Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for improved patient outcomes with the resource constraints inherent in healthcare systems. Midwives must advocate for quality improvements while demonstrating their value and feasibility within existing budgets. The pressure to maintain high standards of care without compromising safety, while also being mindful of financial implications, demands careful judgment and strategic planning. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a systematic and evidence-based process optimization strategy that prioritizes interventions with the highest potential impact on quality and safety, coupled with a clear articulation of their cost-effectiveness. This approach aligns with the principles of continuous quality improvement mandated by professional bodies and regulatory frameworks that emphasize patient safety and efficient resource allocation. By focusing on data-driven decision-making and demonstrating tangible benefits, midwives can effectively advocate for necessary changes and secure support for their initiatives. This proactive and analytical stance ensures that improvements are sustainable and contribute positively to both patient care and organizational efficiency. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to implement changes based solely on anecdotal evidence or personal preference without a thorough evaluation of their impact on quality, safety, or cost. This can lead to wasted resources, unintended negative consequences for patient care, and a lack of buy-in from stakeholders. It fails to meet the ethical obligation to provide evidence-based care and the professional responsibility to use resources wisely. Another incorrect approach is to delay necessary quality improvements due to a perceived lack of immediate financial justification, even when there is a clear risk to patient safety or a significant opportunity for long-term cost savings through enhanced efficiency. This can result in continued suboptimal care, potential adverse events, and ultimately higher costs associated with managing complications or inefficiencies. It neglects the primary duty of care and the proactive management of risks. A third incorrect approach is to focus solely on cost reduction without considering the potential impact on the quality of care and patient safety. While fiscal responsibility is important, compromising essential services or staffing levels can lead to increased adverse events, decreased patient satisfaction, and a decline in overall midwifery standards, which is ethically and professionally unacceptable. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making process that begins with identifying areas for improvement through data collection and analysis. This should be followed by a thorough assessment of potential solutions, considering their impact on quality, safety, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness. Engaging stakeholders, including management and clinical staff, throughout the process is crucial for gaining support and ensuring successful implementation. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of implemented changes are essential for sustained quality improvement.

The control framework reveals the critical importance of understanding the purpose and eligibility criteria for the Advanced Global Midwifery Quality and Safety Review. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nuanced interpretation of established quality standards and the specific context of a midwifery service seeking review. Misinterpreting these criteria can lead to wasted resources, missed opportunities for improvement, and potentially, a failure to meet international benchmarks for safe and effective midwifery care. Careful judgment is required to align the service’s readiness and objectives with the review’s intended scope. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a thorough self-assessment against the established review criteria, coupled with a clear articulation of how the service aims to benefit from the review process. This includes identifying specific quality and safety objectives that the review will help address, and ensuring that the midwifery team possesses the foundational data and operational structures necessary to engage meaningfully with the review. This is correct because it demonstrates a proactive and informed engagement with the review process, ensuring that the service is genuinely prepared to benefit from the assessment and that the review’s purpose of enhancing global midwifery quality and safety is being met. It aligns with the ethical imperative to pursue excellence in patient care and the regulatory expectation that quality improvement initiatives are evidence-based and strategically aligned. An approach that focuses solely on the prestige of achieving an “Advanced Global” designation without a clear understanding of how the review will drive tangible improvements in local quality and safety metrics is professionally unacceptable. This fails to uphold the core purpose of such reviews, which is to elevate standards of care, not merely to attain a title. It also risks misallocating resources that could be better used for direct service improvement. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to assume eligibility based on general adherence to basic midwifery standards. The “Advanced Global” designation implies a higher level of performance and a commitment to continuous, evidence-based quality enhancement that goes beyond minimum requirements. Failing to rigorously assess against the specific, advanced criteria of the review demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a misunderstanding of the review’s intent. Finally, an approach that prioritizes the review as a means to secure funding or external validation without a genuine commitment to implementing the review’s recommendations is ethically flawed. The primary goal of such a review is to improve patient outcomes and safety. Using it as a mere transactional tool undermines its integrity and the trust placed in the process by regulatory bodies and the public. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the review’s stated purpose and eligibility requirements. This should be followed by an honest self-assessment of the service’s current performance against these criteria. The next step involves clearly defining how the review will contribute to specific, measurable quality and safety improvements. Finally, professionals must ensure that the service has the capacity and commitment to act on any findings or recommendations generated by the review.

