Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Evidence on the use of Birthrate Plus® to guide safe staffing in maternity services – a systematic scoping review

View ORCID ProfilePeter Griffiths, View ORCID ProfileLesley Turner, Jenny Lown, View ORCID ProfileJulia Sanders
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.17.23297132
Peter Griffiths
1School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Centre (Wessex), Southampton, England
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter Griffiths
Lesley Turner
2School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, England
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lesley Turner
  • For correspondence: l.y.turner{at}soton.ac.uk
Jenny Lown
3Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, England
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julia Sanders
4Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales. NHS England
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julia Sanders
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Birthrate Plus® is a widely used tool that informs decisions about the number of midwifery staff needed to provide safe and high quality care in maternity services.

Evidence about the effectiveness, validity, reliability, and feasibility of tools such as this is needed.

Objective To identify, describe and analyse the available evidence supporting the use of Birthrate Plus.

Methods We searched PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Scopus, Academic Search, British Library Ethos, Directory of Open Access Journals and Science Direct. Studies were eligible if they reported empirical data relevant to the validity, reliability, or useability of Birthrate Plus or if they measured the impact on staffing levels, outcomes, costs or provided a comparison with other methods.

Results 23 sources of evidence were identified and reviewed. We found no prospective intervention studies on the use of Birthrate Plus to demonstrate outcomes for mothers, babies or staff wellbeing. Nor did we find studies comparing the tool to other methods or addressing resource use. Most of the evidence was descriptive, focussing on the use of the tool or the results of Birthrate Plus assessments. There is some evidence of the reliability of application of categories within the tool, the ability of the tool to detect variation in demand and to highlight staff shortages.

Conclusions In terms of traditional hierarchies of evidence, the evidence for Birthrate Plus is weak. There is a need for more independent research or simulation using real world data to understand how the tool performs in the current context of midwifery practice.

Problem or Issue It is important to ensure that there are sufficient midwives to provide safe and effective care and support positive experiences for women during pregnancy and child birth.

What is Already Known Birthrate Plus is a widely used tool to calculate staffing requirements, which is promoted by the company as being ‘evidence based’.

What this Paper Adds This review of evidence found major gaps. There is no direct evidence that Birthrate Plus calculates the correct level of staffing or performs better than other systems or professional judgement alone.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This paper is based on work originally undertaken by Jennifer Lown in fulfilment of the requirements for her MSc thesis at the University of Southampton. It was subsequently developed with funding from NHS England to inform the work of the Safer Midwifery Staffing Steering Group (BirthRate Plus® Review Sub-Group), supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration (Wessex). The views expressed are those of the authors, not the NIHR, NHS or the department of Health and Social Care.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 17, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evidence on the use of Birthrate Plus® to guide safe staffing in maternity services – a systematic scoping review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Evidence on the use of Birthrate Plus® to guide safe staffing in maternity services – a systematic scoping review
Peter Griffiths, Lesley Turner, Jenny Lown, Julia Sanders
medRxiv 2023.10.17.23297132; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.17.23297132
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Evidence on the use of Birthrate Plus® to guide safe staffing in maternity services – a systematic scoping review
Peter Griffiths, Lesley Turner, Jenny Lown, Julia Sanders
medRxiv 2023.10.17.23297132; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.17.23297132

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)