The association between midwifery staffing levels and the experiences of mothers on postnatal wards: cross sectional analysis of routine data ============================================================================================================================================= * Lesley Turner * David Culliford * Jane Ball * Ellen Kitson-Reynolds * Peter Griffiths ## Abstract **Background** Women have consistently reported lower satisfaction with postnatal care compared with antenatal and labour care. The aim of this research was to examine whether women’s experience of inpatient postnatal care in England is associated with variation in midwifery staffing levels. **Methods** Analysis of data from the National Maternity Survey in 2018 including 17,611 women from 129 organisations. This was linked to hospital midwifery staffing numbers from the National Health Service (NHS) Workforce Statistics and the number of births from Hospital Episode Statistics. A two-level logistic regression model was created to examine the association of midwifery staffing levels and experiences in post-natal care. **Results** The median full time equivalent midwives per 100 births was 3.55 (interquartile range 3.26 to 3.78). Higher staffing levels were associated with less likelihood of women reporting delay in discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.849, 95% CI 0.753 to 0.959, p=0.008), increased chances of women reporting that staff always helped in a reasonable time aOR1.200 (95% CI 1.052, 1.369, p=0.007) and that they always had the information or explanations they needed aOR 1.150 (95% CI 1.040, 1.271, p=0.006). Women were more likely to report being treated with kindness and understanding with higher staffing, but the difference was small and not statistically significant aOR 1.059 (0.949, 1.181, p=0.306). **Conclusions** Negative experiences for women on postnatal wards were more likely to occur in trusts with fewer midwives. Low staffing could be contributing to discharge delays and lack of support and information, which may in turn have implications for longer term outcomes for maternal and infant wellbeing. **Explanation** While we recognise that not all gestational parents identify as women; this term was chosen as it has been used in the data source which was accessed for this study and represents most people having maternities. **Statement of significance (problem)** Women report negative experiences of postnatal care compared with antenatal care and birth. There is a recognised shortage of midwives in maternity services, and this may be impacting on the quality of postnatal care. **What is already known?**There is evidence that midwifery staffing levels are associated with birth outcomes but little empirical evidence on the impact of midwifery staffing levels in postnatal care **What this paper adds?**This analysis of survey data supports previous findings that increased midwifery staffing is associated with benefits. This is the first study to examine the effects of staffing on women’s experience of postnatal care. Keywords * Postnatal * Workforce * Midwife * Staffing * Patient experience * Maternity ## INTRODUCTION The State of the World’s Midwifery report estimates that 900,000 more midwives are needed internationally to provide safe care and positive birth experiences 1. Investment in midwives has been predicted to substantially reduce maternal and infant mortality2 and better workforce planning has been at the forefront of recent policy initiatives 3-5. This study focuses on inpatient postnatal care as women have consistently reported lower satisfaction with postnatal care compared with antenatal and labour care6-8. A systematic review of 53 studies on expectations and experiences of inpatient postnatal care concluded that whilst women were generally satisfied with their care, they were sometimes critical of communication, feeding support and a lack of explanations 9. In a qualitative study of ten women following caesarean section in Norway, women reported that staff had not fully taken on board their need for rest and adequate pain relief, and were more concerned with aiding breastfeeding than with their post-surgical recovery 10. Similar concerns have been raised by researchers in Sweden, who examined feedback from 150 women. They reported that women felt insufficient attention was given to their physical and emotional needs and some felt neglected 11. In a survey of 1290 first time mothers relating to care in the first 24 hours after birth, only 41% felt they had all the emotional support they needed, 45% had all the information and advice they needed, and 56% had all their physical care needs met12. Fawcett 13 conducted a thematic analysis of women’s experience on the postnatal ward. Some women report that hospital staff seemed stressed and overworked, and this impacted on whether they felt able to ask for help13. An association between registered nurse staffing and outcomes for acute inpatients has been found in many cross sectional studies, large longitudinal studies and evaluations of staffing policies14-16. Higher skill mix (i.e. total proportion of hours provided by