Friday, October 17, 2014


Dear reader

Over many years I have enjoyed writing as villagemidwife, and I know that there are many people who read my posts.  Much of my writing is an outpouring of thought and emotion that has been directly linked to my practice.  I am hoping to continue writing for a long time, but it's likely that that will change, as my life's pathway moves on.

I have attended the last birth in my caseload.  I am continuing to practise, particularly in sorting out breastfeeding problems and other postnatal care, but I have decided to act my age, and to leave the births to the younger midwives.  My decision to cease attending births was supported by the fact that in the past 3+ years, since the government's maternity reforms, the number of privately practising midwives in and around Melbourne has increased exponentially, while the number of women who wish to engage a midwife for homebirth, or hospital support, is increasing only steadily.  That means many midwives are under-employed, and there is huge competition for 'business'.

[aside] This sort of language may be unpalatable to some readers.  Birthing is about women and their beautiful babies.  Yes!  Surely midwives who practise independently do so because we have made personal commitments to the protection, promotion and support of natural birthing in a way that we are not likely to be able to practise in mainstream maternity services?  Yes!
But these wonderful possibilities can only be sustained if the midwife is free to focus on the woman and her child, and that means maintaining a reasonable caseload and being paid a reasonable amount of money. 

We have sold our house in the leafy Eastern suburbs, and bought a beautiful (smaller) house on five acres in Kyneton.  If you want to search, the address is 121 Rosa Court, Kyneton Victoria 3444.

If you enjoy reading this blog, you may also enjoy OLD midWIVES' TALES.
Also a fac_book site of the same name.  You are welcome there too - just go to the site and send me a membership request.
So far I am the only writer, but I would love to have other midwives record something of their wisdom, experiences, and learnings.

With best wishes
Joy Johnston

Thursday, September 25, 2014


(by Poppy)
Several years ago, in 2010, I posted Dangerous Drugs, in which I explored my thoughts and concerns about the adverse effect of opiate drugs on a baby's ability to function normally in the first few days of life.  In that post the narcotic (opiate) drug endone came under the spotlight, as it was being (and still is) used liberally in early postnatal settings, particularly after caesarean births or when women complain of perineal pain.

[Note to readers:  If you would like to check the information about any drug, you can search the myDr medicines site.  For example, Endone tablets. ]

In 2012 I completed an accredited course in Pharmacology, the Graduate Certificate in Midwifery at Flinders University, and subsequently received endorsement of my registration as a midwife prescriber, and obtained my own prescription pads.  I and many other Australian midwives have used social media for discussion of prescribing issues, in the Midwife Prescriber group.

Any medicine that contains opiates (including over the counter medicines such as panadeine [paracetamol+codeine]) is metabolised into morphine as well as other substances, and has a similar analgesic action to endone for the mother, and is transmitted via breast milk to the baby.  There is a great deal of variability in the way an individual metabolises opiate medicines, transferring the substances from the stomach, via the liver, to the blood stream, and to pain receptor sites.  The existence of ultra-rapid metabolizers of codeine should be noted by any midwife or doctor or pharmacist who prescribes or recommends oral opiates for women who are breastfeeding, and the medicine should not be used if the baby appears affected (excessively sleepy/lethargic) after being fed with mother's milk.  (??? aren't babies supposed to be sleepy after breastfeeding?  Yes - not lethargic though.)

Pethidine (meperidine)
After that rather lengthy introduction, today I would like to focus on another opiate, pethidine, or meperidine (Demarol) in some countries.

Peer reviewed medical literature has for more than a decade drawn attention to the neurotoxic effect of metabolites of pethidine, in both the adult and in the breastfed infant.  In 2006, the New Zealand Medical Journal published a paper by Shipton, stating that "Pethidine is no longer considered a first-line analgesic. ... Clinicians around the World recommend its removal from health systems
or restriction of its use." (p1)

Anderson published A Review of Systemic Opioids Commonly Used for Labor Pain Relief (Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, 2011), and stated that,
"Meperidine [Pethidine] and its metabolites accumulate in colostrum and breast milk and may be associated with newborn neurobehavioral alterations and unfavorable effects on developing breastfeeding behaviors. Wittels et al43 conducted a prospective, randomized study of breastfeeding women who underwent cesarean births and compared intravenous PCA administration of meperidine to intravenous PCA administration of morphine. Meperidine was associated with significantly more neurobehavioral depression in breastfeeding newborns on the third and fourth days of life when compared with the behavior of the newborns in the morphine cohort (P .05), despite similar overall doses of morphine and meperidine." (page 227)

A question posted at the Midwife Prescriber site a week ago indicated that pethidine is currently used liberally in labour and postnatally, except in public hospitals in New South Wales, where I understand its use has been restricted.  Old habits die hard!

