Devane et al.

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2346-z

R E S EAR CH A R TIC L E Open Access

Identifying and prioritising midwifery

care process metrics and indicators: a
Delphi survey and stakeholder
consensus process
Declan Devane1, Nora Barrett2, Anne Gallen3, Mary Frances O’Reilly4, Margaret Nadin5,
Gillian Conway4, Linda Biesty2 and Valerie Smith6*

Abstract
Background: Measuring care processes is an important component of any effort to improve care quality,
however knowing the appropriate metrics to measure is a challenge both in Ireland and other countries.
Quality of midwifery care depends on the expert knowledge of the midwife and her/his contribution to
women and their babies’ safety in the healthcare environment. Therefore midwives need to be able to
clearly articulate and measure what it is that they do, the dimensions of their professional practice
frequently referred to as midwifery care processes. The objective of this paper is to report on the
development and prioritisation of a national suite of Quality Care Metrics (QCM), and their associated
indicators, for midwifery care processes in Ireland. Methods: The study involved four discrete, yet
complimentary, phases; i) a systematic literature review to identify midwifery care process metrics and
their associated measurement indicators; ii) a two-round, online Delphi survey of midwives to develop
consensus on the set of midwifery care process metrics to be measured; iii) a two-round online Delphi
survey of midwives to develop consensus on the indicators that will be used to measure prioritised
metrics; and iv) a face-to-face consensus meeting with midwives to review the findings and achieve
consensus on the final suite of metrics and indicators.
Results: Following the consensus meeting, 18 metrics and 93 indicators were prioritised for inclusion in
the suite of QCM Midwifery Metrics. These metrics span the pregnancy, birth and postpartum periods.
Conclusion: The development of this suite of process metrics and indicators for midwifery care provides
an opportunity for measuring the safety and quality of midwifery care in Ireland and for adapting
internationally. This initial work should be followed by a rigorous evaluation of the impact of the new suite
of metrics on midwifery care processes.
Keywords: Quality care metrics, Midwifery care processes, Delphi survey

Background article

Midwives engage daily in numerous healthcare interven mortality and morbidity, length of hospital stay, neonatal
tions where their knowledge, clinical expertise and or maternal admissions to intensive/special care and re
profes sional judgement guide and influence their admission rates. For example, the top ten most
decision making to ensure high quality, safe care frequently used outcomes in 32 newly published 2011
delivery. Knowing however what quality midwifery care Cochrane systematic reviews of intrapartum
is, and how to meas ure it has always been a interventions were; admission to neonatal intensive
challenge, both in Ireland and internationally [1]. Many care unit, maternal satis faction, Apgar scores < 7 at 5
quality improvement approaches in maternity tend to min, perinatal mortality, breastfeeding rates, caesarean
focus on care outcomes, such as section, instrumental birth, pain, adverse events and
infection [2]. Measuring out comes, which may be used
to reflect the quality of care, is an important healthcare
* Correspondence: [email protected]
6 indicator. To determine however the quality of
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland Full list of author information is available at the end of the midwifery care, and in particular midwives
 © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this
article, unless otherwise stated.
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 2 of 11

contribution to the safety of women and their infants, re surveys to iden tify and prioritise a suite of metrics
quires midwives to be able to clearly articulate and (phase 2) and their indicators (phase 3) for use in
meas ure what it is that they do; that is, midwifery measuring the quality of
clinical care processes. midwifery care processes in Ireland. An e-Delphi
Measuring care processes enables healthcare survey is a research method that involves a series of
providers to have insight to the quality of care delivery questionnaires, called ‘rounds’, administered
and to es tablish improvement action-plans that will electronically to a panel of relevant stakeholders on a
ultimately lead to better outcomes for maternity topic under investigation so as to gather their opinions.
services users. In the absence of this, confirming The results of each round are presented to participants
associations between care processes and short- or in subsequent rounds, with par ticipants asked to
long-term outcomes for pregnant/ postpartum women provide their opinion again based on the knowledge of
can be challenging. This is because care processes the collective group results from the previous round. It
extend beyond usual care outcomes, and hold has been described as an optimal design for facilitating
implications for how care is provided and evaluated, as consensus-building on a topic under inves tigation [7].
well as measured [3]. Because midwives represent the The fourth and final phase involved a face-to face
largest group of healthcare professionals in the care of consensus meeting with midwives (n = 19) to review
women and babies [4] it is important that their work is the findings from the Delphi surveys and to agree on
made visible and that their significant contribution to ma the final suite of QCM, and their respective indicators,
ternity outcomes is recognised. for midwifery care.
In 2016, the Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services
Directorate in Ireland commissioned a national Phase 1: systematic review
research study to establish the important dimensions of Inclusion criteria
nursing and midwifery care processes that should be To be included in the review the study/report had to
measured [5]. These dimensions aimed to reflect care include;
delivery that is sensitive to the influences of nurses and
midwives aligned to evidenced-based clinical practice – Participants: registered midwives or nurses
guidelines and standards developed for and within the working in any of the seven work-stream areas of
context of nursing and midwifery care in Ireland. The health care services, or persons in receipt of
culmination of this work has resulted in a suite of seven midwifery or nursing or care from these care
Quality Care Metrics (QCM) reports that outline these services;
metrics and associated indicators in the healthcare – Exposure: midwifery or nursing quality care
areas of Midwif ery, Children’s Community/Public processes (metrics or indicators). The research
Health, Acute, Older People, Mental Health and team defined a quality care process metric as a
Intellectual Disability [6]. The objective of this paper is quantifiable measure that captures quality in
to report on the develop ment and prioritisation of a terms of how (or to what extent) midwifery or
national suite of QCM, and their associated indicators, nursing care is performed in relation to an
for midwifery practice in Ireland. Additional file 1 agreed standard. The research team defined a
presents the midwifery work stream working group quality care process indicator as a quantifiable
members. measure that captures what midwives or nurses
are doing to provide that care in relation to a
Methods specific tool or method;
The study comprised of four discrete, yet – Outcomes: a specific quality process in use
complimentary, phases. In phase 1 a systematic review or proposed for use;
to bring together available and relevant literature on – Type of study: any study design.
reported quality care process metrics and associated
indicators across all seven of the work-stream areas
Searching and selection
(Midwifery, Children’s Commu nity/Public Health,
The following databases were searched for relevant
Acute, Older People, Mental Health and Intellectual
litera ture; PubMed, EMBASE, PyscINFO, ASSIA,
Disability) to inform the development of a suite of
CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic
process sensitive metrics and their associated indi
Reviews, Central Register of Controlled Trials
cators. Metrics and indicators identified in the
(CENTRAL), and the Data base of Abstract of Reviews
systematic review were subsequently tagged against
of Effects (DARE). Searches were restricted to 2007–
their relevant work-stream area and used to develop
2017 to enhance temporal rele vancy of retrieved
work-stream specific surveys for use in phases 2 and 3.
records. No restrictions on study de sign, outcomes,
Phases 2 and 3 consisted of two by two-round e-Delphi
controls, comparators or language were applied. The
 search strategy used to guide the search was 2017]/py.” Grey literature was obtained from both
“nurs*:ab,ti OR midwi*:ab,ti AND (‘minimum data database searches and unpublished materials literature
set’:ab, ti OR indicator*:ab,ti OR metric*:ab,ti OR submitted by members of
‘quality meas ure*’:ab,ti) AND [english]/lim AND [2007-
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 3 of 11