The scenario presents a professional challenge for a midwifery candidate preparing for the Advanced Global Midwifery Quality and Safety Review. The core difficulty lies in balancing comprehensive preparation with realistic time constraints and the need to access and effectively utilize appropriate resources. The candidate must navigate a vast amount of information and ensure their preparation aligns with the review’s quality and safety standards without becoming overwhelmed or misallocating valuable study time. Careful judgment is required to select the most efficient and effective preparation strategy. The best approach involves a structured, evidence-based preparation plan that prioritizes official review materials and established quality and safety frameworks. This includes dedicating specific time blocks for reviewing the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) Global Consensus Statement on the Midwifery Workforce, relevant World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on maternal and newborn care, and national midwifery standards where applicable. The candidate should also engage with peer-reviewed literature focusing on quality improvement initiatives and patient safety in midwifery. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the stated purpose of the review, which is to assess advanced global midwifery quality and safety. By focusing on authoritative sources and established frameworks, the candidate demonstrates an understanding of the regulatory and ethical imperatives underpinning safe and high-quality midwifery practice globally. This methodical and resource-focused preparation ensures that the candidate is not only acquiring knowledge but also internalizing the principles of quality and safety that are central to the review’s objectives. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on informal online forums and anecdotal advice from colleagues without cross-referencing with official documentation. This is professionally unacceptable because it risks the dissemination and adoption of outdated, inaccurate, or jurisdictionally irrelevant information. Such an approach fails to adhere to the ethical obligation to provide care based on the best available evidence and established professional standards, potentially compromising patient safety. Another incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on memorizing specific clinical protocols without understanding the underlying principles of quality and safety. This is ethically flawed as it neglects the broader context of systemic quality improvement and risk management, which are crucial for advanced midwifery practice. The review is designed to assess a candidate’s ability to apply principles of quality and safety, not just recall isolated procedures. A further incorrect approach would be to allocate minimal time to preparation, assuming prior knowledge is sufficient. This demonstrates a lack of professional diligence and respect for the rigorous nature of an advanced review. It fails to acknowledge the dynamic nature of healthcare quality and safety standards and the importance of continuous learning and adaptation, which are ethical requirements for all healthcare professionals. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the scope and objectives of the review. This should be followed by identifying authoritative and relevant resources, prioritizing those that directly address the review’s stated aims. A realistic timeline should then be developed, incorporating dedicated study periods for each identified resource. Regular self-assessment and seeking feedback from mentors or peers who have successfully navigated similar reviews can further refine the preparation strategy. This systematic and evidence-informed process ensures that preparation is both comprehensive and aligned with professional and ethical standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the immediate needs of a patient with the broader organizational commitment to quality improvement and evidence-based practice. Midwives must navigate potential conflicts between established routines, individual patient preferences, and the imperative to adhere to evolving best practices and regulatory expectations for maternal care. The pressure to maintain high standards of safety and quality, while also ensuring patient autonomy and satisfaction, demands careful judgment and a robust understanding of governance frameworks. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a proactive and collaborative approach to integrating new evidence into clinical protocols. This means actively seeking out and critically appraising emerging research on pain management during labor, engaging with relevant professional bodies and guidelines, and then initiating a formal process for updating existing clinical guidelines within the midwifery unit. This approach ensures that patient care is informed by the latest evidence, aligns with quality and safety objectives, and is implemented through a structured, transparent, and approved organizational process. This aligns with the principles of continuous quality improvement mandated by regulatory bodies and professional standards that emphasize evidence-based practice and patient safety as paramount. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves dismissing the new evidence due to its preliminary nature or the perceived adequacy of current practices. This fails to uphold the ethical and regulatory obligation to provide the highest standard of care, which necessitates staying abreast of and integrating new knowledge. It risks perpetuating outdated or suboptimal practices, potentially compromising patient safety and quality of care. Another incorrect approach is to unilaterally implement the new pain management technique based on anecdotal evidence or personal conviction without organizational approval or a formal review process. This bypasses essential governance structures designed to ensure the safety, efficacy, and consistency of care. It undermines the collective responsibility for quality and safety, potentially leading to variations in care and a failure to meet regulatory requirements for standardized protocols. A third incorrect approach is to wait for a formal complaint or adverse event before considering changes to existing protocols. This reactive stance is contrary to the principles of proactive quality improvement and patient safety. It indicates a failure to engage with the ongoing responsibility to review and enhance care delivery based on emerging evidence and best practices, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risks. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes evidence-based practice, patient safety, and adherence to organizational governance. This involves a continuous cycle of learning, critical appraisal of new information, consultation with peers and relevant authorities, and a commitment to implementing changes through established, approved channels. When faced with new evidence, the process should involve: 1) identifying the evidence, 2) critically appraising its validity and applicability, 3) assessing its potential impact on patient outcomes and safety, 4) consulting with relevant stakeholders (including senior midwives, obstetricians, and quality improvement teams), 5) proposing changes through formal channels, and 6) ensuring adequate training and implementation support.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing a healthcare provider’s professional judgment and ethical obligations with a patient’s autonomy and right to access comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. The provider must navigate potential personal beliefs, institutional policies, and the legal framework surrounding family planning and reproductive rights, ensuring patient safety and well-being are paramount. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, non-judgmental discussion with the patient about all available family planning and reproductive health options, including contraception, preconception counseling, and STI prevention. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for autonomy. Specifically, it upholds the patient’s right to make informed decisions about their reproductive health, as recognized by international human rights frameworks and national healthcare guidelines that emphasize patient-centered care and access to a full spectrum of reproductive health services. This approach ensures the patient receives accurate information to make a choice that best suits their individual circumstances, health status, and personal values. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves limiting the discussion to only one or two methods of contraception without exploring the full range of options. This fails to respect patient autonomy by not providing sufficient information for an informed decision. It also risks not identifying the most suitable or effective method for the patient’s specific needs and health profile, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes or unintended pregnancies. Ethically, this approach can be seen as paternalistic and a violation of the principle of informed consent. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the patient’s request for a specific service based on the provider’s personal beliefs or perceived institutional limitations without first exploring all legal and ethical avenues for referral or accommodation. This directly contravenes the ethical obligation to provide care within the scope of practice and to facilitate access to necessary services, even if the provider cannot directly provide them. It can also lead to a breach of professional duty if it results in the patient being denied essential reproductive healthcare. A third incorrect approach is to provide incomplete or biased information about reproductive health options, emphasizing certain methods while downplaying others. This undermines the principle of informed consent and can lead the patient to make a decision based on misinformation. It is ethically imperative to present all evidence-based options neutrally and comprehensively, allowing the patient to weigh the risks and benefits of each. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a patient-centered decision-making framework. This involves actively listening to the patient’s concerns and goals, assessing their health status and reproductive history, and then providing clear, accurate, and unbiased information about all relevant options. If a provider cannot directly offer a service due to ethical or legal constraints, the professional duty includes facilitating a referral to a qualified provider or service that can meet the patient’s needs, ensuring continuity of care and respecting the patient’s reproductive rights.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the established quality and safety standards of community midwifery with the unique cultural needs and preferences of a diverse patient population. Midwives must navigate potential conflicts between universal best practices and culturally specific birthing traditions, ensuring that all care provided is both effective and respectful. Failure to do so can lead to patient dissatisfaction, mistrust, and potentially compromised health outcomes. The challenge lies in achieving continuity of care that is both clinically sound and culturally congruent. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves actively engaging the community to co-design and implement continuity of care models that explicitly integrate cultural safety principles. This means working collaboratively with community leaders, elders, and women to understand their specific cultural beliefs, practices, and expectations related to pregnancy, birth, and postpartum care. The model should then be adapted to incorporate these elements, ensuring that communication, decision-making, and care delivery are culturally sensitive and respectful. This approach is correct because it aligns with the fundamental ethical principles of patient autonomy and beneficence, and it directly addresses the core tenets of cultural safety, which mandate that care is experienced as safe by the recipient. Regulatory frameworks and professional guidelines for midwifery universally emphasize patient-centered care and the importance of respecting individual and cultural differences. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to implement a standardized continuity of care model based solely on existing Western medical protocols, with minimal or superficial consultation with the community. This fails to acknowledge or address the specific cultural needs and preferences of the population, potentially leading to care that is perceived as alienating or disrespectful. Ethically, this violates the principle of respect for persons and can undermine trust in the healthcare system. Another incorrect approach would be to delegate the responsibility for cultural adaptation entirely to individual midwives without providing adequate training, resources, or organizational support. While individual midwives may have good intentions, this approach places an undue burden on them and risks inconsistent or inadequate implementation of cultural safety. It fails to establish a systemic commitment to culturally safe continuity of care, which is essential for sustainable quality improvement. A further incorrect approach would be to prioritize the convenience or efficiency of the existing healthcare system over the culturally determined needs of the community. This might involve offering services that are not aligned with cultural practices or making it difficult for women to access care in ways that are culturally appropriate. This approach is ethically unsound as it prioritizes institutional needs over patient well-being and cultural rights. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a participatory and iterative approach. This involves initial community engagement to understand needs, followed by collaborative model development. Ongoing feedback mechanisms are crucial to ensure the model remains culturally safe and effective. Professionals should also advocate for organizational policies and resources that support culturally safe continuity of care, including appropriate training and staffing. The decision-making process should always prioritize the patient’s experience of safety and respect, guided by ethical principles and relevant professional standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a conflict between a family’s deeply held cultural beliefs and established clinical best practices for newborn care. Navigating such situations requires extreme sensitivity, respect for diversity, and a commitment to patient autonomy while upholding the safety and well-being of the infant. The midwife must balance the immediate needs of the baby with the family’s cultural identity and their right to make informed decisions about their child’s care, all within the framework of legal and ethical obligations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a collaborative and culturally sensitive approach. This means engaging in open, respectful dialogue with the family to understand the specific cultural beliefs and practices related to cord care. The midwife should then clearly explain the evidence-based rationale for recommended cord care practices, highlighting the potential risks associated with alternative methods, such as infection. The goal is to find a mutually agreeable solution that respects the family’s culture while ensuring the infant’s safety. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the best interest of the infant), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), respect for autonomy (honoring the family’s right to make decisions), and cultural humility. Regulatory frameworks often emphasize informed consent and shared decision-making, which are central to this approach. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to dismiss the family’s cultural beliefs outright and insist on the standard protocol without further discussion. This fails to acknowledge the family’s autonomy and cultural identity, potentially leading to mistrust and non-compliance, and could be seen as a violation of ethical principles of respect and cultural sensitivity. It also ignores the potential for finding a compromise that meets both safety and cultural needs. Another incorrect approach would be to accede to the family’s request without adequately explaining the risks or exploring alternatives. This prioritizes appeasing the family over the infant’s safety and could be considered a breach of the midwife’s duty of care and the principle of non-maleficence. It fails to uphold the professional responsibility to provide evidence-based care and protect vulnerable individuals. A third incorrect approach would be to involve external authorities or legal intervention immediately without first attempting to resolve the issue through communication and negotiation. While legal and child protection frameworks exist, they are typically a last resort. Premature escalation can damage the therapeutic relationship, create unnecessary distress for the family, and may not be proportionate to the perceived risk if communication channels remain open. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes open communication, cultural competence, and evidence-based practice. This involves: 1. Active Listening: Genuinely seeking to understand the family’s perspective and the cultural significance of their practices. 2. Information Sharing: Clearly and compassionately explaining the medical rationale and risks associated with different care options. 3. Collaborative Problem-Solving: Working with the family to identify potential compromises that uphold safety standards while respecting their cultural values. 4. Documentation: Meticulously recording all discussions, decisions, and actions taken. 5. Consultation: Seeking advice from colleagues, supervisors, or cultural liaisons when faced with complex ethical dilemmas.

The investigation demonstrates a scenario where a midwife’s performance has been flagged for review due to concerns regarding adherence to established quality and safety protocols. This situation is professionally challenging because it requires a balanced approach that upholds patient safety and professional standards while also ensuring fair and transparent evaluation of the midwife’s practice. Careful judgment is required to distinguish between minor deviations and significant breaches that necessitate specific actions, considering the impact on patient outcomes and the midwife’s professional development. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive review of the midwife’s performance against the established blueprint weighting and scoring criteria, coupled with a clear understanding of the retake policy. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the core of the performance review process as outlined by quality and safety frameworks. The blueprint weighting and scoring provide the objective benchmarks for evaluation, ensuring consistency and fairness. The retake policy, when clearly defined and communicated, offers a structured pathway for remediation and re-evaluation, promoting professional growth and ensuring that standards are met without undue punitive measures. This aligns with ethical principles of fairness, due process, and the commitment to continuous improvement in midwifery practice. An incorrect approach would be to immediately recommend dismissal or severe disciplinary action without a thorough review against the blueprint weighting and scoring. This fails to acknowledge the established evaluation framework and bypasses the opportunity for remediation outlined in the retake policy, potentially leading to an unfair outcome and failing to support professional development. Another incorrect approach is to overlook the blueprint weighting and scoring entirely and rely solely on anecdotal evidence or subjective impressions of the midwife’s performance. This undermines the integrity of the quality and safety review process, as it deviates from the pre-defined, objective criteria designed to ensure consistent and equitable assessment. It also fails to utilize the structured guidance provided by the retake policy. A further incorrect approach would be to apply the retake policy inconsistently or arbitrarily, without reference to the established scoring and weighting from the blueprint. This creates an environment of uncertainty and perceived unfairness, potentially discouraging the midwife and failing to address the root causes of any performance issues identified through the objective review process. