IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i23-24p4184-4200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta‐ethnographic synthesis of midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of adverse labour and birth events

Author

Listed:
  • Rakime Elmir
  • Jackie Pangas
  • Hannah Dahlen
  • Virginia Schmied

Abstract

Introduction Health professionals are frequently exposed to traumatic events due to the nature of their work. While traumatic and adverse labour and birth events experienced by women are well researched, less attention has been given to midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of these events and the impact it has on their lives. Aims and objectives To undertake a meta‐ethnographic study of midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of adverse labour and birth events. Methods Scopus, CINHAL PLUS, MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched using subject headings and keywords. The search was limited to papers published in peer‐reviewed journals from 2004–October 2016. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Inclusion criteria Papers had to be qualitative or have a substantial qualitative component. Studies were included if they primarily focused on midwives’ or nurses’ perspectives or experiences of complicated, traumatic or adverse labour and birth events. Analytic strategy A meta‐ethnographic approach was used incorporating methods of reciprocal translation guided by the work of Noblit and Hare (1988, Meta‐Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Newbury Park: Sage publications). Findings Eleven qualitative studies were included in the final sample. Four major themes were (i) feeling the chaos; (ii) powerless, responsible and a failure; (iii) “It adds another scar to my soul”; and (iv) finding a way to deal with it. Conclusion Midwives and nurses feel relatively unprepared when faced with a real‐life labour and birth emergency event. While many of the midwives and nurses were traumatised by the experience, some were able to view their encounter as an opportunity to develop their emergency response skills. Relevance to clinical practice Witnessing and being involved in a complicated or adverse labour and birth event can be traumatic for nurses and midwives. Organisational and collegial support needs to be available to enable these health professionals to talk about their feelings and concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakime Elmir & Jackie Pangas & Hannah Dahlen & Virginia Schmied, 2017. "A meta‐ethnographic synthesis of midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of adverse labour and birth events," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4184-4200, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4184-4200
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13965?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emilia I. De la Fuente-Solana & Nora Suleiman-Martos & Laura Pradas-Hernández & Jose L. Gomez-Urquiza & Guillermo A. Cañadas-De la Fuente & Luis Albendín-García, 2019. "Prevalence, Related Factors, and Levels of Burnout Syndrome Among Nurses Working in Gynecology and Obstetrics Services: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Emilia I. De la Fuente‐Solana & Nora Suleiman‐Martos & Almudena Velando‐Soriano & Gustavo R. Cañadas‐De la Fuente & Blanca Herrera‐Cabrerizo & Luis Albendín‐García, 2021. "Predictors of burnout of health professionals in the departments of maternity and gynaecology, and its association with personality factors: A multicentre study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 207-216, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4184-4200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.