the work-stream working groups or from other maternity remaining 38 [19–57] were included as relevant. This
units. Citations identified from the search were re sulted in the inclusion of 49 papers, in total
screened independently by pairs of two reviewers. Any contributing midwifery work-stream data (Fig. 1). Of
disagree ments were resolved between the two note, the previ ously existing suite of midwifery care
reviewers, or if necessary, a third reviewer was process metrics from the Midwifery Standard Operating
consulted. At full text screening, included studies were Procedure for Nursing and Midwifery Quality Care
tagged to the specific work-stream. Full-text studies Metrics [57] was identified in the grey literature search
relevant to each work stream were subsequently and included. These metrics are presented in
reviewed by two reviewers (NB and DD for midwifery) Additional file 2.
from the appropriate work-stream. Midwifery work-stream specific data extraction was
con ducted by two reviewers (NB & DD) using a
Data extraction and results purposefully designed data extraction tool. Data
In total, 7524 unique citations were identified across the abstracted included: study aim/objective, study
seven work-streams. All citations were screened inde population, study context/set ting, midwifery process in
pendently for inclusion by two reviewers. Following title current/proposed use, measure (metric/indicator) of
and abstract screening, 260 were identified for full text midwifery care process, tool or method used to
screening after which 206 were excluded. Of the 54 measure metric, and standard/statement of defined
remaining studies/reports, 12 were tagged as relevant level of quality. The review sought to identify reported
to the midwifery work-stream. One of these was later quality care process metrics and associated indi cators,
ex cluded resulting in 11 included published papers [8– which would later be prioritised. We did not critic ally
18]. An additional 42 citations were identified for the appraise the reports contributing the metrics and
mid wifery work-stream through grey literature associated indicators because we would not have used
searches. Of these 42 citations, four were excluded for such appraisal to exclude metrics and indicators from
not relating to midwifery or nursing quality care subse quent inclusion in the prioritisation phases. The
processes and the results of the systematic review identified a total of 44
metrics and

