Women's, midwives' and obstetricians' experiences of a structured process to document refusal of recommended maternity care

被引:18
作者
Jenkinson, Bec [1 ,2 ]
Kruske, Sue [1 ]
Stapleton, Helen [1 ,2 ]
Beckmann, Michael [2 ,3 ]
Reynolds, Maree [3 ]
Kildea, Sue [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Mater Res Inst, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[3] Mater Hlth Serv, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
Hospitals; maternity; Treatment refusal; Personal autonomy; Refusal to treat; Professional autonomy; EMERGENCY CESAREAN DELIVERY; PREGNANT-WOMEN; VAGINAL BIRTH; RISK; SECTION; ATTITUDES; PERCEPTIONS; MORTALITY; CONFLICTS; AUTONOMY;
D O I
10.1016/j.wombi.2016.05.005
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Problem/Background: Ethical and professional guidance for midwives and obstetricians emphasises informed consent and respect for patient autonomy; the right to refuse care is well established. However, the existing literature is largely silent on the appropriate clinical responses when pregnant women refuse recommended care, and accounts of disrespectful interactions and conflict are numerous. Policies and processes to support women and maternity care providers are rare and unstudied. Aim: To document the perspectives of women, midwives and obstetricians following the introduction of a structured process (Maternity Care Plan; MCP) to document refusal of recommended maternity care in a large tertiary maternity unit. Methods: A qualitative, interpretive study involved thematic analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews with women (n = 9), midwives (n = 12) and obstetricians (n = 9). Findings: Four major themes were identified including: 'Reassuring and supporting clinicians'; 'Keeping the door open'; 'Varied awareness, criteria and use of the MCP process' and 'No guarantees'. Conclusion: Clinicians felt protected and reassured by the structured documentation and communication process and valued keeping women engaged in hospital care. This, in turn, protected women's access to maternity care. However, the process could not guarantee favourable responses from other clinicians subsequently involved in the woman's care. Ongoing discussions of risk, perceived by women and some midwives to be pressure to consent to recommended care, were still evident. These limitations may have been attributable to the absence of agreed criteria for initiating the MCP process and fragmented care. Varying awareness and use of the process also diminished women's access to it. (C) 2016 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:531 / 541
页数:11
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], RISK CHOICE MATERNIT
[2]  
[Anonymous], MIDW SUP REG REC CHA
[3]  
[Anonymous], AMA COD ETH
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2014, BRIT MED J
[5]  
[Anonymous], NAT MIDW GUID CONS R
[6]   Medical dominance and neoliberalisation in maternal care provision: The evidence from Canada and Australia [J].
Benoit, Cecilia ;
Zadoroznyj, Maria ;
Hallgrimsdottir, Helga ;
Treloar, Adrienne ;
Taylor, Kara .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2010, 71 (03) :475-481
[7]  
Braithwaite Pamela, 2010, Nurs Womens Health, V14, P462, DOI 10.1111/j.1751-486X.2010.01593.x
[8]  
Braun V., 2012, APA HDB PSYCHOL APA, P57, DOI [10.1037/13620-004, DOI 10.1037/13620-004]
[9]  
Brazier M., 2006, CAMB LAW J, V65, P397, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0008197306007161
[10]   The production of authoritative knowledge in American prenatal care [J].
Browner, CH ;
Press, N .
MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY, 1996, 10 (02) :141-156