registered nurses) has also been associated with improved outcomes 17. There is much less evidence of the impact of staffing in maternity services. This is especially notable in postnatal care, as a recent scoping review found a only a small number of studies, which examined outcomes such as breastfeeding and neonatal readmissions, and none looked at the woman’s postnatal experience in relation to staffing levels18. There has been an increase in caesarean section rates worldwide19 which impacts on the complexity of care on postnatal wards and length of stay20. The rise in maternal age and obesity also increases the risk profile for some women21,22. Women in the UK are now offered discharge from hospital 24 hours after caesarean section if they are recovering well and do not have complications20, which alters the acuity case mix of women remaining in postnatal areas. It is important to know whether in-patient services are staffed appropriately for the level of demand and patient acuity, as little evidence currently exists on which to base staffing decisions23,24. In England an annual national survey of maternity care is undertaken which asks all women about experiences of care, including postnatal care. Similarly, midwifery staffing levels are routinely reported for all National Health Service (NHS) care providers, which deliver the majority of maternity care in England. Our research aims to examine whether the quality of postnatal care reported by women is associated with variation in midwifery staffing levels. The following research question was addressed: Is registered midwife staffing at organisational level associated with variation in women’s experience of inpatient postnatal care, controlling for other factors? ## METHODS This study is a cross sectional analysis of linked routinely collected datasets in English hospital Trusts. A hospital Trust is an organisation which provides health services in a geographical area in England and manages one or more acute hospitals. Individual patient data on women’s experiences of care has been obtained from the National Maternity Survey 2018 via the UK Data Service8. Staffing and workload data was obtained from the NHS Workforce Statistics dataset 25 and the Hospital Episode Statistics26. The size of the datasets enables detailed statistical analysis of patient and organisation level variables. The use of secondary data is a cost effective way of analysing new questions as data has already been subject to cleaning and quality checks 27. Women were eligible for the annual National Maternity Survey if they had a live birth under the care of a participating hospital Trust during a one-month period and were aged 16 years or over. In 2018, 97.2% of births occurred in an NHS establishment, 0.4% in a non NHS establishment and 2% occurred at home28. There is no sampling frame as all women were invited to participate. The survey used postal methodology and women could complete it over the phone if their first language was not English8. The Full Time Equivalent (FTE) headcount for midwives was extracted from the NHS Workforce Statistics dataset for February 2018, which corresponds with the same time as the National Maternity survey. Records were linked by the unique hospital Trust code. The number of Full Time Equivalent midwives per 100 births for each hospital Trust was calculated using annual births recorded in the Hospital Episode Statistics. Data from 129 Trusts and 17,611 women were included in this secondary analysis. The included Trusts represented 98% (129/132) of those offering maternity services. Three Trusts were not included in the survey as they had less than 300 births in the study period. The participating Trusts varied in size, with the mean number of births per Trust reported as 4844 births (range 1122 to 15,500). The overall response rate was 37% (range of response rates 21% to 61% between Trusts). The majority of women who responded were over 30 years of age (71%). The age profile differed between Trusts e.g. women aged 35 or more ranged from 17% to 57% between Trusts. Data on ethnicity and parity are not available at the individual level but have been obtained at a Trust level from data published online. There is variability in ethnicity of respondents between Trusts, with the lowest proportion of white women in one Trust as 34% and the highest 99%. Overall, 86% per cent of respondents were from a White ethic background, with 8% Asian / Asian British, 3% Black or Black British, 2% mixed ethnicity and 1% Arab or other ethnic group 8. Younger women and women from non-white ethnicities were under-represented compared with those giving birth in the same time period29. In the survey, four closed questions asked specifically about the woman’s experience of postnatal care. These relate to whether they experienced a delay in discharge, if they were able to have help within a reasonable time, if they were given the information or explanations they needed, and whether they had been treated with kindness and understanding (Table 1) View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.14.21267798/T1) Table 1 Questions in maternity survey These four survey