Fig. 1 Search and selection flow diagram

Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 4 of 11
124 associated indicators. Duplicate metrics and facilitate the capture of metrics not identified in the sys
indicators were removed. Members of the working tematic review, participants were invited, in this round,
group (see Additional file 1 for midwifery work-stream to add any further ‘new’ metrics that they considered
working group members) identified metrics and import ant or relevant for inclusion in the metric dataset.
indicators not focussed on midwifery care processes. Partici pants were asked to rate the importance of
These metrics were reviewed and discussed by the these metrics for inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale
working group. Dupli cate metrics and indicators and (1–3 = not im portant, 4–6 = unsure of importance and
those not focussed on midwifery care processes were 7–9 = import ant), based on the 9-point Delphi scale,
removed following discus sion and agreement by the with a 70% cut-off of participants having to rate the
working group, distilling the 44 original metrics to 22. metric as ‘important’ used for developing core outcome
These 22 metrics were included in the first round of the sets in healthcare (http://www.comet-initiative.org/). In
phase 2 Delphi survey instrument, which sought to round 2, partici pants who responded to round 1 were
prioritise the metrics. presented again with all of the metrics after analysis of
responses from round 1 (see ‘Data analyses’ below for
Phases 2 and 3: Prioritising metrics and indicators details). Additional metrics identified by participants in
(Delphi surveys) round 1 were in cluded in round 2. For each metric
Participants and sample size retained from round 1, the overall rating results
The target population for the Delphi studies was any (percentages) for each metric was presented.
mid wife working in any sphere of midwifery practice in Participants were also sent confidential copies of their
the Republic of Ireland. With the support of The Office individual Round 1 survey responses and asked to re-
of the Nursing and Midwifery Services Directorate rate the importance of each metric with knowledge of
(ONMSD), Senior Clinical Managers distributed an their own and the overall group’s previous rating for that
information pack to potential participants within their metric. In addition, participants were asked to rate the
respective hospital or community healthcare area. metrics identified newly from round 1. All ratings used
Potential participants were identified by managers by the same Likert-type scale used in round 1.
sending information on how to participate to all staff
within each respective area for which managers had Indicator Delphi study
responsibility. This information pack provided potential Phase 3 involved a two-round Delphi to prioritise the
participants with information on the study, invited indi cators. The round 1 indicator instrument contained
participation and asked those who wished to participate a short questionnaire seeking participant demographic
to complete a short form containing their con tact data and the rating instrument containing metrics
details, including their email address, and to return this identified in phase 2 and the indicators for these
form to the Senior Clinical Manager. The managers metrics identified from the systematic review. To
and any potential participants could also contact the re facilitate the capture of indica tors not identified in the
search team directly to clarify any issues or seek review, participants were invited to add any further
further information about the study prior to making a ‘new’ indicators they considered import ant or relevant
decision to participate. Snowball sampling was used for inclusion as an indicator to measure the respective
also, whereby participants were asked to forward the metric(s). The same rating scale used in phase 2 was
invitation to others whom they regarded as meeting the used for phase 3, whereby participants were asked to
sampling criteria. Two email invitations were sent to all rate the importance of these indicators for inclusion in
potential partici pants, 1 week apart. There is an the respective metric on a 9-point Likert scale (1–3 =
absence of guidance on optimal sample size not im portant, 4–6 = unsure of importance and 7–9 =
requirements for consensus develop ment studies such important). Participants who responded to round 1 were
as this. We therefore estimated our re quired presented in round 2 with all of the metrics and their
completed survey sample sizes based on that which indicators after analysis of responses from round 1 (see
would be required for the sample to be representative ‘Data analyses’ below for details). Additional indicators
of a given total population of 1884 midwives practicing identified by par ticipants in round 1 were included in
in Ireland using a 95% confidence level and a round 2. For each indicator retained from round 1, the
confidence interval of ±5. Estimates indicated we rating results (per centages) for each were presented.
required 318 completed surveys. Participants were sent their individual round 1 survey
responses and asked to re rate the importance of each
Metric Delphi study indicator with knowledge of their and the overall
Phase 2 involved a two-round Delphi to prioritise the participant’s previous rating for that indicator. In
metrics. In the first-round, the instrument contained a addition, participants were asked to rate indi cators
short questionnaire seeking participant demographic identified newly from round 1. The same Likert-type
data and the metrics rating instrument, which contained scale (i.e. 1–9 scale ranging from not important to
the 22 metrics identified in the systematic review. To import ant) used in round 1 was used in round 2.
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 5 of 11

Data analyses Table 1 Midwifery participants by grade: Phase 2 metric

survey
Consensus on inclusion of a metric, pants rated the metric as 7 to 9 and n (%)
Round 2 Total = 183 n (%)
following phase 2, round 2, was less than 15% of
determined where 70% or more particiGrade of Midwife Round 1 Total = 263
participants rated the metric as 1 to 3. Similarly, in forward to round 2. In round 2, participants rated all 30
phase 3, round 2, consensus on inclusion of an metrics as important for inclusion in the
indicator was determined where 70% or more Staff Midwife 91 (34.6) 49 (26.8) Clinical midwife manager (1) 18
participants rated the indicator a 7 to 9 and less than (6.8) 8 (4.4) Clinical midwife manager (2) 64 (24.3) 54 (29.5)
15% of participants rated the indicator as 1 to 3. Clinical midwife manager (3) 14 (5.3) 8 (4.4) Assistant Director of
Midwifery 20 (7.6) 17 (9.3) Director of Midwifery 8 (3.0) 9 (4.9)
Ethics Clinical Midwife Specialist 13 (4.9) 0 (0) Advanced Midwife
Participation in the study was voluntary. All potential Practitioner 3 (1.1) 0 (0) Othera 32 (12.2) 38 (27.5) ae.g. clinical skills
par ticipants received a study information sheet, which facilitators, clinical placement coordinators
out lined the purpose of the study, the risks and
benefits of participation, and time commitment and suite. These 30 metrics were discussed in detail by the
were afforded the opportunity to ask any questions midwifery working group where three (Women’s
including at the end of each Delphi round. All Experience, Irish-Maternity Early Warning Score (I
participants had to indicate their explicit consent to MEWS) and Invasive Medical Devices) were identi fied
participate by clicking on an ‘I agree’ button at the end as having a separate process either underway or
of the online participant information sheet before they planned for which indicators were or would be de
could access the survey. In phase 4, potential veloped. For this reason, these three metrics were not
consensus meeting participants were given a par included in phase 3 of the project within which in
ticipant information leaflet containing the necessary dicators to measure adherence to the metrics were
infor mation on which they could base their decision on prioritised. In addition, eight metrics were judged to
participating, or not, in the consensus meeting. Written overlap with other metrics and were removed. The
consent to participate was then obtained from each par remaining 19 metrics were carried forward to phase 3
ticipant at the meeting. Ethical approval to conduct this and later to the face to face consensus meeting (phase
study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee, 4) along with participants’ suggestions for where met
Na tional University of Ireland Galway. rics may overlap.
A total of 217 midwives participated in the phase 3,
Results round 1 Delphi survey (prioritising indicators). Just over
A total of 441 midwives expressed an interest, by half of the respondents were staff midwives (30.0%, n =
email, in participating in phase 2 (prioritising metrics), 65) and clinical midwife managers (grade 2) (25.4%, n
of which 263 participated in round 1 of the metric = 55) (Table 3). Of the 217 midwives who completed
survey. Just over one third of participants were staff round 1, 69.6% (n = 151) of these completed round 2.
midwives (34.6%, n = 91) and almost one quarter were Just over one quarter of respondents to this final round
clinical midwife managers (grade 2) (24.3%, n = 64). A were staff mid wives (25.89%, n = 39) and one-fifth
large pro portion of participants identified their grade of were clinical midwife managers (grade 2) (19.9%, n =
midwif ery as ‘other’ (12.2%, n = 32). Of these, most 30). A large proportion of participants (19.2%, n = 29)
were either clinical skills facilitators (18.8%, n = 6) or identified their grade of mid wifery as ‘other, which
clinical place ment coordinators (18.8%, n = 6) (Table consisted largely of clinical place- ’ ment coordinators
1). Of the 263 respondents who completed round 1, (20.7%, n = 6) (Table 2).
69.1% (n = 183) completed Round 2. Over half of the Of the 109 indicators included in phase 3, partici
respondents to round 2 were either staff midwives pants, in round 1, rated all as important for inclusion in
(26.8%, n = 49) or clinical midwife managers (grade 2) the midwifery metrics suite. In addition, 1 indica tor was
(29.5%, n = 54). A large proportion of the participants in newly identified by participants. In round 2, participants
round 2 also iden tified their grade of midwifery as rated the 110 indicators as important for inclusion in the
‘other’, that is, clinical skills facilitators or clinical suite. Following detailed review and discussion by the
placement coordinators (27.5%, n = 38) (Table 1). working group, seven indicators were judged to lack
Participants rated 21 of the 22 metrics included in clarity, were potentially ambigu ous and were removed.
phase 2, round 1, as important for inclusion in the suite. The remaining 103 indicators and the associated 19
In addition, nine metrics were identified newly by metrics, were carried forward to the face to face
participants. These, plus the 21 metrics, were car ried consensus meeting.
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 6 of 11