Here's a recent case (true story) -
A woman who is a well informed registered professional, having her second baby by elective caesarean for transverse lie, at a public teaching hospital in Melbourne:
  • requested that the IV be inserted in a vein on her left arm rather than the back of her hand, because she wanted freedom to hold and feed her baby after the birth.
  • was surprised that the young anaesthetic doctor was very reluctant to do this - had to insist - and eventually got what she requested
  • asked not to be given pethidine which is the standard in that hospital, preferred morphine via a PCA, as she was aware of concerns about metabolisation of pethidine, and transfer to colostrum, and felt she could have more control over the amount of drug in her system this way
  • once again found that she had to argue with the anaesthetic doctor in order to achieve this preference. No valid reason was given for the hospital's preference of pethidine. The doctor said that "the midwives don't like PCA and don't know how to manage it" (which I think is nonsense)
  • and after this doctor had (albeit reluctantly) complied with the woman's wishes, said to the woman. "You're right you know, we don't like using pethidine. It's a 'dirty drug'. And not siting the IV on the back of your hand is a no brainer."

This story illustrates unprofessional behaviours, particularly by the anaesthetic doctor, who was probably doing exactly what she or he had been told to do.  As a teaching hospital, one would expect evidence to be critically examined and applied.  If pethidine is not the best available medicine, it should not be used.  Passing the blame to the midwives is outrageous.  Most of the midwives working in hospitals have not studied pharmacology, and do not have authorisation to prescribe.  The person who signs the medications chart is the person who takes responsibility for the prescription.  If there are problems with the equipment, sort that out.

Drugs such as pethidine, morphine, endone, OxyContin, and others are DANGEROUS DRUGS.  They are kept in the DANGEROUS DRUG cupboard in hospital wards, and protocols must be followed to ensure that these medicines are signed out and administered correctly.  They are called DANGEROUS DRUGS because they are DANGEROUS!

The challenge is that when a dangerous drug is required, such as after major surgery, what is the least dangerous option for the mother and her new baby?

Sunday, September 21, 2014

possibly postmature

Possibly postmature
possibly not!

Midwives follow systematic processes in reaching the estimated due date for each pregnancy. 
  • the date of the first day of the last period
  • the normality of the last period
  • the date of quickening
And, if ultrasound is used, there are additional pieces to add to the puzzle.

Usually we are fairly confident, but it's still an estimate.  Today I would like to reflect on a case in which the calculated estimated due date was probably wrong.  The pregnancy progressed past 41 weeks, past 42 weeks, and labour commenced spontaneously leading to the birth of a healthy baby boy at (estimated!) 42weeks+5days.

A few midwives faced with this scenario - those at the far 'natural' end of the spectrum - would possibly shrug their shoulders and say the baby will come when it's ready.

Most midwives would observe, auscultate, palpate, assess, and discuss a plan with the mother.  We have the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for  Consultation and Referral, which list 42 weeks as a decision point.

A colleague phoned me one morning, to discuss a case.  The mother was a healthy primigravida, whose pregnancy was now at 42 weeks.  The mother was planning homebirth.  There had been no reason to question the accuracy of the estimated due date, as the mother's fundal height measurements had been consistent with the gestation throughout the pregnancy.  The midwife had advised the mother to be reviewed at the local public hospital, explaining that the hospital would do some fetal monitoring and ultrasound, and that the process is usually reassuring to all concerned.  The hospital may advise induction of labour as preferable to doing nothing. 

The mother was adamant in her refusal - she would not go to the hospital.

My colleague, the midwife, asked me at what stage I would withdraw from caring for this woman.  +3 days. + 5 days, 43 weeks ....?


          Simply because the estimated gestation had passed an arbitrary date.

How sure are you of the estimated due date?

          Fairly sure, but ...

So, have you considered that the pregnancy may actually be just 41 weeks, and that there is nothing complicated or out of the ordinary?

With the benefit of hindsight, this question, and the only reasonable response, sounds obvious. 