questions were only answered by women who had given birth in hospital, and they specifically relate to postnatal care in that setting. The responses were dichotomised into ‘Yes, Always’ (coded 1) and the alternative which included both ‘Yes, sometimes’ and ‘No’ (coded 0). This grouping was decided in advance of the analysis based on the implied quality standard30. A sensitivity analysis was performed by grouping all the ‘Yes’ responses together to examine the effects of this alternative grouping (see Supplementary material). Missing values, don’t know or not applicable responses were removed prior to the analysis, using pairwise deletion. Trust level midwifery staffing levels (as Full Time Equivalent per 100 births) were analysed both as a continuous variable and also divided into tertiles to explore potential non-linear relationships. Three categories were used to ensure sufficient numbers in each category, as the number of Trusts is limited and to aid interpretability. A two-level multilevel logistic regression model was created using Level-1 (mothers) nested within Level-2 (Trusts). Regression coefficients and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated for individual predictors as a precursor to fitting a full model. The null model was a two-level random intercept model with no predictors to explore the extent of between-trust variation in the outcomes. Covariates were added to the multilevel models in 3 blocks: i) staffing and number of births per year (Trust level data) ii) age group and type of birth (Individual level data) iii) ethnicity (percentage white) and percentage primiparous respondents (Trust level data). Akaike’s Information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) goodness of fit data were calculated in order to select models which did not to overfit or underfit the data. Models were selected based on minimising AIC and BIC scores, with lower scores indicating the best fit. Where a difference of less than 2 on the AIC scores was noted, then this was not acted upon as it is not considered to be discriminatory at this level31. If AIC and BIC scores disagreed, then priority was given to the model lowest on AIC, and the model lower on BIC was scrutinised and compared for a sensitivity check. Interaction variables of staffing with age, mode of birth and parity were explored to see if this improved model fit using the same method for model selection. To see if results were sensitive to variation in non-responses between Trusts, analyses were repeated including a variable for the Trust response rate and results were scrutinised. The assumptions of the multivariable logistic regression model were examined using guidance by Schreiber-Gregory 32. We calculated the number of women who would need to be exposed to a higher staffing level to achieve on additional positive outcome using the reciprocal of the absolute risk difference between staffing tertiles33. All data was analysed in Stata 16.1 and coding is presented in the supplementary material. ## RESULTS For the 129 Trusts studied, the median Full Time Equivalent midwives per 100 births was 3.55 (interquartile range 3.26 to 3.78). This equates to one midwife per 28 births. The distribution of staffing levels shows variation in staffing between Trusts with clustering on the left tail, indicating a positive skew (Figure 1). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.14.21267798/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.14.21267798/F1) Figure 1: Distribution of Full Time Equivalent midwives per 100 births in the 129 Trusts The majority of respondents reported that they did not have a delay in discharge (55%) and that staff always helped within a reasonable time (60%), they always had the information or explanations they needed (65%), and were always treated with kindness and understanding (74%). Response categories and frequencies are shown in the Supplementary material. A small proportion of data was missing for each of the four questions, ranging from 466 to 603 respondents (2.6% to 3.4%). Responses varied by age, type of birth and staffing levels. All the unadjusted rates for categorical variables are presented in Table 2. View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.14.21267798/T2) Table 2 Patient experience outcomes by age, type of birth and staffing levels (% Yes Always) ### Predictor variables of age, type of birth, parity, ethnicity, and size of Trust Older women reported a delay in discharge less frequently (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.808 to 0.892 across older subgroups) and reported more frequently that they were always helped within a reasonable time (aOR 1.206 to 1.473), they always had the information or explanations they needed (aOR 1.177 to 1.339), and had always been treated with kindness and understanding (aOR 1.284 to 1.598). Some variation was also noted in women who had undergone different types of birth. Compared to those having unassisted vaginal birth, those having an assisted vaginal birth were more likely to report delay in discharge (aOR 1.406) and less likely to report that staff always helped within a reasonable time (aOR 