TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Two's company-Three's a crowd'

T2 - the collection of umbilical cord blood for commercial stem cell banks in England and the midwifery profession

AU - Machin, Laura L.

AU - Brown, Nik

AU - McLeod, Danae

N1 - Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - OBJECTIVE: to explore how lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking discussed midwives' and privately employed phlebotomists' roles in light of commercial UCB collection, and what insights this offers of midwifery authority and power. DESIGN: qualitative study using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews that were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded according to themes relating to the research aims. SETTING: across England. PARTICIPANTS: 61 interviews were conducted between April 2009 and August 2010 with lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking. FINDINGS: the space and access requirements for privately employed phlebotomists to conduct their work were discussed and highlighted the discursive and spatial boundary-work conducted by, or on behalf of, midwives to retain their authority over the umbilical cord blood and labour rooms. KEY CONCLUSIONS: midwives were portrayed as accommodating privately employed phlebotomists to some extent. It was implied that midwives did so because phlebotomists conformed to implicit boundaries, which required respecting midwives' authority over the labour ward, room and the umbilical cord blood. In turn, midwives' power was protected. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the findings highlight the important role of spatial boundaries and the significance of the organisation of spaces when implementing Objectiveto explore how lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking discussed midwives’ and privately employed phlebotomists’ roles in light of commercial UCB collection, and what insights this offers of midwifery authority and power.Designqualitative study using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews that were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded according to themes relating to the research aims.Settingacross England.Participants61 interviews were conducted between April 2009 and August 2010 with lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking.Findingsthe space and access requirements for privately employed phlebotomists to conduct their work were discussed and highlighted the discursive and spatial boundary-work conducted by, or on behalf of, midwives to retain their authority over the umbilical cord blood and labour rooms.Key conclusionsmidwives were portrayed as accommodating privately employed phlebotomists to some extent. It was implied that midwives did so because phlebotomists conformed to implicit boundaries, which required respecting midwives’ authority over the labour ward, room and the umbilical cord blood. In turn, midwives’ power was protected.Implications for practicethe findings highlight the important role of spatial boundaries and the significance of the organisation of spaces when implementing new services within health care.new services within health care.

AB - OBJECTIVE: to explore how lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking discussed midwives' and privately employed phlebotomists' roles in light of commercial UCB collection, and what insights this offers of midwifery authority and power. DESIGN: qualitative study using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews that were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded according to themes relating to the research aims. SETTING: across England. PARTICIPANTS: 61 interviews were conducted between April 2009 and August 2010 with lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking. FINDINGS: the space and access requirements for privately employed phlebotomists to conduct their work were discussed and highlighted the discursive and spatial boundary-work conducted by, or on behalf of, midwives to retain their authority over the umbilical cord blood and labour rooms. KEY CONCLUSIONS: midwives were portrayed as accommodating privately employed phlebotomists to some extent. It was implied that midwives did so because phlebotomists conformed to implicit boundaries, which required respecting midwives' authority over the labour ward, room and the umbilical cord blood. In turn, midwives' power was protected. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the findings highlight the important role of spatial boundaries and the significance of the organisation of spaces when implementing Objectiveto explore how lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking discussed midwives’ and privately employed phlebotomists’ roles in light of commercial UCB collection, and what insights this offers of midwifery authority and power.Designqualitative study using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews that were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded according to themes relating to the research aims.Settingacross England.Participants61 interviews were conducted between April 2009 and August 2010 with lay and professional stakeholders within umbilical cord blood banking.Findingsthe space and access requirements for privately employed phlebotomists to conduct their work were discussed and highlighted the discursive and spatial boundary-work conducted by, or on behalf of, midwives to retain their authority over the umbilical cord blood and labour rooms.Key conclusionsmidwives were portrayed as accommodating privately employed phlebotomists to some extent. It was implied that midwives did so because phlebotomists conformed to implicit boundaries, which required respecting midwives’ authority over the labour ward, room and the umbilical cord blood. In turn, midwives’ power was protected.Implications for practicethe findings highlight the important role of spatial boundaries and the significance of the organisation of spaces when implementing new services within health care.new services within health care.

KW - Authority

KW - Discursive/spatial boundaries

KW - Midwives

KW - Phlebotomists

U2 - 10.1016/j.midw.2011.05.002

DO - 10.1016/j.midw.2011.05.002

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 21616568

VL - 28

SP - 358

EP - 365

JO - Midwifery

JF - Midwifery

SN - 1532-3099

IS - 3

ER -