There is a real ethical dilemma when the advice to intervene (for example, in this case, to induce labour) is promoted by the midwife because there is a small statistical increase in risk to the baby if the pregnancy truly is 'postmature'.    This youtube video, published on 10 Jun 2013, is a short excerpt from Elselijn Kingma's contribution to the panel discussion: Perinatal Mortality in the Netherlands: Facts, Myths and Policy at the first Human Rights in Childbirth conference in the Hague, the Netherlands in 2012.

No midwife works in an 'ideal' setting, and no woman gives birth under 'optimal' conditions.  That's life! 

Homebirth midwifery in Melbourne, as in most of Australia, today, is far from ideal.  Despite the obvious privileges of high levels of education and health, and good access to emergency services, we often experience poor communication with hospital maternity staff.  Midwives who have attempted to establish collaborative agreements with hospitals are weary from the uphill push, over many years.

Midwives are not immune to fear.  There is fear that something might go wrong, fear of punitive action by the regulatory Board, fear of loss of livelihood.  Other midwives have been down these paths.

I would like to encourage any midwives reading this post to maintain calm and logical thinking processes as you weigh up (possible) risk against (actual) wellness.  In a case such as this one, the mother was strong, her unborn child was strong.  The dates were possibly incorrect.  The decision at 42 weeks to not intervene, to 'do nothing', was a rational and supportable one.  The mother's refusal to seek consultation with hospital services was also rational and supportable. 

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Risk and maternity care

Discussion about risk in maternity care may be met with the full range of responses, from the hands over the ears "hear no evil", through to scary stories about the "disaster waiting to happen".  A midwife needs to understand risk, recognise progression into complications, and appropriate response to change in a woman's or baby's status, without being fearful.  A midwife is guided by principles such as
"In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process" (WHO 1996. Care in Normal Birth: A practical guide.)

The usual model of care offered by midwives who practise privately is primary maternity care, with a strong emphasis on continuity of carer and the promotion, protection and support of the natural physiological processes in childbearing: spontaneous unmedicated birth, facilitating strong mother-baby bonding, and exclusive breastfeeding. This emphasis is consistent with best standards of midwifery practice and health promotion globally, and is to be applauded and supported in the interests of public wellbeing and safety. 

Today I want to look at practice issues for midwives in private practice, from a risk based approach.  Not just risk of complications or illness in the mother or baby, but also the risk that a midwife's practice may not be of the standard expected by the profession or the community.

The statutory regulator for health professionals, AHPRA, has established a set of regulatory principles which require the Boards to establish a responsive, risk based approach to addressing practice issues. ( )

It has been recognised for many years that systems of maternity care which rely on risk assessment will place a disproportionately high number of women in the "at risk" categories, leading to an increased likelihood that these women will be subjected to a higher level of intervention in the birth.  This process might be seen as necessary, in ensuring the best outcomes, but it often fails to do that!  No amount of bureaucratic micromanagement through laws or practice guidelines will ensure safety.  Many women for whom no risk categories apply will develop complications that require expert obstetric intervention, while many of the women in the "at risk" categories will, with appropriate care, proceed to an uncomplicated, spontaneous birth of a healthy baby.

Within the broad scope of midwifery, issues of special note in private practice, when there may well be an increased risk to women and babies in the care of midwives include:
• Education of midwives, registration, and transition to private practice
• Notifications, investigations, and hearings into professional conduct
• Lack of professional indemnity insurance for homebirth
• Notation as an eligible midwife [including Medicare, endorsement for prescribing, hospital visiting access]

Here are a few of the risks, all of which could contribute to poor outcomes for the mother and baby:

  1. Risk of unrealistic, idealistic notions of midwifery practice and natural birth, 
  2. Risk of inexperience, and lack of appropriate education and preparation for autonomous practice.
  3. Risk of professional isolation, and stunted growth of a midwife's professional identity.
  4. Risk of bias in the regulatory body against private midwifery practice.
  5. Risk of bias in mainstream hospital maternity services against private midwifery practice. 
  6. Risk of discouraged, disheartened midwives leaving the profession and being unable to find suitable employment.
  7. Risk to the public of being prevented from accessing the options for midwife-led maternity care, introduced through legislative reform in 2010. 
  8. Risk that women are being prevented from accessing the potential for excellent outcomes that are seen in midwife-led care.
  9. Risk of obstruction of trade for midwives.
  10. Risk of the rise of 'free birth' and births attended by unqualified or lay midwives.

