you ask why I feel that midwives need to control our own data. For a good example- in the 1920's california redesigned their birth registration form. It allowed the medical officer, or in the abscence of the medical officer one of the parents, to register the birth. That meant births attended by midwives were recorded among births with no attendant. Simple as that. The flow on was that national figures needed to conform to the "minimum data set" so all births in other states could only be grouped as medical or no attendant. and that meant............... when midwifery was arguing about its right to legally practice in terms of numbers, safety etc, there was no data - it was all combined with untrained attendants, no attendant, births by the side of the road etc, etc.
another example ;- a couple of years ago the MDC data form "lost" the mother's insurance field. That would have meant that no outcomes for privatly insured women - and their obstetricans - would be publicly available. Thank God midwives noticed and spoke up! regards rosalee >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/02 06:09PM >>> "Any history of midwifery will throw light on the damage done to the profession by its attitude that "some-one-else" could mess with data - some-one like doctors or beaurocrats. " Rosalee, is this a negative or a postive thing you are saying? I'm not sure I comprehend ( although after a long, long day, I'm not sure I comprehend anything except my wine glass!) are you saying that there was some anxiety that others-not-midwives would fiddle with the data on Obstet when it was developed? Or is it that they already did ( do) anyway and Obstet is supposed to alleviate that imbalance by providing us with our own data? Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosalee Shaw" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:14 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Midwives & computer databases Midwives were well represented on the consortium which developed OBSTET, and they continue to be involved with it - any if any of them are on this list they might tell you who they are. It was designed by midwives, and intended to give midwives control of their own data, and yes, I mean the ones with the women ! Any history of midwifery will throw light on the damage done to the profession by its attitude that "some-one-else" could mess with data - some-one like doctors or beaurocrats. The future of midwifery is in our data, and we should control it ! Regards Rosalee >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/02 03:06PM >>> Robin, Were any midwives involved in planning, designing and implementing the software? By midwives, I mean the ones with the women. Penny B. On 30/9/02 8:16 PM, "Robin Moon" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > NO, the OBSTET data base does not take the place of notes and paper.... > unfortunately. > Whilst it is great for generating data in an orderly and easy fashion, it is > VERY time consuming. Particularly in a labour ward.It is great however for > pulling stats when needed to back up one's arguments with medical staff > etc..... But I say, Roll on OBSTET Mark 2 cos this one is wearing thin.... > > Whilst the intentions were great for it's development and use, I have found > units that now require of the LW midwife to enter pregnancy and labour info > on the database, progress notes on the labour AND the partogram. PHew! No > wonder we're all stressed! > > Jen, I think the State of the Art hospital in Australia is one that would > have the woman as their focus. Not documentation, not legalese, not doctors. > Where is that???? cos I want a job there! lol. > > Robin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jennifer Semple" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:12 PM > Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] computer databases > > >> Please forgive my ignorance on the issue... but does a computer >> database take place of the midwife making notes & obs on paper? >> >> I was w/ a woman @ her birth in a hospital in the US where they had a >> PC in every labour & birth room (every room was private)... all of the >> notes & obs were entered directly on to it & the CTG was hooked up to >> the PC as well. Hehehe, it was hard to tell whether the computer or >> the bed (with the woman tethered to it) was more of a focal point in >> the room! >> >> I'm a first year BMid student & haven't been on clinicals yet, so I >> don't know what the "state of the state" in hospital in Oz is. I'm not >> passing judgement on the computers... I have no idea what the pros & >> cons are for the midwife... just my observation from the birth w/ the >> woman. >> >> Jen >> >> -- >> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. >> Visit < http://www.acegraphics.com.au > to subscribe or unsubscribe. > > > -- > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > Visit < http://www.acegraphics.com.au > to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit < http://www.acegraphics.com.au > to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit < http://www.acegraphics.com.au > to subscribe or unsubscribe.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT: 8pt MS Sans Serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 2px"> <DIV><FONT size=1>you ask why I feel that midwives need to control our own data.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>For a good example-</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>in the 1920's california redesigned their birth registration form. It allowed the medical officer, or in the abscence of the medical officer one of the parents, to register the birth.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>That meant births attended by midwives were recorded among births with no attendant. Simple as that.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>The flow on was that national figures needed to conform to the "minimum data set" so all births in other states could only be grouped as medical or no attendant.