The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study is a mixed method project involving a prospective cohort study, surveys (two postnatal questionnaires) and focus groups. It is an Australasian project funded by the Australian Health and Medical Research Council. Its primary aim was to compare the birth outcomes of two groups of well women – one group who planned to give birth at a primary maternity unit, and a second group who planned to give birth at a tertiary hospital. The secondary aim was to learn about women’s views and experiences regarding their birthplace decision-making, transfer, maternity care and experiences, and any other issues they raised. The New Zealand arm of the study was carried out in Christchurch, and was seriously affected by the earthquakes, halting recruitment at 702 participants. Comprehensive details were collected from both midwives and women regarding antenatal and early labour changes of birthplace plans and perinatal transfers from the primary units to the tertiary hospital. Women were asked about how they felt about plan changes and transfers in the first survey, and they were discussed in some focus groups. The transfer findings are still being analysed and will be presented. This study is set within the local maternity context, is recent, relevant and robust. It provides midwives with contemporary information about transfers from New Zealand primary maternity units and women’s views and experiences. It may help inform the conversations midwives have with each other, and with women and their families/whānau, regarding the choices of birthplace for well childbearing women.
A video of the keynote presentation by Alexander C. McFarlane during the third plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. McFarlane is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Adelaide and the Heady of the Centre for Traumatic Stress Studies. The presentation is titled, "Holding onto the Lessons Disasters Teach".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Disasters are sentinel points in the life of the communities affected. They bring an unusual focus to community mental health. In so doing, they provide unique opportunities for better understanding and caring for communities. However, one of the difficulties in the disaster field is that many of the lessons from previous disasters are frequently lost. If anything, Norris (in 2006) identified that the quality of disaster research had declined over the previous 25 years. What is critical is that a longitudinal perspective is taken of representative cohorts. Equally, the impact of a disaster should always be judged against the background mental health of the communities affected, including emergency service personnel. Understandably, many of those who are particularly distressed in the aftermath of a disaster are people who have previously experienced a psychiatric disorder. It is important that disaster services are framed against knowledge of this background morbidity and have a broad range of expertise to deal with the emerging symptoms. Equally, it is critical that a long-term perspective is considered rather than short-term support that attempts to ameliorate distress. Future improvement of disaster management depends upon sustaining a body of expertise dealing with the consequences of other forms of traumatic stress such as accidents. This expertise can be redirected to co-ordinate and manage the impact of larger scale events when disasters strike communities. This presentation will highlight the relevance of these issues to the disaster planning in a country such as New Zealand that is prone to earthquakes.
