Midwifery Clinical Training Survey Conducted February, 2006, by Daphne Singingtree, CPM First published in Midwifery Today, Summer 2006 #78      Full Article here BACKGROUND: Midwives’ experiences of their clinical training can give us greater insight toward developing effective clinical teaching strategies. The main objective of this survey was to investigate what midwives perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of their clinical training and what factors they perceive may improve clinical midwifery opportunities. METHOD: This was an informal survey sent to midwives from Yahoo E-mail groups and other E-mail lists. One hundred fifty-six individuals self-selected to respond. The survey questionnaire was online and anonymous, and contact information was optional. The survey contained 29 questions. Most were multiple choice, some with multiple answers possible, some yes/no, and some five-point rating scale, from poor to excellent. This survey was intended as an informal “snapshot” and was not designed with qualitative data analysis in mind. PARTICIPANTS: Only midwives and student midwives attending births as midwifery students (not as nurses or doulas) were asked to participate. All types of midwives who work in a variety of practice settings were included. Country of origin was not requested, but a review of the optional contact information showed that three respondents (1.9%) were from outside of the US. Seventy-eight (50%) of the respondents were CPM, LM or both; thirty-two (20.9%) were CNM; twenty-four (15.4%) were student DEM; fourteen (9.2%) were DEM—not certified or licensed, and seven (4.5%) fell in the Other category, which included foreign trained, DEM now a CNM, etc. The majority, 122 (61.3%), practiced at home. Seventeen (8.5%) practiced in urban hospitals, three (1.5%) practiced in rural hospitals, thirty-nine (25%) practiced in freestanding birth centers, thirteen (6.5%) practiced in clinics or offices and five (3.2%) were either not currently practicing or worked in admin/teaching. RESULTS: Midwives who participated came from a wide range of educational backgrounds and clinical training experiences. Overall, they expressed that their training prepared them very well for actual practice, with very few (less than 1%) rating 1 (or Poor) in a five-point rating scale, with1=poor to 5=excellent. However, with only thirty-four (22.22%) rating their academic training as excellent in preparing them for clinical practice, and only fifty-four (35.29%) rating their clinical training as excellent in preparing them for practice, there is clearly room for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Many aspects of the clinical training of midwives are universal, regardless of type of midwife or practice setting. Overall, midwives felt good or very good about how their training prepared them for midwifery practice. DEMs who trained more than fifteen years ago had very different experiences than their CNM and more recently trained counterparts. Having a positive interpersonal relationship between preceptor and student was a key factor in how midwives felt about their training. The most valuable information in this survey was in the additional comments written by individual midwives. While this survey provided an overview and some interesting numbers, more research with a properly designed study is needed. Complete Results Click here . .