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>and that meant...............</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>when midwifery was arguing about its right to legally practice in terms of numbers, safety etc, there was no data - it was all combined with untrained attendants, no attendant, births by the side of the road etc, etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>another example ;- a couple of years ago the MDC data form "lost" the mother's insurance field. That would have meant that no outcomes for privatly insured women - and their obstetricans - would be publicly available. Thank God midwives noticed and spoke up!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>regards</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1>rosalee</FONT><BR><BR>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/02 06:09PM >>> <BR>"Any history of midwifery will throw light on the damage done to the <BR>profession by its attitude that "some-one-else" could mess with data - <BR>some-one like doctors or beaurocrats. " <BR><BR>Rosalee, is this a negative or a postive thing you are saying? I'm not sure <BR>I comprehend ( although after a long, long day, I'm not sure I comprehend <BR>anything except my wine glass!) <BR><BR>are you saying that there was some anxiety that others-not-midwives would <BR>fiddle with the data on Obstet when it was developed? Or is it that they <BR>already did ( do) anyway and Obstet is supposed to alleviate that imbalance <BR>by providing us with our own data? <BR><BR>Robin <BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Rosalee Shaw" <<U> <A href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></U> > <BR>To: <<U> <A href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></U> > <BR>Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:14 PM <BR>Subject: [ozmidwifery] Midwives & computer databases <BR><BR><BR>Midwives were well represented on the consortium which developed OBSTET, and <BR>they continue to be involved with it - any if any of them are on this list <BR>they might tell you who they are. <BR><BR>It was designed by midwives, and intended to give midwives control of their <BR>own data, and yes, I mean the ones with the women ! <BR><BR>Any history of midwifery will throw light on the damage done to the <BR>profession by its attitude that "some-one-else" could mess with data - <BR>some-one like doctors or beaurocrats. <BR><BR>The future of midwifery is in our data, and we should control it ! <BR><BR>Regards <BR>Rosalee <BR><BR>>>> <U><A href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></U> 10/01/02 03:06PM >>> <BR>Robin, <BR><BR>Were any midwives involved in planning, designing and implementing the <BR>software? By midwives, I mean the ones with the women. <BR><BR>Penny B. <BR><BR>On 30/9/02 8:16 PM, "Robin Moon" < <U><A href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></U> > wrote: <BR><BR>> NO, the OBSTET data base does not take the place of notes and paper.... <BR>> unfortunately. <BR>> Whilst it is great for generating data in an orderly and easy fashion, it <BR>is <BR>> VERY time consuming. Particularly in a labour ward.It is great however for <BR>> pulling stats when needed to back up one's arguments with medical staff <BR>> etc..... But I say, Roll on OBSTET Mark 2 cos this one is wearing thin.... <BR>> <BR>> Whilst the intentions were great for it's development and use, I have <BR>found <BR>> units that now require of the LW midwife to enter pregnancy and labour <BR>info <BR>> on the database, progress notes on the labour AND the partogram. PHew! No <BR>> wonder we're all stressed! <BR>> <BR>> Jen, I think the State of the Art hospital in Australia is one that would <BR>> have the woman as their focus. Not documentation, not legalese, not <BR>doctors. <BR>> Where is that???? cos I want a job there! lol. <BR>> <BR>> Robin <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Jennifer Semple" < <U><A href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></U> > <BR>> To: < <U><A href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></U> > <BR>> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:12 PM <BR>> Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] computer databases <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>> Please forgive my ignorance on the issue... but does a computer <BR>>> database take place of the midwife making notes & obs on paper? <BR>>> <BR>>> I was w/ a woman @ her birth in a hospital in the US where they had a <BR>>> PC in every labour & birth room (every room was private)... all of the <BR>>> notes & obs were entered directly on to it & the CTG was hooked up to <BR>>> the PC as well. Hehehe, it was hard to tell whether the computer or <BR>>> the bed (with the woman tethered to it) was more of a focal point in <BR>>> the room! <BR>>> <BR>>> I'm a first year BMid student & haven't been on clinicals yet, so I <BR>>> don't know what the "state of the state" in hospital in Oz is. I'm not <BR>>> passing judgement on the computers... I have no idea what the pros & <BR>>> cons are for the midwife... just my observation from the birth w/ the <BR>>> woman. <BR>>> <BR>>> Jen <BR>>> <BR>>> -- <BR>>> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. <BR>>> Visit < <U><A href="http://www.acegraphics.com.au";>http://www.acegraphics.com.au</A></U> > to subscribe or unsubscribe. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. <BR>> Visit < <U><A href="http://www.acegraphics.com.au";>http://www.acegraphics.com.au</A></U> > to subscribe or unsubscribe. <BR><BR>-- <BR>This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. <BR>Visit < <U><A href="http://www.acegraphics.com.au";>http://www.acegraphics.com.au</A></U> > to subscribe or unsubscribe. <BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. <BR>Visit <<U> <A href="http://www.acegraphics.com.au";>http://www.acegraphics.com.au</A></U> > to subscribe or unsubscribe. <BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of NSW Health.
