The report from the Health Service Ombudsman: Time for review?

Abstract

British Journal of MidwiferyVol. 22, No. 1 CommentThe report from the Health Service Ombudsman: Time for review?Cathy RogersCathy RogersSearch for more papers by this authorCathy RogersPublished Online:3 Apr 2014https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2014.22.1.56AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Burden B, Jones T (1999) Midwives' perceptions of supervisors and managers. British Journal of Midwifery 7(9): 547–52 Link, Google ScholarBurden B, Jones T (2001) Improvements to supervision are essential for best practice. British Journal of Midwifery 9(4): 220–6 Link, Google ScholarCare Quality Commission (2013) Maternity services survey 2013. Care Quality Commission, London Google ScholarDepartment of Health (2007) Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century. The Stationery Office, London Google ScholarDuerden J (2000) Audit of Supervision of Midwives. England 1996–1997. In: Kirkham, M (ed.) Developments in the Supervision of Midwives. Books for Midwives, Oxford Google ScholarFrancis R (2013) Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. The Stationery Office, London Google ScholarGaffney E (1998) What do midwives want from their supervision? Results of a small survey in Yorkshire. The Practising Midwife 1(10): 24–6 Google ScholarHalksworth G, Bale B, James C (2000) Evaluation of the supervision of midwives; Wales. In: Kirkham, M (ed.) Developments in the Supervision of Midwives. Books for Midwives, Oxford: 1–32 Google ScholarHenshaw AM, Clarke D, Long AF (2013) Midwives and supervisors of midwives' perceptions of the statutory supervision of midwifery within the United Kingdom: A systematic review. Midwifery 29(1): 75–85 Crossref, Google ScholarHome Office, Department of Health (2003) The Shipman Inquiry. Third Report. Death Certification and the Investigation of Deaths by Coroners. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London Google ScholarKirkham M, Morgan RK (2006) Why midwives return and their subsequent experience. Department of Health and Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Workforce Development Confederation, University of Sheffield Women's Informed Childbearing and Health Research Group Google ScholarKirkham M, Morgan RK, Davies C (2006) Why do midwives stay? Department of Health and Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Workforce Development Confederation, University of Sheffield Women's Informed Childbearing and Health Research Group Google ScholarMcDaid C, Stewart Moore J (2006) Supervision: How can the gap be bridged? RCM Midwives 9(5): 180–3 Google ScholarMead M, Kirby J (2006) An evaluation of the time spent by midwives on supervisory activities. British Journal of Midwifery 14(2): 76–81 Link, Google ScholarNational Audit Office (2013) Maternity Services in England. National Audit Office, London Google ScholarParliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2013) Midwifery supervision and regulation: Recommendations for change. tinyurl.com/negso38 (accessed 16 December 2013) Google ScholarRogers C, Yearley C (2013) National survey of supervision of midwives: Time for reflection? British Journal of Midwifery 21(5): 356–63 Link, Google ScholarShennan C (1996) Midwives perceptions of the role of a supervisor of midwives. In: Kirkham M (ed.) Supervision of Midwives. Midwives Press, Oxford: 163–82 Google ScholarStapleton H, Duerden J, Kirkham M (1998) Evaluation of the Impact of Supervision of Midwives on Midwifery Practice and the Quality of Midwifery Care. ENB, London Google ScholarWarwick C (2009) Statutory supervision of midwives: Adding value to the profession. British Journal of Midwifery 17(11): 686 Link, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 1 January 2014Volume 22Issue 1ISSN (print): 0969-4900ISSN (online): 2052-4307 Metrics History Published online 3 April 2014 Published in print 1 January 2014 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download