The Five Attributes of a Supportive Midwifery Practice Climate: A Review of the Literature

Introduction

A supportive work climate is associated with decreased burnout and attrition, and increased job satisfaction and employee health. A review of the literature was conducted in order to determine the unique attributes of a supportive practice climate for midwives.

Methods

The midwifery literature was reviewed and synthesized using concept analysis technique guided by literature from related professions. The search was conducted primarily in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Articles were included if they were conducted between 2006 and 2016 and addressed perceptions of the midwifery practice climate as it related to patient, provider, and organizational outcomes.

Results

The literature identified 5 attributes consistent with a supportive midwifery practice climate: effective leadership, adequate resources, collaboration, control of one's work, and support of the midwifery model of care. Effective leadership styles include situational and transformational, and 9 traits of effective leaders are specified. Resources consist of time, personnel, supplies, and equipment. Collaboration encompasses relationships with all members of the health care team, including midwives inside and outside of one's practice. Additionally, the patients are considered collaborating members of the team. Characteristics of effective collaboration include a shared vision, role clarity, and respectful communication. Support for the midwifery model of care includes value congruence, developing relationships with women, and providing high‐quality care.

Discussion

The attributes of a supportive midwifery practice climate are generally consistent with theoretical models of supportive practice climates of advanced practice nurses and physicians, with the exception of a more inclusive definition of collaboration and support of the midwifery model of care. The proposed Midwifery Practice Climate Model can guide instrument development, determining relationships between the attributes of the practice climate and outcomes, and creating interventions to improve the practice climate, workforce stability, and patient outcomes.     

Diagnosing gastrointestinal illnesses using fecal headspace volatile organic compounds

Volatile organic compounds(VOCs) emitted from stool are the components of the smell of stool representing the end products of microbial activity and metabolism that can be used to diagnose disease. Despite the abundance of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane that have already been identified in human flatus, the small portion of trace gases making up the VOCs emitted from stool include organic acids, alcohols, esters, heterocyclic compounds, aldehydes, ketones, and alkanes, among others. These are the gases that vary among individuals in sickness and in health, in dietary changes, and in gut microbial activity. Electronic nose devices are analytical and pattern recognition platforms that can utilize mass spectrometry or electrochemical sensors to detect these VOCs in gas samples. When paired with machine-learning and pattern recognition algorithms, this can identify patterns of VOCs, and thus patterns of smell, that can be used to identify disease states. In this review, we provide a clinical background of VOC identification, electronic nose development, and review gastroenterology applications toward diagnosing disease by the volatile headspace analysis of stool.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus testing strategies for triage of women referred with low-grade cytological abnormalities

AimTo compare triage strategies using different human papillomavirus (HPV) consensus and genotyping tests and a p16^INK4a test.Methods1228 women referred with a borderline or single mildly dyskaryotic smear. Samples were taken at colposcopy using PreservCyt. Tests included Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer, APTIMA and p16^INK4a. Results were based on the worst histology within 9 months.Results97/1228 (7.9%) women had CIN3+ (203/1228 (17%) CIN2+). HPV testing alone using Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800 or APTIMA had a sensitivity for CIN3+ ranging from 99.0% to 100.0% and specificity for <CIN2 from 23.3% to 34.7%. p16^INK4a had a sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 50.7%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 85.1% and specificity of 73.2%. Testing for HPV type 16 only had sensitivities ranging from 66.0% to 75.5% and specificities from 81.3% to 87.6%. Dual testing with HPV type 16 combined with p16^INK4a gave a high sensitivity for CIN3+ (78.7% to 98.0%) and specificity for <CIN2 of 58.6% to 81.5%.ConclusionsTriage with sensitive HPV testing assays can substantially reduce the number of unnecessary referrals in women with low grade cytology with virtually no loss of sensitivity. Even greater gains can be made if p16 and type 16 are used, but some cases of CIN2 will be missed. In both cases short term surveillance will be needed.     

Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy

Objective

Comparison of perioperative outcomes and survival of patients undergoing primary surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by a robotic, laparoscopy, or laparotomy approach.

Methods

Retrospective case-control analysis of 25 patients with EOC undergoing robotic surgical treatment between March 2004 and December 2008. Comparison was made with similar patients treated by laparoscopy and laparotomy and matched by age, body mass index (BMI), and type of procedures between January 1999 and December 2006.

Results

The mean operating times were 314.8, 253.8 and 260.7 min for robotic, laparoscopy and laparotomy patients, respectively (p < 0.05); the mean blood loss was 164.0, 266.7, and 1307.0 ml, respectively (p = 0.001); the mean length of hospital stay was 4.2, 3.2, and 9.4 days, respectively (p = 0.001). The overall survival (OS) for robotics, laparoscopy and laparotomy patients was 67.1%, 75.6% and 66.0%, respectively (p = 0.08). Patients were subdivided and compared according to the extent of surgery by the type and number of major procedures. Type I and II debulking patients operated by robotics and laparoscopy had improved perioperative outcomes as compared to laparotomy. For patients undergoing a type III debulking, robotic outcomes were not improved over laparotomy.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy and robotics are preferable to laparotomy for patients with ovarian cancer requiring primary tumor excision alone or with one additional major procedure. Laparotomy is preferable for patients requiring two or more additional major procedures. Survival is not affected by the type of surgical approach.