There is a separate, and different category of risk that needs to be included in any discussion about private midwifery practice in Australia.  Midwives are unable to purchase professional indemnity insurance (PII) for homebirth - the core ingredient of most midwives practices.

It is unreasonable that Australian midwives' homebirth practices should continue to be excluded from the PII that is currently available.  Eligible midwives are able to buy insurance for every aspect of their practice, except homebirth.  This needs to be changed.  Insurance, per se, does not make birth safer or less safe; does not ensure good outcomes.  Insurance seeks to protect the financial interest of the players, rather than the health interests.

Tomorrow I am meeting with other representatives of professional organisations, and the NMBA, to discuss midwifery practice issues and regulation.  The points I have noted in this blog are contained in a discussion paper that I have written for this meeting.

Your comments are welcome.

Monday, July 21, 2014


The mother of a two-and-a-bit year old commented wistfully, "I had no idea of what I was committing to when I became a mummy."

That's so true.

In fact, I don't think it's possible, prior to the experience, to understand something as absolute as the basic, intuitive, hormonally mediated changes that occur in a woman's life when she takes her child into her arms and puts that child to her breast.
Thanks to Miriam and Amelie

This mother who, for whatever reasons, started her family in her mid- to late-thirties has probably experienced a great deal of freedom and responsibility in her personal and professional life.  She has experienced leaving home, and becoming independent of parental influences.  She has possibly experienced promotions and increases in her work earnings.  She may have enjoyed overseas travel or achieved success in the personal pursuits that she has chosen.


And now, at about 40 years of age, she has her two-year old constantly in her care, and is preparing for the arrival of a sister or brother.

The day begins with "I very hungry now mummy", and continues as she seeks to meet each of the needs of the child. Multiple meals and snacks, nappy changes, library, play group, walks to the playground, playing hide-and-seek, art work at the kitchen table, music, visits to friends, daytime sleeps, melt downs because the little one didn't get all the sleep she needed, sweeping up crumbs and food scraps under the table for the n-th time, and thinking about upping her dinner menu to something special tonight.  These are just a few of the day's challenges, along with shopping for groceries, mountains of washing, drying, folding and putting away the clothes, getting to appointments on time, and much more.

There is no suggestion of complaint in this mother's musings.  Most of the time she patiently accepts the work of caring for one small person; valuing her own role as mother above all other options at this time of her life.  University education and professional standing cannot compete with the status that is simply and profoundly accessed under the title 'mother'. 

Am I being idealistic?   Am I seeing only what I choose, through the filter of many years; forgetting the reality of sleep-deprivation, and the constant and unrelenting need of the little one for attention? 

I don't think so.  I see a great mystery, something timeless and inexplicable, in the ability of a mother to care for her children.  I accept that many aspects of mothering call for a commitment that goes far beyond our usual limits, and that it's not possible, prior to the experience, to understand something as absolute as the basic, intuitive, hormonally mediated changes that occur in a woman's life when she takes her child into her arms and puts that child to her breast.

The mystery of the mother is our birth-right; contained within the wonderous bodies that God created in his own image, and that God said "is good".  Mothering is part of the natural physiological process that can happen automatically in a woman's person during pregnancy and after the birth of her baby.  It's the same normal physiological process that I as a midwife have sought to protect, promote and support, unless there is a valid reason to take another, more medical, pathway.

Yet the ability of a mother to give, and give again, is not to be taken lightly.  The presence or absence of loving support and encouragement from husband, family, friends and within the community can make a huge difference.

I recognise that mothers today are expected to return to paid employment after their babies have reached one year, or even six months, with children being placed in day care.  I cannot accept this as being in the child's or the family's interests.  In the end Australian families will be paying a high price for this social experiment that interferes with the basic building blocks of love and attachment between mothers and their babies. 

Mothers who are willing and able to nurture their own babies should be supported to do so. 

Monday, July 14, 2014

conversations on *choice*

I would like to bring some thoughts about maternity choices from the relative safety of a closed social media group to the openness and exposure of this blog, which does not restrict access.  This is not the first time I have written about choice.  A simple search of this blog brings up posts each year since 2007.

The current conversations have been prompted, in my mind at least, by my awareness of the movement that promotes a person's right to self-determination in health care, and particularly a woman's right to autonomy over her own body in the highly contested terrain of maternity care.

