Rural Maternity Services Consumer Engagement Study. New Zealand Institute of Rural Health. Cambridge, New Zealand. June 2014.
[10] Mothers, fathers and babies planning for the future. Health Workforce New Zealand, Ministry of Health. Dec 2012. [cited 2016 August 24] Available from: www.healthworkforce.govt.nz/our-work/workforce-service-forecasts/maternity-services
[11] RNZCGP Welcome investment in medical workforce. ePulse 2009; 11
[12] Miller DL, Mason Z, Jaye C. GP obstetricians’ views of the model of maternity care in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53 21–5.
| GP obstetricians’ views of the model of maternity care in New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Crabtree B, Miller W. Using codes and code manuals: a template organising style of interpretation. In: B. Crabtree and W. Miller, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:163–177.
[14] Roberts RG, Bobula JA, Wolkomir MS. Why family physicians deliver babies. J Fam Pract 1998; 46 34–40.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1c7htlartQ%3D%3D&md5=3c975c8cee6ab1d5ef5a9c74a165c21eCAS |
[15] Accident Compensation Act. 2001. Section 32. [cited 2016 August 26] Available from: www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM100934.html
[16] Klein MC, Kelly A, Spence A, et al In for the long haul. Which family physicians plan to continue delivering babies? Can Fam Physician 2002; 48 1216–22.
[17] Smith LF. Predictors of the provision of intrapartum care by general practitioners: five year cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47 627–30.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1c7jsFWltA%3D%3D&md5=e0cf69fb791f5f2fc6715daf3d9c2a22CAS |
[18] Dresden GM, Baldwin LM, Andrilla CH, et al Influence of obstetric practice on workload and practice patterns of Family Physicians and Obstetrician-Gynaecologists. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6 S5–11.
| Influence of obstetric practice on workload and practice patterns of Family Physicians and Obstetrician-Gynaecologists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Woodward CA, Rosser W. Effect of medicolegal liability patterns of general and family practice in Canada. CMAJ 1989; 141 291–99.
| 1:STN:280:DyaL1MzlsVSrtw%3D%3D&md5=3a4a0d3a91cee33dfd43e61cd0caeef3CAS |
