Models of maternity care: evidence for midwifery continuity of care

Caroline SE Homer
Med J Aust 2016; 205 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00844
Published online: 17 October 2016


  • There has been substantial reform in the past decade in the provision of maternal and child health services, and specifically regarding models of maternity care. Increasingly, midwives are working together in small groups to provide midwife-led continuity of care.
  • This article reviews the current evidence for models of maternity care that provide midwifery continuity of care, in terms of their impact on clinical outcomes, the views of midwives and childbearing women, and health service costs.
  • A systematic review of midwife-led continuity of care models identified benefits for women and babies, with no adverse effects.
  • Non-randomised studies have shown benefits of midwifery continuity of care for specific groups, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. There are also benefits for midwives, including high levels of job satisfaction and less occupational burnout.
  • Implementing midwifery continuity of care in public and private settings in Australia has been challenging, despite the evidence in its favour and government policy documents that support it.
  • A reorganisation of the way maternity services are provided in Australia is required to ensure that women across the country can access this model of care. Critical to such reform is collaboration with obstetricians, general practitioners, paediatricians and other medical professionals involved in the care of pregnant women, as well as professional respect for the central role of midwives in the provision of maternity care.
  • More research is needed into ways to ensure that all childbearing women can access midwifery continuity of care.

  • Centre for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW


Competing interests:

I was an author of two of the trials included in the Cochrane review on midwife-led care and was a co-author of other studies referred to in this review.