Table 2 Midwifery participants by grade: Phase 3 in the final suite of Midwifery Quality Care Metrics was
indicator survey achieved (Table 4).
Grade of Midwifery Round 1 Total = 217 For the additional three metrics Warning Score (I-MEWS) and
n (%)
identified in phase 2 (i.e. Women’s Invasive Medical Devices) not for
Round 2 Total = 151 n (%)
Experience, Irish-Maternity Early
Staff Midwife 65 (30.0) 39 (25.8) Clinical Manager (1) 13 (6.0) 13 (8.6) Clinical Manager (2) 55 (25.4) 30 (19.9) Clinical Manager (3)
15 (6.9) 6 (4.0) Assistant Director of Midwifery 17 (7.8) 15 (9.9) for which indicators were and would be developed,
Director of Midwifery 12 (5.5) 8 (5.3) Clinical Midwife Specialist 6 these indicators will be taken from the following when
(2.7) 8 (5.3) Advanced Midwife Practitioner 3 (1.4) 3 (2.0) Other a 31 complete: i) Women’s Experience to be measured with
HIQA/HSE National Women’s Experience Survey, ii)
(14.3) 29 (19.2) ae.g. clinical skills facilitators, clinical placement
Invasive Med ical Devices to be recorded as part of the
coordinators
Peripheral lines and urinary catheters care bundles,
and iii) IMEWS/Ob servation to be recorded in the new
Phase 4 consensus meeting
IMEWS Guideline Audit Tool.
A face-to-face meeting with key stakeholders
(midwives) was held in Nov 2017 to review the findings
from the Delphi surveys and build consensus on the Discussion
metrics and respective indicators. In total, 19 midwives This study describes a strategy of identifying and priori
participated in the face to face consensus meeting. tising a suite of 18 metrics and 93 associated indicators
Each of the 19 maternity units in Ireland had a to measure midwifery care processes. Measuring the
midwifery representative and participants represented quality of the process of midwifery care is complex [59].
all grades of midwives. The metrics and indicators presented here offer an im
At the consensus meeting, participants were portant understanding of the interplay between care
provided with paper copies of the list of 19 metrics and deliv ery, measurement and care outcomes and how
103 indi cators resulting from the Delphi surveys as maternity system improvement through the actions and
well as the percentage rating for each metrics and inter ventions of midwives might be achieved. The
indicator. Partici pants were also provided with a metrics and indicators are not designed necessarily to
Judgement Framework Tool (Table 3), adapted from offer an exhaustive list, nor do we consider that they
Flenady et al. [58] to guide participants in judging if the should be used solely in isolation of contextual issues,
metric/indicator was appro priate for inclusion in the in cluding variation in national/regional models of care.
final suite of metrics. Organisations should aim to achieve consensus on a
set of measures including structural, process and out
Participants of the consensus meeting voted YES or
come data to guide the delivery of high quality safe
NO on whether they felt that each metric and indica tor
care provision across the maternity care continuum,
should be included in the final suite using an an
from antenatal through to the postpartum period. The
onymous electronic voting system. To be included in
current set of QCM and indicators were developed
the final suite, a metric or indicator required a YES vote
specif ically with the Irish maternity care system in
by 70% (n = 13) or more participants. At the conclusion
mind, and we accept that care systems can vary
of the consensus meeting, agreement on 18 metrics
internationally, as well as regionally. In Ireland, for
with 93 associated indicators for inclusion
example, a national sur vey in 2014 indicated that 69%
Table 3 QCM Judgement Framework Toola of 2820 surveyed women would like a model of
midwifery care (e.g. midwifery-led care in hospital,
Domain Description
home birth, birth centres) available to them, however,
Process Focused The metrics/indicator contributes clearly to the
measurement of nursing or midwifery care only 20% were able to avail of this type of care [60].
processes. This is largely reflective of the type of maternity care
Important The data generated by the metric/indicator will likely make offered in Ireland, with 19 maternity hospitals across
an important contribution to improving nursing the country, and the availability of only two midwifery-
or midwifery care processes. led units alongside consultant-led hospital units, 14 self
Operational Reference standards are developed for each metric or it employed community midwives, and no stand-alone
is feasible to do so. The indicators for the
respective birth centres. Acknowledging this, we believe the QCM
metric can be measured. re ported here can be used or adapted for use in other
Feasible It is feasible to collect and report data for the coun tries and settings, while recognising that care
metric/indicator in the relevant setting. processes might be context specific [59].
a
Adapted from Flenady et al. [54] This research process and final set of midwifery
warded to phase 3 because they were identified as QCM and indicators were identified and prioritised
having a separate process either underway or planned using a
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 7 of 11

