Cited by 23Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPalliative and Oncologic Care

Responding to catastrophe: a case study of learning from perinatal death in midwifery practice

Laing, Robert E, Fetherston, Catherine M, Morrison, Paul·2020·Women and Birth

Abstract

Problem/background Perinatal death has far reaching emotional effects for all involved in this devastating event. The opportunity for learning as a result of this catastrophe, however, remains unexplored.Aim To explore midwives' experiences of caring through, and learning from, perinatal death, to better inform the effective planning and delivery of education that optimises both midwifery and self-care.Methods A naturalistic interpretive multiple case study design. Seventeen midwives, located in Australia, participated in an online group activity hosted as a blog, followed by telephonic focus groups and in-depth email interviews.Findings Thematic data analysis revealed seven major themes: Grappling with the reality of perinatal death; Struggling with personal and professional heartache; Seeking the space to grieve as a professional; Being with the woman and her family; Finding a new purpose; Strengthened through support; and Developing the courage to care.Discussion The initial turmoil and impact of loss reflected the catastrophic nature of perinatal death. Midwives uncovered a journey to acceptance and learning, realising a determination to enhance expertise and discovering value in experiential knowledge. Insecurity regarding competence and confidence to manage perinatal death and bereavement care was highlighted. However, sharing their stories revealed professional fulfilment, personal strength, and solidarity amongst midwives who have endured similar experiences.Conclusion A coordinated approach to support and the dissemination of experiential knowledge and learning could be developed within an online model of narrative sharing and discussion. Debriefing, support and sharing of expertise in this way may foster engagement within and beyond the workplace.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wombi.2020.02.016

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Laing, R. E., Fetherston, C. M., & Morrison, P.
Affiliations
Murdoch University (AU)
Corresponding author
Laing, Robert E
Venue
Women and Birth
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
556-565
ISSN
1871-5192 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3008356085
Cited by
23
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Women and Birth (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
perinatal death, midwives, grief, bereavement support, midwifery education, experiential knowledge, professional support, narrative sharing, debriefing
MeSH terms
Adult, Australia, Clinical Competence, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Education, Professional, Female, Humans, Learning, Middle Aged, Midwifery, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Perinatal Death

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review