0.769), that they were always given the information or explanations they needed (aOR 0.613) or always treated with kindness and understanding so often (aOR 0.604). Similar findings were reported by those who had a caesarean section (Table 3). Full models for each of the outcomes are presented in the Supplementary material. View this table: [Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.14.21267798/T3) Table 3 Results of multilevel model for predictor variables of age, type of birth, parity, ethnicity and size of Trust The size of the Trust in terms of the annual number of births did not appear to be associated with variation in any of the reported experiences. The case mix of each Trust suggested that there may be small differences in the experience of cohorts of women in Trusts with more primiparous women (aOR 0.983 to 0.986 for four outcomes) and those with fewer white women (aOR 1.003 to aOR 1.006), however the effect sizes were very small (Table 3). ### Effects of staffing variation Table 4 shows the association between midwifery staffing and experience for both staffing as a continuous variable and by staffing level tertiles. Full models can be found in the supplementary material. View this table: [Table 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.14.21267798/T4) Table 4 Outcomes by staffing levels In the multi-level model we found that every additional Full Time Equivalent midwife per 100 births was associated with 15% reduction in odds of reporting delay in discharge (aOR 0.849, 95% CI 0.753, 0.959, p=0.008), a 20% increased odds of women reporting that staff always helped in a reasonable time (aOR1.200, 95% CI 1.052, 1.369, p=0.007) and a 15% increased odds of women always having the information or explanations they needed (aOR 1.150, 95% CI 1.040, 1.271, p=0.006). For women being treated with kindness and understanding, the point estimate is in the direction of improved experiences with more staffing, but the relationship was not statistically significant in the adjusted model (aOR 1.059, 95% CI 0.949, 1.181 p=0.306) (Table 4). Based on these models we estimate that a Trust in the highest staffing tertile would have 5.7% (95% CI 2.7%, 8.8%) fewer women reporting a delay in discharge compared to a Trust with staffing in the lowest tertile. For every 18 women who receive care in these Trusts one fewer would experience a discharge delay in the higher staffed Trust (number needed to be exposed). Trusts with the highest tertile of staffing would have 4.1% (95% CI 0.9%, 7.3%) more women saying that staff always helped in a reasonable time and 2.7% (95% CI 0.4%, 5.1%) more reporting that they had always been given the information or explanations they needed. This equates to one improved outcome in a high staffed Trust for every 24 women or 37 women respectively (Table 4). There appears to be a dose response effect as Trusts with mid-tertile staffing had predicted effects in between the lowest and highest values (Table 4). ### Sensitivity analyses As Trust response rates varied (from 21% to 61%) we added a variable for the Trust response rate to the model. This led to slightly larger estimates for the effect of staffing but did not substantively alter results. The model with size of organisation, staffing, age group and parity for the outcome of information and explanations had a better fit by the BIC criterion only, however the staffing coefficients were similar to the full model with six predictor coefficients (aOR 1.162 vs aOR 1.150). When alternative dichotomisation was used (‘yes sometimes’ and ‘yes always’ grouped together versus ‘no’) substantive conclusions were generally unchanged, although effect sizes tended to be larger (see Supplementary material for all sensitivity analyses). Interaction variables improved the model fit for kindness and understanding when staffing levels interacted with age group and the percentage of primiparous women. Some subgroups reported more positive experiences in Trusts with higher staffing, although women aged 25-29 years and Trusts with the smallest proportion of primiparous women had findings in the opposite direction. Introduction of interaction variables did not improve model fit for the other three measures (see Supplementary material). ## DISCUSSION Midwifery staffing levels varied considerably between hospitals and were associated with variation in a number of patient reported experiences of postnatal care, after adjusting for other variables. Women in Trusts with more midwifery staff were less likely to report they had experienced a delay in discharge. They were more likely to report that staff always helped them in a reasonable time and were always given the information or explanations they needed. In previous studies, higher midwifery staffing levels have been associated with reductions in postpartum haemorrhage 34, reduced need for neonatal resuscitation 35, maternal readmission 36,37 and increased exclusive breastfeeding rates at discharge38. This analysis of survey data supports and expands upon the previous findings that increased midwifery staffing is associated with benefits, by demonstrating differences in important experiences