Table 4 Agreed Metrics and Indicators Following Midwifery Consensus Meeting

Metric (n = 18) Indicators (n = 93)
Midwifery Plan of Care 1 A midwife’s plan of care is evident and reflects the woman’s current condition including referral
where appropriate
2 Appropriate midwifery care based on the assessment and plan is reordered
Booking 1 The woman’s name and healthcare record number are on each page/screen 2 All previous pregnancies and outcomes
are recorded
3 Past medical/surgical/family/genetic/social/medication (as appropriate)
histories are recorded
 4 The allergy status is recorded
5 Infection status /alert is recorded
6 The blood pressure, and gestation at booking is recorded
7 There is evidence of assessment of antenatal risk factors recorded
8 Whether a blood transfusion is acceptable to the woman is recorded
9 There is evidence of assessment for mental health illnesses recorded
10 There is evidence of routine inquiry for domestic violence recorded
11 There is evidence that infant feeding has been discussed with the woman
and recorded
12 There is evidence that health information relating to pregnancy has been
given and recorded
Abdominal examination (after 24 weeks gestation) on current or last 8 Auscultation-Fetal heart rates-Use of Pinard or hand held Doppler with
assessment a record of fetal heart rate in beats per minute (BPM)
1 Abdominal inspection findings are recorded
2 Palpation-Fundal height in cms (where appropriate) is recorded 3
Palpation-Lie is recorded
4 Palpation-Presentation (where appropriate) is recorded 5 Palpation-
Position (where appropriate) is recorded
6 Palpation-Engagement (where appropriate) is recorded 7 Palpation-
Fetal activity (if present) is recorded
Intrapartum fetal Wellbeing 1 There is recorded evidence of fetal heart monitoring with Pinard/Doppler on initial assessment
2 When using intermittent auscultation, the fetal heart is recorded at least every
15 min in the 1st stage of labour and at least every 5 min in the 2nd stage of
labour
3 There is recorded evidence of date and time of infant’s birth in the labour record
4 Colour and volume of liquor are recorded
Intrapartum fetal wellbeing cardiotocography (CTG) 1 There is recorded evidence of indication for cardiotocography (CTG)
2 The date/time is validated and recorded at the start of CTG
3 The woman’s name and hospital number are recorded on the CTG by the midwife
4 The maternal pulse is recorded on the CTG strip on commencement of the CTG tracing
5 There is recorded evidence of systematic CTG interpretation occurring hourly
(baseline, variability, accelerations, decelerations, uterine activity and plan of care)
6 There is recorded evidence that CTGs of concern have been reviewed by the senior
midwife and/or obstetrician
Intrapartum Maternal wellbeing 1 There is recorded evidence of recording of maternal vital signs during labour according to the
woman’s condition
2 A narrative is recorded at least hourly, to provide a record of the woman’s condition
3 Indication for vaginal examination is recorded
4 Consent to perform vaginal examination is recorded
5 There is recorded evidence of abdominal examination prior to vaginal examination.
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 8 of 11

Table 4 Agreed Metrics and Indicators Following Midwifery Consensus Meeting (Continued)
Metric (n = 18) Indicators (n = 93)
6 There is evidence of systematic record keeping of the findings of all vaginal
examinations
7 There is recorded evidence that a discussion has occurred with the woman
about her care to include birth preferences
8 There is recorded evidence of contraction assessment at least every 30 min
9 There is recorded evidence of date and time of onset of each stage of labour
10 The name and designation of the person professionally requested to review
the woman is recorded (as appropriate)
11 Indication for amniotomy is recorded
12 Consent for amniotomy is recorded
13 Indication for administration of oxytocin is recorded
14 Consent for administration of oxytocin is recorded
 15 There is recorded evidence that oxytocin infusion has been reduced or stopped
when uterine tachystystole is present
16 Where a CTG is of concern, there is recorded evidence that the oxytocin infusion
was reduced or discontinued and a medical review was undertaken
17 There is recorded evidence of findings of assessment for perineal trauma
18 Where perineal repair is necessary and is performed by midwife, there is recorded
evidence of repair
19 There is recorded evidence of estimated blood loss at birth
20 The date, time and method of birth are recorded
Risk assessment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy and
the puerperium
1 There is recorded evidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE)
assessment on admission
2 There is recorded evidence of VTE assessment postnatally
 Immediate post birth care 1 Maternal vital signs are recorded on the IMEWS chart, prior to transfer to the postnatal ward
2 Maternal urinary output is recorded
3 Skin to skin contact is recorded
4 Breast feeding initiation time is recorded for a woman who chooses to breastfeed
5 Neonatal condition at birth (live, neonatal death, fetal death) is recorded
6 Findings of initial systematic examination of the newborn is recorded
Communication (Clinical Midwifery Handover) 1 Mother- Identification of risk factors in handover is recorded 2
Baby- Confirmation of identify band checking is recorded
3 Baby- Gender of newborn is recorded
4 Baby- Security tag is recorded as present and active
Pain management (other than labour) 1 Woman’s response to actions taken to reduce pain are recorded Infant feeding
1 Method of infant feeding is recorded
2 Assessment of effectiveness of baby feeding is recorded
3 The actions taken if feeding is ineffective are recorded
Postnatal care (daily midwifery care processes) 1 There is recorded evidence of ongoing postnatal education being offered to the
woman
2 There is recorded evidence of daily assessment of the mother (as per national
health care record/local policy)
3 There is recorded evidence of how well the woman is coping postnatally
4 There is recorded evidence of daily assessment of the neonate (as per
national health care record/local policy)
Post birth discharge planning for home 1 Discharge date and time are recorded
2 The name of midwife completing discharge is recorded
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 9 of 11