Here are a few real examples of that evasive entity, *choice*:

  1. Jenny is pregnant with her sixth child.  She is a healthy 38-year old, who had a caesarean birth for her first, and has had uncomplicated births of her babies since then.  She would really like to give birth at home, in water, but the (free - publicly funded) homebirth program from a nearby public hospital will not agree to homebirth because she is considered high risk (previous caesarean, multiparity >5). 

    Jenny inquires about private homebirth services, and thinks that the cost of $5,000+ is prohibitive, even with Medicare rebate of approximately $1,000.  The midwives are also concerned that her risk status might put them at risk of mandatory notification to the regulatory Board.

    Jenny inquires at the local public hospital, where she could receive free maternity care.  She is told that she would not be permitted to use water immersion in labour, be managed as 'high risk', have continuous fetal monitoring in active labour, have IV access established in labour, and immediate active management of third stage after the baby was born.

    Jenny feels she has no real choice.  The system (public or private) simply does not support her choice to proceed naturally, and does not respect her desire to avoid what she considers to be unnecessary medical interference that could quickly lead to complications.
  2. Jean is pregnant with her second child.  Her first baby was born three years ago, weighing 4 kilograms, and she had an epidural and forceps, and a large third degree perineal tear which took a long time to heal.  Jean feels traumatised by her experiences in her first birth, and she feels that her marriage relationship has suffered, because she does not enjoy intimate contact, and tries to avoid sexual intercourse.   She considers herself healthy, but she is over weight, and she has 'failed' the glucose tolerance test.  The hospital advises that she needs a series of ultrasound assessments of her baby's growth, and possible induction at 38 weeks if the baby seems large. 

    Jean is now 34 weeks along in this pregnancy.  Jean's preference is for natural birth, and she discusses this with the hospital midwife. 

    Jean feels that she has no real choice.  She could opt for an elective caesarean, or for an induction of labour, but the system does not have a pathway for her that supports and protects unmedicated natural birth. 
  3. Jo is pregnant with her first child, and everything was 'normal' until the 35 week check when she was told that her baby was presenting breech - bottom first.  She was told by her (private) doctor that she would be booked for elective caesarean at 40 weeks, unless her baby turned. 
    Jo has quickly checked out websites that address breech births, and joined social media groups, got hold of moxa sticks, and started positioning herself crawling on the floor with her bum higher that her shoulders to help the baby turn.  She finds that there are a couple of obstetricians in town who are 'pro' vaginal breech birth, and a couple of public hospitals that support the option. 

    Jo feels that she has no real choice.  Decisions will need to be made as she progresses along the road to the birth of her baby.  Those decisions may be limited by the services available, the service providers, and the status of her baby as far as position, progress, and wellness are concerned.
  4. Jazz is pregnant with her third child, and is planning homebirth with the publicly funded hospital homebirth program. 

    Jazz understands that she has one choice, 'plan A': to proceed naturally without medication or other medical intervention, at home.  If she needs to move to 'plan B' for any reason, her midwife will go with her to hospital, and Jazz will be able to make what she considers to be the best decisions from options available at the time.

A midwife has a clear duty, by definition and best practice, to support and protect normal physiological processes in birth, unless there is a valid reason to offer medical intervention(s).  This is the DEFAULT position, that protects the safety and wellbeing of mother and child. 

'Plan A' does not deny the woman's right to decline any treatment that is offered.  But that is the woman's prerogative; not the midwife's.  The pathway to good maternity services comes with respect for both the woman's voice, and the midwife's.  There is no partnership if either the woman, or the midwife, feels unable to contribute honestly to the decision-making.

The midwife who does not apply health promotion/ best practice principles to their advice and protect that *Plan A* default position will probably contribute to the society's loss of professional skill required to work in harmony with the unique natural physiological processes in pregnancy, birth, and nurture of the infant. Once that skill is diminished or lost, the mother will find her *choice* has been seriously restricted to the medical options. eg professional de-skilling in breech vaginal births.

I have seen midwives overwhelmed by their desire to support a woman's choice, and ignoring or missing signs that a potentially life-saving intervention needs to be taken.    

[A note to those who read this post.  If you think I am referring to you, it's possible that I am.]

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Supervision, again ...

My thoughts are returning to the supervision topic, as I prepare to attend more meetings in preparation for the introduction of some model of supervision for privately practising midwives.  This additional regulatory process is clearly intended to identify and manage midwives whose practice does not conform with accepted standards.