in post-natal care. The effect sizes we observed are relatively small, but large numbers of women are affected, and the adverse experiences may have economic consequences. In the lower staffed Trusts, an estimate of 5.7% more women (1 in 18) reported that their discharge had been delayed. Delay in discharge contributes to bed pressures 39 and has negative consequences for the woman’s experience9. There is room for improvement as overall 45% of women in the survey reported their discharge had been delayed. In a previous survey, student midwives and postnatal women identified that the postnatal discharge process was rushed and this resulted in poor quality discharge advice40. Both a delay in discharge and rushed discharge are unsatisfactory outcomes and have been linked to staffing pressures in postnatal wards. A higher proportion of staff responding in a timely way and providing information may contribute to a mother’s wellbeing. Psychological health has been recognised as a major public health challenge41, with up to one in five women developing mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first year after birth41. It is known that women value support, reassurance, and information from health professionals at this time42. Previous work has suggested that midwives do not have enough time to talk to women and support them on postnatal wards9 and this study provides further evidence that this may sometimes be the case. There may be yet unrecognised consequences of lack of support, which may manifest in readmissions or a decline in breastfeeding rates if not addressed43,44. The move to a continuity of carer model in some countries may alter the pattern and experience of care for postnatal women. Such changes require staff to be available at the right time and place to provide this care, and overall staffing levels to facilitate this 45. The increased drive to provide personalised, respectful and compassionate care is seen in many national and international initiatives46-48. In this study, three quarters of women felt they were always treated with kindness and understanding. Although the primary analysis did not find a significant association for staffing levels, our sensitivity analyses do provide evidence that that women’s experience of kindness and understanding may be affected by staffing levels. Babaei and Taleghani 49 suggested that workload can be a barrier to providing compassionate care. While negative interactions with patients are relatively rare, Bridges, Griffiths 50 found that negative interactions are more common with lower staffing levels. The main limitations of this study are its cross-sectional design and the level at which staffing has been measured. Data from the Maternity Survey has been linked to staffing data at an organisational level, so we do not have an accurate picture of how many midwives were actually deployed in the postnatal ward area. It may be proportional to the total number of midwives, although we cannot be certain of this and recognise there may be variations in how individual Trusts deploy midwives to meet local needs. There may also be registered nurses and non-registered staff in postnatal areas which have not been accounted for, or movement within the organisation during shifts as some midwives may be relocated away from the postnatal ward to meet needs in other areas44. Confirmation of these results is needed from studies with more direct measures of postnatal ward staffing. New sources of data from electronic rosters has created the potential to undertake longitudinal studies with exposure to staffing measured at a ward or individual patient level, mirroring studies now being undertaken in general nursing51. We did not consider staffing by other professional groups in this analysis. It is conceivable that other staff groups, such as doctors, adult nurses, neonatal nurses and nursery nurses contribute to women’s experiences in the postnatal period. Although this survey data records women’s perceptions of delays in discharge actual delays have not been empirically demonstrated, and this could be the focus of future research. This was a large national study including 129 Trusts and over 17,000 women which aids the generalisability of findings. Although the response rate of 37% is fairly typical of similar surveys this does raise questions about the experience and views of non-responders. The study respondents differed from the target population, for example, there were fewer younger mothers and women from non-white ethnic groups 29. However, the sensitivity analyses of response rate, did not suggest a bias arising from variation in response rates between Trusts. This analysis of the Maternity Survey in the UK adds to the body of evidence examining staffing and outcomes in maternity care. We found that that variation in midwifery staffing at organisational level is associated with variation in women’s experiences of postnatal care. Low staffing levels were linked to higher levels of adverse experiences that could have important consequences in terms of hospital resource use and maternal wellbeing. While we cannot assume the relationship is