gms | German Medical Science

Background: The Midwifery Act 2019 (HebG) requires at least 480 hours of practical work in an ambulant setting for the dual practice-integrating Bachelor’s degree program. In addition, 25% mentoring by a midwife with a qualification for practical instruction and proof of 24 hours of professional pedagogical further training per year are prescribed in practical placements.

Until now, the participation of midwives working outside the clinic in practical training was an unpaid service and did not require proof of a qualification. It is unclear whether sufficient freelance midwives and midwife-led facilities can be recruited for this task in the future under the changed conditions.

Aim: Information was obtained about the current offer and the organisation of practice placements in the out-of-hospital sector. Midwives were asked about their reasons for or against participating in practical training. It was investigated which factors favour or inhibit the offer of practical placements in the out-of-hospital sector.

Methods: An online survey of midwives working outside the clinic was conducted using a questionnaire. The survey was conducted in April and May 2020 and the results were analysed quantitatively. A question on the academisation of midwifery training, which was to be answered by free text, was analysed qualitatively according to Mayring’s qualitative content analysis.

Results: 294 midwives working outside the clinic took part in the survey. Of these, 55.4% stated that they offered practical placements. There was a very high level of agreement among all respondents on pedagogical reasons for offering practical training in the outpatient setting, with all other reasons also receiving a high level of agreement. The majority of reasons against offering out-of-hospital placements were economic and organisational (formalities, responsibility). In the evaluation of reasons, a significant difference was found between midwives who offer practical placements and midwives who do not offer placements. They more often stated that they experienced self-affirmation in their work with midwifery students and rated organisational and pedagogical reasons against participation in practical training as less relevant. Among other things, the results showed that midwives working outside the clinic considered a payment for their training activities as very important for the appreciation of their task and their additional time effort. The requirement of a qualification for the practical placements as well as for further training in professional pedagogy was valued very various.

Relevancy: Whether the practical study parts can be realised in the ambulant sector according to the HebG 2019 depends above all on a sufficient readiness of midwives working outside the clinic to offer practical placements and to complete the further education and training prescribed for this.

Conclusion: Midwives working outside the clinic have a varied view of practical placements in their area of practice. Findings on the factors influencing the offer of practical placements and their consideration in the arrangement of cooperations could be helpful in achieving a sufficient number of midwives in the outpatient sector who offer such placements.

Ethics and conflicts of interest: This abstract was written in the context of a bachelor’s thesis. A vote on ethics was not necessary. The research was financed by own resources. There are no conflicts of interest.