Caseload midwifery as organisational change: the interplay between professional and organisational projects in Denmark

Table 1 Overview of cases

Type of hospital	Caseload model Funding	Scale of model	Caseload midwifery targets	Caseload details*
Highly specialised university hospital	Funded by reduced staffing of ward midwives from:	4 caseload groups	Nulliparas + women who plan early discharge + planned homebirths in hospital catchment area (1 %)	• 120 births per annum per group
	8 a.m.		(1 group with 2 midwives, 3 groups with 3 midwives)	• Mixed risk status
Obstetric unit with 4900 births	8 p.m.			• Max 50 % nullipara
	7 p.m-7 a.m.
7 p.m.
	Neonatal intensive care unit
	7 p.m.
Specialised mid-level hospital	Funded by reduced staffing of ward midwives from:	8 caseload groups	Nulliparas	• 120 births per annum per group
Obstetric unit with 2400 births	6 a.m.		(6 groups: 1 with 2 midwives, 5 with 3 midwives)	• Mixed risk status
	6 p.m.			• 100 % nullipara
	5 a.m-5 p+a.m.		Vulnerable and/or socially dis-advantaged mothers **	• 120 births per annum per group
Neonatal intensive care unit	5 p.m.		(1 group with 3 midwives)	• Mixed risk status
	4 a.m.		Twin pregnancy or women with fear of childbirth	• Mixed nulli- and multiparas
			(1 group with 2 midwives)
Community hospital	Earmarked funding for pilot project	2 caseload groups	All women from local area	• 140 births per annum per group
Obstetric unit with 1900 births			(2 groups, each with 3 midwives)	• Mixed risk status
No neonatal intensive care unit				• Mixed nulli- and multiparas

*Groups consisted of two full-time midwives (37 h/weekly average) or three midwives working either part-time (e.g. 30 h/week) or full-time, divided between caseload (e.g. 25 h/weekly average) and ordinary ward shifts (e.g. 12 h/weekly average)
**Pregnant women, e.g. who are young (<20 years) and/or affected by mental health or social problems

ISSN: 1471-2393