causal, nonetheless it seems plausible and this is worthy of further exploration. ## Data Availability Data obtained from the UK Data Service/UK Data Archive, including subsets and derived data, cannot be submitted to journals alongside publications as this would be a breach of the End User Licence (EUL) as in https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/help/faq/publication.aspx#Journals [https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/](https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/) * Received December 14, 2021. * Revision received December 14, 2021. * Accepted December 15, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.UNFPA. The State of The World’s Midwifery, 2021. [https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/21-038-UNFPA-SoWMY2021-FastFacts-ENv4302.pdf](https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/21-038-UNFPA-SoWMY2021-FastFacts-ENv4302.pdf) 2. 2.Nove A, Friberg IK, de Bernis L, et al. Potential impact of midwives in preventing and reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and stillbirths: a Lives Saved Tool modelling study. The Lancet Global Health 2021; 9(1): e24–e32. 3. 3.The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Under pressure? NHS maternity services in England. 2017. [https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN215.pdf](https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN215.pdf). 4. 4.Buchan J, Gershlick B, Charlesworth A, Seccombe I. Falling short: the NHS workforce challenge: The Health Foundation, 2019. [https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/falling-short-the-nhs-workforce-challenge](https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/falling-short-the-nhs-workforce-challenge) 5. 5.Health Education England. Maternity Workforce Strategy – Transforming the Maternity Workforce, 2019. [https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/document/MWS\_Report\_Web.pdf](https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/document/MWS_Report_Web.pdf) 6. 6.Brown SJ, Davey M-A, Bruinsma FJ. Women’s views and experiences of postnatal hospital care in the Victorian Survey of Recent Mothers 2000. Midwifery 2005; 21(2): 109–26. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.midw.2004.09.006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15878426&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000229532800002&link_type=ISI) 7. 7.Scottish Government. Maternity care survey 2018: national results, 2019. [https://www.gov.scot/publications/maternity-care-survey-2018-national-results/](https://www.gov.scot/publications/maternity-care-survey-2018-national-results/) 8. 8.Care Quality Commission, Picker Institute Europe. 2018 survey of women’s experiences of maternity care. 2020 (accessed 27.12.2020. 9. 9.Malouf R, Henderson J, Alderdice F. Expectations and experiences of hospital postnatal care in the UK: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. BMJ open 2019; 9(7): e022212. 1-28. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS83L2UwMjIyMTIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8xMi8xNi8yMDIxLjEyLjE0LjIxMjY3Nzk4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 10. 10.Nilsen Mørch M, Sommerseth E, Dahl B. Perceptions of postnatal care after emergency caesarean sections. Norwegian Journal of Clinical Nursing 2019; [https://doi.org/10.4220/Sykepleienf.2019.76793](https://doi.org/10.4220/Sykepleienf.2019.76793). 11. 11.Rudman A, Waldenstrom U. Critical views on postpartum care expressed by new mothers. Bmc Health Services Research 2007; 7(178). 12. 12.Bhavnani V, Newburn M. Left to your own devices: The postnatal care experiences of 1260 first-time mothers: National Childbirth Trust, 2010. [https://www.nct.org.uk/sites/default/files/related\_documents/PostnatalCareSurveyReport5.pdf](https://www.nct.org.uk/sites/default/files/related_documents/PostnatalCareSurveyReport5.pdf) 13. 13.Fawcett J. The impact of postnatal care on a woman’s overall maternity experience: an analysis of stories from Patient Opinion, 2016. [https://www.careopinion.org.uk/resources/blog-resources/1-files/postnatal-care-march-2016.docx](https://www.careopinion.org.uk/resources/blog-resources/1-files/postnatal-care-march-2016.docx) 14. 14.Griffiths P, Ball J, Drennan J, et al. Nurse staffing and patient outcomes: Strengths and limitations of the evidence to inform policy and practice. A review and discussion paper based on evidence reviewed for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Safe Staffing guideline development. Int J Nurs Stud 2016; 63: 213–25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.03.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) 15. 15.Kane RL, Shamliyan TA, Mueller C, Duval S, Wilt TJ. The association of registered nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical care 2007: 1195–204. 16. 16.McHugh M, Aiken L, Sloane D, Windsor C, Douglas C, Yates P. Effects of nurse-to-patient ratio legislation on nurse staffing and patient mortality, readmissions, and length of stay: a prospective study in a panel of hospitals. Lancet 2021; 397: 1905–191. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) 17. 