Table 4 Agreed Metrics and Indicators Following Midwifery Consensus Meeting (Continued)
Metric (n = 18) Indicators (n = 93)
3 The destination of the woman is recorded on discharge
4 Referral for professional skilled services (e.g. lactation consultant, physio,
social work, speciality clinic, if required) is recorded
5 There is recorded evidence of neonatal pulse oximetry screening having
been performed (if appropriate)
6 There is recorded evidence of discharge advice/discussion on health and
wellbeing of self and baby
Medication administration 1 The allergy status is clearly identifiable on the front page of prescription chart.
2 All prescribed medication is administered in accordance with local and national
policies, procedures, protocols and guidelines (PPPGs)
Medication, Storage and Custody (excluding MDAs) 1 A registered midwife is in possession of the keys for medicinal product storage
2 All medicinal products are stored in a locked cupboard or locked room
MDA Drugs 1 MDA drugs are checked & signed at each changeover of shifts by midwifery staff
2 Two signatures are entered in the MDA drug register for each administration of
an MDA drug
3 The MDA drug cupboard is locked and keys for MDA cupboard are held by
designated midwife
4 MDA drug keys are kept separate from other medication keys
Intravenous fluid therapy 1 Fluid balance charts are completed accurately and totalled Clinical Record Keeping 1
All entries are dated and timed (using 24 h clock)
2 All written records are legible, in permanent ink and signed
3 All entries are in chronological order
4 All abbreviations/grading systems are from a national or local approved
list/system
5 Alterations/corrections are as per HSE standards and recommended
practices for healthcare records management
6 Recorded care provided by midwifery students is countersigned by a
registered midwife

methodologically robust and rigorous process. Import antly, the widespread engagement in the project by mid
wives of all grades and geographical areas nationally, dence on studies evaluating the effectiveness of
via the work stream groups and project officers, has metrics and indicators on quality of care and thus, a
ensured that there is a real sense of ownership of the need for re search assessing such effectiveness is
metrics and indicators from midwives across settings. recommended. Follow-up on this initial work is intended
This, in turn, has ensured relevance and will enhance via a rigorous evaluation of the impact of the new suite
direct transfer ability to clinical midwifery practice. We of metrics on midwifery care processes. Designs that
recognise, how ever, some limitations to this work. For control, insofar as is possible for confounding variables
example, our sample size falls short of the a priori such as interrupted time series designs will be
sample size of 318 (using a 95% confidence level and considered, and determined prior to implementation so
a confidence interval of ±5); however, our sample size that opportunities for baseline assessments are not
at round 2 of both met rics and indicators surveys lost.
achieved a 95% confidence level with confidence
intervals of ±7 and ± 8 respectively. Staff midwife Conclusion
grades were under represented somewhat in the Knowing what midwives do, and how they do it, is a
Delphi surveys despite extensive efforts to hear their fundamental component to achieving high quality ma
views. While a maternity service user was a mem ber ternity care. The result of this study (i.e. the suite of
of the project Steering Group (SG), we also acknow metrics and indicators) offers a basis for embedding the
ledge that the voice of pregnant and postpartum concept of measurement for improvement in midwifery
women and their families is largely absent. This practice in order to assure the delivery of high quality,
decision was made at SG level, because the project safe maternity care. Use of the suite of QCM will also
SG felt the focus should be on midwives. facilitate measurement of and accountability in care
Although not the aim of our work, the systematic re provision, and
view in phase 1 of the study identified a dearth of evi
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 10 of 11

will assist, ultimately, in achieving the goal of improved Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the Research Ethics
maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. Committee, National University of Ireland Galway on the 13th of December
2016 [Ref: 16-Dec-09]. All participants had to indicate their explicit consent
to participate by clicking on an ‘I agree’ button at the end of the online
Additional files participant information sheet before they could access the survey.