Becoming a mother is a quintisentially profound moment in a woman's life, regardless of her people group, education, wealth, or any other variable.   A midwife holds knowledge and skill of working in a way that protects, promotes, and supports wellness in the childbearing process and adjustment to motherhood. 
A greeting card that captures some of the wonder of becoming a mother.

The regulation of midwifery, and other health professions, is the process by which a society can have confidence in the profession, ensuring high standards of education and practice, and a reliable process of investigation and calling to account any midwife who is involved in care that leads to adverse outcomes, or allegations of professional misconduct.

In its Request for Tender – Privately practicing midwives models of supervision, the NMBA (2013) has stated that supervision is: “a critical mechanism in the training, support and ongoing safe practice of midwifery. It incorporates elements of direction and guidance through a process of professional support and learning which enables a practitioner to develop knowledge and competence, assume responsibility for their own practice and enhance public protection and safety.”

The Australian College of Midwives (ACM) has encouraged members to communicate the following points to the reviewers, either in the consultative process of focus groups, or via the online survey.  ACM states that:
  • Supervision should be a supportive, mentoring and advisory process, not a management or punitive process; 
  • There should be one supervision process for all midwives 
  • If supervision is mandated by the NMBA, the model should be developed, implemented and regulated by midwives, not other professions 
  • Supervision is not an inter-professional clinical review process 
  • The importance of current practices in Australia such as the ACM Midwifery Practice Review (MPR) program, should not be overlooked. 
  • The projects should also be mindful of other review and consultation processes currently happening, and that supervision should not been seen in isolation:
    • ACM evaluation of MPR

    • NMBA review of the Quality and Safety Framework

    • NMBA review of registration standards for both midwives and eligible midwives

    • ANMAC’s review of standards for prescribing programs and peer review programs

    Many midwives using social media have been quick to express their frustration and dismay at *yet another* level of regulatory control.  Questions asked include: 
    • Why are private practice midwives being subjected to supervision?
    • Haven't we jumped through enough hoops with eligibility, insurance, MPR, QSF, and all the codes and guidelines we have to follow?
    • The UK Health Ombudsman found their supervision system has problems - "Supervision is a statutory responsibility...the dual role of a Supervisor, providing support but also a regulatory function, allows for an inherent conflict of interest." Why are we introducing supervision if it is not working in the UK?
    • Who pays for supervision?
    • The UK review also found  "There is a weak evidence base in terms of risk for the continuation of an additional tier of regulation for midwives."
    •  What if the woman doesn't want a supervisor involved in her care? 
    •  Is the supervision remote or ... direct observation? 
    • How are the supervisors trained? Who trains them? 
    • Can a non-eligible midwife supervise an eligible midwife? 
    • What Body does the supervisor report to?
It appears to me that AHPRA has decided it needs to provide additional levels of regulation for some midwives (and they can, whether we like it or not).  The current investigation is seeking models of supervision, and from the NMBA (2013) request for tender (referenced above) I gather that the primary focus of supervision of privately practising midwives is to be those midwives who are entering private practice, ensuring that they develop "... knowledge and competence, assume responsibility for their own practice and enhance public protection and safety"  A large number of midwives have recently left hospital jobs, attracted by the possibilities of primary midwifery practice in their communities.  There has been no standard pathway for this exodus: each midwife has found her own way, achieved notation as an eligible midwife, and endorsement to prescribe, and hung up their shingle or joined a group practice.

In concluding this log, I would like to put my thoughts on the record.

Anything that comes from the NMBA needs to be of a regulatory nature, and that regulation needs to be transparent about what it is seeking to achieve, and properly managed and funded to maintain the integrity of the process.   This sort of regulatory professional supervision could be applied to all midwives who move into private practice, for a period, such as up to five years, with standards against which the midwife and the supervisor are able to assess performance.  Midwives who have had some years of experience in midwifery may be able to demonstrate their "knowledge, competence, and responsibility" over a shorter period of time (eg 1 year), while new graduates of a B Mid course, or midwives who are under Board investigation, may remain under supervision for the full five years, or more.

In developing my position on professional supervision, I must assume that any regulatory requirement must be funded, for the preparation and payment of supervisors, and the ongoing development of the program.

I do not agree with a process that attempts to integrate the regulatory surveillance role with a support role.  Mentoring and support are valuable elements of professional development, but are different, and should be separate from supervision. 

Your comments here, or in the facebook villagemidwife group, are welcome.