17.Twigg DE, Kutzer Y, Jacob E, Seaman K. A quantitative systematic review of the association between nurse skill mix and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes in the acute care setting. J Adv Nurs 2019; 75(12): 3404–23. 18. 18.Turner L, Griffiths P, Kitson-Reynolds E. Midwifery and nurse staffing of inpatient maternity services – a systematic scoping review of associations with outcomes and quality of care. Midwifery 2021; 103: 103118. 19. 19.Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS one 2016; 11(2): e0148343. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26849801&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) 20. 20.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean birth, 2021. [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng192](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng192) 21. 21.Vitner D, Harris K, Maxwell C, Farine D. Obesity in pregnancy: a comparison of four national guidelines. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2019; 32(15): 2580–90. 22. 22.Sheen J-J, Wright JD, Goffman D, et al. Maternal age and risk for adverse outcomes. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2018; 219(4): 390. e1-. e15. 23. 23.Baxter J, Macfarlane A. Postnatal caesarean care: evaluating the skill mix. British Journal of Midwifery 2005; 13(6): 378–84. 24. 24.Forster DA, McLachlan HL, Yelland J, Rayner J, Lumley J, Davey MA. Staffing in postnatal units: is it adequate for the provision of quality care? Staff perspectives from a state-wide review of postnatal care in Victoria, Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6: 83. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1472-6963-6-83&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16817974&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) 25. 25.NHS Digital. NHS Workforce statistics. 2018. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-workforce-statistics](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-workforce-statistics). 26. 26.NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), 2018. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episode-statistics](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episode-statistics) 27. 27.Uk Data Service. Data catalogue. 2021. [https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/](https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/). 28. 28.Office for National Statistics. Provisional births in England and Wales. 2020. [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales/2020#live-births-by-place-of-occurrence](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales/2020#live-births-by-place-of-occurrence). 29. 29.NHS Digital. Maternity Services Data Set (MSDS), 2018. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-sets/maternity-services-data-set](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-sets/maternity-services-data-set) 30. 30.Care Quality Commission. Many women have a positive experience of maternity services, but for some care continues to fall short. 2020. [https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/many-women-have-positive-experience-maternity-services-some-care-continues-fall-short](https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/many-women-have-positive-experience-maternity-services-some-care-continues-fall-short). 31. 31.Burnham K, Anderson D. Multimodel Inference : Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociological methods and research 2004; 33: 261–304. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0049124104268644&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224706300004&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224706300004&link_type=ISI) 32. 32.Schreiber-Gregory D. Logistic and linear regression assumptions: Violation recognition and control. 2018. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341354759\_Logistic\_and\_Linear\_Regression\_Assumptions\_Violation\_Recognition\_and\_Control](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341354759\_Logistic\_and\_Linear\_Regression\_Assumptions\_Violation_Recognition_and_Control). 33. 33.Bender R, Blettner M. Calculating the “number needed to be exposed” with adjustment for confounding variables in epidemiological studies. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2002; 55(5): 525–30. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00510-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12007557&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175523500015&link_type=ISI) 34. 34.Prapawichar P, Ratinthorn A, Utriyaprasit K, Viwatwongkasem C. Maternal and health service predictors of postpartum hemorrhage across 14 district, general and regional hospitals in Thailand. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2020; 20(172). 35. 35.Hodnett ED, Lowe NK, Hannah ME, et al. Effectiveness of nurses as providers of birth labor support in North American hospitals: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 2002; 288(11): 1373–81. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.288.11.1373&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12234231&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178008300019&link_type=ISI) 36. 