Additional file 1: Midwifery work-stream working group members. Consent for publication
(DOCX 13 kb) Not applicable.
Additional file 2: Existing Midwifery Metrics at the Start of Quality Care
Metrics Process. (DOCX 18 kb) Competing interests
Valerie Smith is a Section Editor for BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Journal. All remaining authors declare that they have no competing
Abbreviations interests.
HIQA: Health Information Quality Authority; HSE: Health Service
Executive; MDA: Misuse Drugs Act; NMBI: Nursing and Midwifery Board of Author details
1
Ireland; NMPDU: Nursing and Midwifery Planning and Development Units; School of Nursing and Midwifery & HRB-Trials Methodology Research
ONMSD: Office of the Nursing and Midwifery Services Director; QCM: Network National University Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. 2School of
Quality Care Metrics; SG: Steering Group; SOP: Standard Operating Nursing and Midwifery, National University Ireland Galway, Galway,
Procedure Ireland. 3Nursing and Midwifery Planning and Development Unit, Health
Services Executive, North-West, Galway, Ireland. 4Nursing and Midwifery
Acknowledgements Planning and Development Unit, Health Services Executive, West/Mid-
We are most grateful to all the NMPDU staff, work-stream Working Group West, Galway, Ireland. 5Nursing and Midwifery Planning and Development
members, Directors of Midwifery, Practice Development Coordinators and Unit, Health Services Executive, Dublin, North East, Ireland. 6School of
all who have helped develop this evidence-based suite of quality care Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
process metrics and indicators for midwifery practice in Ireland. We are Received: 8 October 2018 Accepted: 30 May 2019
particularly grateful to all the midwives who completed the surveys. We
would also like to acknowledge Professor Mary Ellen Glasgow, Duquesne
University, Pittsburgh, USA, who contributed as the expert external
reviewer to the research study.
References
Authors’ contributions 1. Maben J, Morrow E, Ball J, Robert G, Griffiths P. High quality care
DD, AG, MOR, MN and GC contributed to the design of the project. DD metrics for nursing: National Nursing Research Unit, King’s College
and NB conducted the systematic review and the surveys. NB, DD and LB London; 2012. 2. Smith V, Begley C, Gross MM, Devane D. Chapter 3:
analysed the data. VS drafted the manuscript with DD and AG Core outcomes in maternity care research (pp 55–72). In: Church S, Frith
contributing intellectual content to the draft. DD, NB, AG, MOR, MN, GC, L, Balaam MC, Berg M, Smith V, van der Walt C, Downe S, van Teijlingen
LB and VS all reviewed, commented on and agreed the final version of E, editors. New thinking on improving maternity care: International
the manuscript prior to submission. perspectives. London: Pinter and Martin Ltd; 2017.
3. Powell Kennedy H, Shannon MT, Chuahorm U, Karavetz MK. The
Funding landscape of caring for women: a narrative study of midwifery
This project was funded by the Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services practice. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004;49(1):14–23.
Directorate, Health Service Executive as part of a national service 4. Health Services Executive. Health Services Employment Report. 2019.
improvement project. The funder was involved, through membership of https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our-workforce/workforce-reporting/
the steering group, in the design of the study, collection, analysis, health-service-employment-report-mar-2019.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2019.
interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript. 5. Health Services Executive. Office of the Nursing and Midwifery Services
Director Plan 2016–2018. Health Services Executive. Accessed 6 Mar
Availability of data and materials 2018 at https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/onmsd/onmsd-plan-2016-
Via request from the corresponding author. 2018.pdf.
6. Health Services Executive. Nursing and Midwifery Quality Care Metrics
 2018. Reports available at 15. Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Willian AR, Weston JA, Lowe NK, Simpson
https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/onmsd/nmpdu/ nmpduck/nursing- KR, Fraser WD, Gafni A. Effect on birth outcomes of a formalised
and-midwifery-quality-care-metrics.html. Accessed 25 May 2019. approach to care in hospital labour assessment units: international,
7. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a1021.
consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8. 16. Homer CSE. Models of maternity care: evidence for midwifery
8. Brennan RA, Callaway S. Innovations in practice: supporting the continuity of care. MJA. 2016;205(8):370–4.
breastfeeding dyad in Labor & Delivery. J Obstet Gynecol 17. Jallo N, Bray K, Philpotts Padden M, Levin D. A nurse-driven quality
Neonatal Nurs. 2014;43(1):S62–3. improvement program to improve perinatal outcomes. J Perinat
9. Brown MJ, Sinclair M, Hill AJ, Stockdale J. Motivating pregnant women Neonat Nus. 2009;23:241–50.
to eat healthily and engage in physical activity for weight 18. Lucas MTB, Rocha MJF, Costa KMM, Oliveria GG. Nursing care
management: an exploration of routine midwife instruction. Evid during labor in a model maternity unit: cross sectional study. Online
Based Midwif. 2013;11(4):120–7. Brazalian J Nurs. 2015;14(1):32–40.
10. De Bruin-Kooistra M, Amelink-Verburg MP, Buitendijk SE, Wester GP. 19. An Bord Altranais. Guidance to nurses and midwives on
Finding the right indicators for assessing quality of midwifery care. Int medication management. Dublin: An Bord Altranais; 2007.
J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(3):301–10. 20. Becker G. Baby friendly hospital Ireland (BFHI) audit tool for step 4;
11. Gephart SM, McGrath JM, Effken JA. Failure to Rescue in Neonatal 2015. 21. Department of Health. Communication (clinical handover) in
Care. J Perinatal Neonat Nurs. 2011;25(3):275–82. maternity services National Clinical Guideline no. 5. Dublin: Department of
12. Grier G, Geraghty S. Intimate partner violence and pregnancy: how Health; 2014. 22. Department of Health. The Irish Maternity Early Warning
midwives can listen to silenced women. Br J Midwifery. 2015;23(6):412– System (IMEWS) National Clinical Guideline No. 4. Dublin: Department of
6. 13. Haines HM, Baker J, Marshall D. Continuity of midwifery care for Health; 2014. p. 2014.
rural women through caseload group practice: delivering for almost 20 23. Department of Health. National Maternity Strategy: creating a better
years. Aust J Rural Health. 2015;23:339–45. future together 2016–2026. Dublin: Department of Health; 2016.
14. Hatten-Masterson SJ, Griffiths ML. Shared maternity care: enhancing 24. Faculty of Paediatrics and Health Service Executive. Pulse oximetry
clinical communication in a private maternity hospital setting. Med J testing for newborn CHD: clinical care pathway.
Aust. 2009; 190(11 Suppl):S150–1.
Devane et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:198 Page 11 of 11

