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