36.Gerova V, Griffiths P, Jones S, Bick D. The association between midwifery staffing and outcomes in maternity units in England: observational study using routinely collected data, 2010. [https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/168511/](https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/168511/) 37. 37.Kim SJ, Han KT, Lee HJ, Kwon JA, Park EC. Positive effects of medical staffing on readmission within 30 days after discharge: a retrospective analysis of obstetrics and gynecology data. European journal of public health 2016; 26(6): 935–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/eurpub/ckw102&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27411559&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) 38. 38.Dani C, Papini S, Iannuzzi L, Pratesi S. Midwife-to-newborn ratio and neonatal outcome in healthy term infants. Acta Paediatrica 2020; 00: 1–4. 39. 39.Hendy P, Patel J, Kordbacheh T, Laskar N, Harbord M. In-depth analysis of delays to patient discharge: a metropolitan teaching hospital experience. Clinical Medicine 2012; 12(4): 320–3. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImNsaW5tZWRpY2luZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIxMi80LzMyMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzEyLzE2LzIwMjEuMTIuMTQuMjEyNjc3OTguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 40. 40.Haith-Cooper M, Stacey T, Bailey F. Hospital postnatal discharge and sepsis advice: Perspectives of women and midwifery students. British Journal of Midwifery 2018; 26(4): 248–53. 41. 41.Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Maternal Mental Health – Women’s Voices, 2017. [https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/patients/information/maternalmental-healthwomens-voices.pdf](https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/patients/information/maternalmental-healthwomens-voices.pdf) 42. 42.Finlayson K, Crossland N, Bonet M, Downe S. What matters to women in the postnatal period: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. PloS one 2020; 15(4): e0231415. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0231415&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) 43. 43.Brown TL. Nurse Staffing, Satisfaction and Hospital Readmission Rates in Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Quantitative, Correlational Study: University of Phoenix, 2020. [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2395252910/previewPDF/8B927F8E10AD4319PQ/1?accountid=13963](https://www.proquest.com/docview/2395252910/previewPDF/8B927F8E10AD4319PQ/1?accountid=13963) 44. 44.Dykes F. A critical ethnographic study of encounters between midwives and breast-feeding women in postnatal wards in England. Midwifery 2005; 21(3): 241–52. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.midw.2004.12.006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15967551&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231611800006&link_type=ISI) 45. 45.McLachlan HL, Forster DA, Yelland J, Rayner J, Lumley J. Is the organisation and structure of hospital postnatal care a barrier to quality care? Findings from a state-wide review in Victoria, Australia. Midwifery 2008; 24(3): 358–70. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.midw.2006.10.006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17275970&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2F2021.12.14.21267798.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000259052200014&link_type=ISI) 46. 46.Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, et al. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. The Lancet 2016; 388(10056): 2176–92. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31472-6&link_type=DOI) 47. 47.NHS England. Better Births Four Years On: A review of progress 2020. [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/better-births-four-years-on-progress-report.pdf](https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/better-births-four-years-on-progress-report.pdf) 48. 48.Nursing and Midwifery Council. Standards of proficiency for midwives, 2019. [https://www.nmc.org.uk/standards/standards-for-midwives/standards-of-proficiency-for-midwives/](https://www.nmc.org.uk/standards/standards-for-midwives/standards-of-proficiency-for-midwives/) 49. 49.Babaei S, Taleghani F. Compassionate care challenges and barriers in clinical nurses: A qualitative study. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research 2019; 24(3): 213. 50. 50.Bridges J, Griffiths P, Oliver E, Pickering RM. Hospital nurse staffing and staff–patient interactions: an observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 2019: bmjqs-2018-008948. 51. 51.Griffiths P, Maruotti A, Saucedo A, et al. Nurse staffing, nursing assistants and hospital mortality: retrospective longitudinal cohort study. BMJ quality & safety 2019; 28(8): 609–17. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjI4LzgvNjA5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTIvMTYvMjAyMS4xMi4xNC4yMTI2Nzc5OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)