25. Health information and quality authority. Draft National Standards for Procedure on the Administration of Vitamin K (Konakion MM Paediatric)
safer better maternity services. Dublin: Health Information and Prophylaxis for Newborn Infants Health Service Executive Home Birth
Quality Authority; 2016. Service. (undated), Health Service Executive; Dublin.
26. Health Service Executive. Code of Practice for Healthcare 45. Health Service Executive. Draft policy and procedure to support the
Records Management. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2010. SECM with the transfer of women and/ or babies from home to hospital
27. Health Service Executive, Dublin West Public Health Nursing maternity services. (undated), Health Service Executive; Dublin.
Department CHO 7. (2016) Guidelines for Care of Umbilical Cord 46. Health Service Executive. Draft Self Employed Community
Revision No. 2 Reference No. 15. Dublin: Health Service Executive; Midwives Midwifery Practice Guidelines HSE Home Birth Service.
2016. (undated), Health Service Executive; Dublin.
28. Health Service Executive. Infant Feeding Policy for Maternity and 47. Health Service Executive-Mayo General Hospital. Nursing Metrics in
Neonatal Services HSE. 2015, Health service executive, Dublin, Mayo General Hospital. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2012.
Available at www. breastfeeding.ie; www.babyfriendly.ie 48. Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Health Service
29. Health Service Executive. National Policy for Nurse and Midwife Executive. Antenatal routine enquiry regarding violence in the home.
Medicinal Product Prescribing in Primary, Community and Continuing Clinical practice guideline: Dublin. Dublin: Health service executive;
Care. Office of the Nursing and Midwifery Services Directorate. 2012.
Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2012. 49. Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Health Service Executive
30. Health Service Executive. Integrated Care Guidance: A Practical & Irish Haematology Society (2013) Venous thromboprophylaxis in
Guide to Discharge and Transfer from Hospital. 2012, v2, p17, pregnancy. Clinical practice guideline. Dublin: Institute of Obstetricians
Health Service Executive, Dublin. and Gynaecologists and Health Service Dublin; 2013.
31. Health Service Executive. The Specialist Perinatal Mental Health: 50. The National Institute for health and care excellence. Antenatal care for
Model of Care for Ireland. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2017. uncomplicated pregnancies, Clinical guideline [CG62]. London: NICE;
32. Health Service Executive - Clinical Programme for Obstetrics and 2008. 51. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Gynaecology. Irish Maternity Indicator System (IMIS) Revised Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth,
version 1.2. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2017. clinical guideline 190. London: NICE; 2014.
33. Health Service Executive - Health Protection Surveillance Centre. 52. Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. Recording clinical
Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infection in Ireland SARI practice: professional guidance. Dublin: NMBI; 2015.
Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infection Sub-Committee. 53. Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. Practice standards for
Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2009, Updated February 2010. midwives. Dublin: NMBI; 2015.
34. Health Service Executive. National Policy for Nurse and Midwife 54. Health Protection Surveillance Centre. Guidelines for the
Medicinal Product Prescribing in Primary, Community and prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Dublin:
Continuing Care. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2011. Health Protection Surveillance Centre; 2011.
35. Health Service Executive. Breastfeeding Policy for Primary Care 55. Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Health Service
Teams and Community Healthcare Settings. Dublin: Health Service Executive. Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring, Clinical Guideline
Executive; 2015. 36. Health Service Executive. National Standards for 6. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2012.
Bereavement Care Following Pregnancy Loss and Perinatal Death, 56. Health Service Executive. Draft Irish maternity early warning system
Version 1.15. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2016. audit tool. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2017.
37. Health Service Executive. National Service Plan. Dublin: Health 57. Health Service Executive. Standard operating procedure for nursing
Service Executive; 2017. and midwifery quality care metrics data collection in midwifery
38. Health Service Executive. Draft Guideline for the Management of services. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2015.
Shoulder Dystocia. (undated) Health Service Executive; Dublin. 58. Flenady V, Wojcieszek AM, Fjeldheim I, Friberg IK, Nankabirwa V, Jani
39. Health Service Executive. Draft Guideline on Record Keeping Home JV, Myhre S, Middleton P, Crowther C, Ellwood D, Tudehope D,
Birth Service. (undated), Health Service Executive; Dublin. Pattinson R, Ho J, Matthews J, Bermudez Ortega A, Venkateswaran
M, Chou D, Say L, Mehl G, Frøen JF. eRegistries: indicators for the
40. Health Service Executive. Draft Guideline on the Management of
WHO essential interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn and
Perineal Repair HSE Home Birth Service. (undated), Health Service
child health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):293.
Executive; Dublin. 41. Health Service Executive. Draft Guideline on the
Management of Postpartum Haemorrhage HSE Home Birth Service. 59. Tripathi V, Stanton C, Strobino D, Bartlett L. Development and
(undated), Health Service Executive; Dublin. validation of an index to measure the quality of facility-based labour
and delivery care processes in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2015;
42. Health Service Executive. Draft Guideline on the Management of
https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0129491.
Water Birth HSE Home Birth Service. (undated), Health Service Executive;
60. Association for Improvement in Maternity Services Ireland (AIMSI).
Dublin. 43. Health Service Executive. Draft Policy and Procedure for
Survey: Maternity care choices in Ireland. 2014, accessible at;
Notification of Infants born under the HSE Home Birth Service to the
http:// aimsireland.ie/care-choices/. Accessed 25 May 2019.
National Newborn Hearing Screening Programme. (undated), Health
Service Executive; Dublin. 44. Health Service Executive. Draft Policy and
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.