  • 1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s mothers and babies 2013 — in brief (AIHW Cat. No. PER 72; Perinatal Statistics Series No. 31). Canberra: AIHW, 2015.
  • 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian hospital statistics 2012–13 (AIHW Cat. No. HSE 145; Health Services Series No. 54). Canberra: AIHW, 2014.
  • 3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s hospitals 2013–14: at a glance (AIHW Cat. No. HSE 157; Health Services Series No. 61). Canberra: AIHW, 2015.
  • 4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Admitted patient care 2014–15: Australian hospital statistics (AIHW Cat. No. HSE 172; Health Services Series No. 68). Canberra: AIHW, 2016.
  • 5. Every Woman Every Child. Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016–2030). New York: United Nations, 2015. (accessed Aug 2016).
  • 6. Australian Health Ministers’ Conference. National Maternity Services Plan. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011. (accessed Aug 2016).
  • 7. Bryant R. Improving maternity services in Australia: the report of the Maternity Services Review. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2009. (accessed Aug 2016).
  • 8. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Nomenclature for models of maternity care: literature review, July 2012 — Foundations for enhanced maternity data collection and reporting in Australia: National Maternity Data Development Project Stage 1 (AIHW Cat. No. PER 62). Canberra: AIHW, 2014.
  • 9. Queensland Health. Changing Models of Care Framework. Brisbane: Queensland Health, 2000. (accessed Aug 2016).
  • 10. Davidson P, Halcomb E, Hickman L, et al. Beyond the rhetoric: what do we mean by a ‘model of care’? Aust J Adv Nurs 2006; 23: 47-55.
  • 11. Donnolley N, Butler-Henderson K, Chapman M, Sullivan E. The development of a classification system for maternity models of care. Health Inf Manag 2016; 45: 64-70.
  • 12. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Maternity Care Classification System: Maternity Model Of Care Dataset Specification national pilot report November 2014 — National Maternity Data Development Project Stage 2 (AIHW Cat. No. PER 74). Canberra: AIHW, 2016.
  • 13. Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, et al. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (4): CD004667.
  • 14. Homer CS, Davis GK, Brodie PM, et al. Collaboration in maternity care: a randomised controlled trial comparing community-based continuity of care with standard hospital care. BJOG 2001; 108: 16-22.
  • 15. Tracy SK, Hartz DL, Tracy MB, et al. Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 1723-1732.
  • 16. Rowley MJ, Hensley MJ, Brinsmead MW, Wlodarczyk JH. Continuity of care by a midwife team versus routine care during pregnancy and birth: a randomised trial. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 289-293.
  • 17. Kenny P, Brodie P, Eckermann S, Hall J. Westmead Hospital team midwifery project evaluation: final report. Sydney: Westmead Hospital, 1994.
  • 18. McLachlan HL, Forster DA, Davey MA, et al. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 1483-1492.
  • 19. Biro MA, Waldenström U, Pannifex JH. Team midwifery in a tertiary level obstetric service: a randomised controlled trial. Birth 2000; 27: 168-173.
  • 20. Allen J, Stapleton H, Tracy S, Kildea S. Is a randomised controlled trial of a maternity care intervention for pregnant adolescents possible? An Australian feasibility study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 138.
  • 21. ten Hoope-Bender P, de Bernis L, Campbell J, et al. Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery. Lancet 2014; 384: 1226-1235.
  • 22. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet 2014; 384: 1129-1145.
  • 23. Homer CS, Friberg IK, Dias MA, et al. The projected effect of scaling up midwifery. Lancet 2014; 384: 1146-1157.
  • 24. Tracy SK, Welsh A, Hall B, et al. Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 46.
  • 25. Hartz DL, White J, Lainchbury KA, et al. Australian maternity reform through clinical redesign. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36: 169-175.
  • 26. Australian College of Midwives. National midwifery guidelines for consultation and referral. 3rd edition, issue 2. Canberra: Australian College of Midwives, 2014. (accessed Aug 2016).
  • 27. Monk A, Tracy M, Foureur M, et al. Evaluating Midwifery Units (EMU): a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwifery units in New South Wales, Australia. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e006252.
  • 28. Turnbull D, Baghurst P, Collins C, et al. An evaluation of Midwifery Group Practice. Part I: clinical effectiveness. Women Birth 2009; 22: 3-9.
  • 29. Toohill J, Turkstra E, Gamble J, Scuffham PA. A non-randomised trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of midwifery group practice compared with standard maternity care arrangements in one Australian hospital. Midwifery 2012; 28: e874-e879.
  • 30. Williams K, Lago L, Lainchbury A, Eagar K. Mothers’ views of caseload midwifery and the value of continuity of care at an Australian regional hospital. Midwifery 2010; 26: 615-621.
  • 31. McIntyre MJ. Safety of non-medically led primary maternity care models: a critical review of the international literature. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36: 140-147.
  • 32. Allen J, Gibbons K, Beckmann M, et al. Does model of maternity care make a difference to birth outcomes for young women? A retrospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud 2015; 52: 1332-1342.
  • 33. Lack BM, Smith RM, Arundell MJ, Homer CS. Narrowing the gap? Describing women’s outcomes in midwifery group practice in remote Australia. Women Birth 2016; doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.03.003 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 34. Josif CM, Barclay L, Kruske S, Kildea S. “No more strangers”: investigating the experiences of women, midwives and others during the establishment of a new model of maternity care for remote dwelling Aboriginal women in northern Australia. Midwifery 2014; 30: 317-323.
  • 35. Gao Y, Gold L, Josif C, et al. A cost-consequences analysis of a midwifery group practice for Aboriginal mothers and infants in the Top End of the Northern Territory, Australia. Midwifery 2014; 30: 447-455.
  • 36. Homer CS, Foureur MJ, Allende T, et al. “It’s more than just having a baby”: women’s experiences of a maternity service for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. Midwifery 2012; 28: E449-E455.
  • 37. Hartz DL, Foureur M, Tracy SK. Australian caseload midwifery: the exception or the rule. Women Birth 2011; 25: 39-46.
  • 38. Newton MS, McLachlan HL, Forster DA, Willis KF. Understanding the “work” of caseload midwives: a mixed-methods exploration of two caseload midwifery models in Victoria, Australia. Women Birth 2016; 29: 223-233.
  • 39. Homer C, Brodie P, Leap N. Midwifery continuity of care: a practical guide. Sydney: Elsevier, 2008.
  • 40. Catling-Paull C, Coddington RL, Foureur MJ, Homer CSE; Birthplace in Australia Study; National Publicly-funded Homebirth Consortium. Publicly funded homebirth in Australia: a review of maternal and neonatal outcomes over 6 years. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 616-620. <MJA full text>
  • 41. Catling-Paull C, Foureur MJ, Homer CS; Publicly-funded Homebirth Consortium. Publicly-funded homebirth models in Australia. Women Birth 2012; 25: 152-158.
  • 42. Newton MS, McLachlan HL, Willis KF, Forster DA. Comparing satisfaction and burnout between caseload and standard care midwives: findings from two cross-sectional surveys conducted in Victoria, Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 426.
  • 43. Collins CT, Fereday J, Pincombe J, et al. An evaluation of the satisfaction of midwives’ working in midwifery group practice. Midwifery 2010; 26: 435-441.
  • 44. Stevens T, McCourt C. One-to-one midwifery practice part 3: meaning for midwives. Br J Midwifery 2002; 10: 111-115.
  • 45. Wakelin K, Skinner J. Staying or leaving: a telephone survey of midwives exploring the sustainability of practice as lead maternity carers in one urban region of New Zealand. NZ Coll Midwives J 2007; 37: 10-14.
  • 46. Cummins AM, Denney-Wilson E, Homer CS. The experiences of new graduate midwives working in midwifery continuity of care models in Australia. Midwifery 2015; 31: 438-444.
  • 47. Lennox S, Skinner J, Foureur M. Mentorship, preceptorship and clinical supervision: three key processes for supporting midwives. NZ Coll Midwives J 2008; 39: 7-12.
  • 48. NSW Health. Maternity – towards normal birth in NSW [policy directive]. Document no. PD2010_045. Sydney: NSW Department of Health, 2010.
  • 49. Nursing and Midwifery Office, NSW Ministry of Health. Midwifery Continuity of Carer Model Tool-kit. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health, 2012. (accessed Aug 2016).
  • 50. Queensland Health. Midwifery models of care: implementation guide. Brisbane: Queensland Health, 2008.
  • 51. Dawson K, McLachlan H, Newton M, Forster D. Implementing caseload midwifery: exploring the views of maternity managers in Australia – a national cross-sectional survey. Women Birth 2016; 29: 214-222.
  • 52. Beasley S, Ford N, Tracy SK, Welsh AW. Collaboration in maternity care is achievable and practical. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 52: 576-581.
  • 53. Gray J, Leap N, Sheehy A, Homer CS. Students’ perceptions of the follow-through experience in 3 year bachelor of midwifery programmes in Australia. Midwifery 2013; 29: 400-406.
  • 54. Dawson K, Newton M, Forster D, McLachlan H. Exploring midwifery students’ views and experiences of caseload midwifery: a cross-sectional survey conducted in Victoria, Australia. Midwifery 2015; 31: e7-e15.
  • 55. Cummins AM, Denney-Wilson E, Homer CS. The challenge of employing and managing new graduate midwives in midwifery group practices in hospitals. J Nurs Manag 2016; 24: 614-623.
  • 56. Yoshida Y, Sandall J. Occupational burnout and work factors in community and hospital midwives: a survey analysis. Midwifery 2013; 29: 921-926.
  • 57. National Maternity Review Team. Better Births: improving outcomes of maternity services in England. A five year forward view for maternity care: National Maternity Review. London: NHS England, 2016.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.