Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42387489›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

Improving maternity and neonatal care in England: a survey to evaluate the implementation of the core competency framework to improve multi-professional practice.

Sophie Glenday, Jo Dagustun, Esther Sharma, Samantha Cross, Glenn Robert, Giulia Zoccatelli, Heather Brown, Michelle Parr, Sam Bassett, Toyin Adeyinka and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sophie GlendayFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9201-9232
Jo DagustunFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5427-6718
Esther SharmaFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6828-7501
Samantha CrossInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 6 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0501-0289
Glenn RobertFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8781-6675
Giulia ZoccatelliFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-5155
Heather BrownRoyal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, BN2 5BE, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-6639-8894
Michelle ParrSaint Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2047-2278
Sam BassettFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-1670-0217
Toyin AdeyinkaSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 8AZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5506-9708
Rebecca FellowsFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-5169-0596
Shalini AhujaFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5433-3340
Rebecca WhybrowFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK. Rebecca.whybrow@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7484-1492

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS England-led Core Competency Framework (CCF) aims to address significant safety concerns and national variations in maternity practice. The CCF defines minimum safety training requirements for all maternity and neonatal services in England. It emphasises the importance of service user involvement, local incident learning, multi-disciplinary team training and network learning. Successful national implementation may reduce variation in training and competency assessment across England, but the CCF has not been subject to evaluation.

aimsTo explore CCF implementation in maternity and neonatal units in England including factors affecting implementation and investigate staff views regarding the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of implementing the CCF.

methodsA national online survey of organisational leads responsible for planning, delivering and implementing the CCF across NHS Trusts in England. Survey questions were informed using the TIDieR framework and acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the CCF were measured using the Weiner validated scale. Proportions were calculated for each response by individual and by Trust with corresponding confidence intervals using Stata version 19 and open text responses were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsThe survey contained 82 completed responses covering 66 (54.7%) NHS Trusts across England. Survey respondents considered the CCF acceptable 4.4/5, appropriate 4.2/5, but feasibility scored just 3.7/5 with lack of resources cited as a common implementation barrier. Multi-professional Education Teams were reportedly in place at 68.2% of Trusts (55.8-78.4%, 95% CI), although responsibility for the development and planning of training was mostly undertaken by midwives. Respondents reported delivering multi-professional maternity and neonatal training, however, there was variation in the number of days training that each professional group received. The survey found 54.5% (42.3-66.3 95% CI) of Trusts provided midwives 3-4 days and 31.8% (21.6-44.2 95% CI) 5-6 days. Whilst 47.0% (35.1 - 59.2 95% CI) of obstetricians, 45.5% (33.7-57.7 95% CI) of neonatologists and 87.9% (77.3- 93.9 95% CI) of anaesthetists were provided only one to two days of CCF training. Maternity service user involvement was reported at 68.2% (55.8-78.4 95% CI) of Trusts, whilst neonatal service user involvement was reported in 39.4% (28.2 -51.8 95% CI) of Trusts. Involvement consists mainly of routine feedback rather than encouraging active user engagement.

conclusionWhilst the CCF is generally considered to be acceptable and appropriate it is reportedly less feasible. There remains variation in the implementation of Multi-Professional Education Teams, the number of days of training available to professionals and involvement of service users across represented NHS Trusts. Insufficient resources and staffing impacted on the delivery of the framework.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceMaternal Health ServicesPatient Care TeamQuality ImprovementEnglandFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesCore competency frameworkImplementationMaternity careMulti-disciplinary educationMulti-disciplinary trainingNeonatal careService user engagementSurvey

Identifiers

PMID42387489
PMCPMC13599321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.