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes adherence to established protocols. This involves: 1) Understanding the specific blueprint weighting and scoring mechanisms for the review. 2) Evaluating the midwife’s performance against these objective criteria. 3) Consulting the defined retake policy to determine appropriate next steps based on the evaluation results. 4) Ensuring all actions are documented and communicated transparently to the midwife. This systematic process ensures that decisions are evidence-based, fair, and aligned with the overarching goals of quality and safety in midwifery.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent unpredictability of physiological responses during pregnancy and childbirth, coupled with the critical need to uphold patient safety and autonomy within a regulated framework. The midwife must balance immediate clinical needs with established protocols and ethical considerations, ensuring that any deviation from standard care is justified and documented. Careful judgment is required to interpret subtle physiological cues and make timely, evidence-based decisions that prioritize the well-being of both mother and baby. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment of the woman’s physiological status, considering her antenatal history, current intrapartum signs, and potential risk factors. This approach prioritizes a holistic understanding of the situation, integrating all available data to inform decision-making. It aligns with the principles of midwifery care that emphasize individualized support and proactive management. Specifically, this approach is correct because it adheres to the fundamental ethical duty of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). It also reflects the regulatory requirement for midwives to practice within their scope of competence, utilizing critical thinking and evidence-based practice to manage complex situations. This proactive and integrated assessment ensures that potential complications are identified early and managed appropriately, thereby upholding the highest standards of quality and safety in midwifery care. An approach that focuses solely on the immediate intrapartum signs without adequately considering the antenatal history or the woman’s baseline physiology is professionally unacceptable. This failure to integrate a complete picture can lead to misinterpretation of symptoms and delayed or inappropriate interventions, potentially causing harm. It breaches the regulatory expectation for thorough patient assessment and the ethical principle of providing comprehensive care. Another unacceptable approach is to rely solely on a pre-defined protocol without critically evaluating the individual woman’s unique physiological response. While protocols are essential for standardization and safety, rigid adherence without considering the nuances of a specific case can be detrimental. This can lead to overlooking critical deviations from the norm that the protocol might not anticipate, thus failing to meet the individual needs of the patient and potentially violating the duty of care. Finally, an approach that prioritizes the convenience of the clinical team over the physiological needs and expressed wishes of the woman is ethically and regulatorily unsound. Midwifery care is patient-centered, and decisions must always be made with the woman’s well-being and autonomy at the forefront. This approach disregards the fundamental ethical principles of respect for persons and patient autonomy, and contravenes regulatory guidelines that mandate informed consent and patient-centered care. The professional reasoning framework for similar situations should involve a continuous cycle of assessment, diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation. This framework requires midwives to: 1) Gather comprehensive data (antenatal, intrapartum, postnatal, and psychosocial). 2) Analyze this data to identify normal physiological variations and potential deviations or complications. 3) Develop a care plan that is individualized, evidence-based, and collaborative with the woman and her family. 4) Implement interventions safely and effectively, continuously monitoring the response. 5) Evaluate the effectiveness of the care plan and adjust as necessary, documenting all decisions and actions meticulously. This systematic and reflective process ensures that care is both safe and responsive to the evolving physiological needs of the woman.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between immediate patient needs and the established protocols designed for long-term quality improvement and safety. The midwife must balance the urgency of the current situation with the systematic requirements of data collection and analysis for future improvements, all within the framework of professional accountability and ethical practice. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient safety is paramount while also upholding the integrity of quality assurance processes. The best approach involves a structured, evidence-based decision-making process that prioritizes patient safety and adheres to established quality improvement frameworks. This includes immediate, appropriate clinical intervention for the patient, followed by meticulous documentation and reporting according to institutional and professional guidelines. This approach ensures that the patient receives the best possible care in the moment, and that the event is captured accurately for future learning and systemic improvement, aligning with the core principles of midwifery practice and quality assurance standards that mandate both immediate care and robust data collection for ongoing safety reviews. An incorrect approach would be to bypass established reporting mechanisms due to time constraints or a desire to avoid scrutiny. This failure to document and report the event accurately undermines the quality and safety review process. It prevents the identification of potential systemic issues, learning opportunities, and the implementation of preventative measures, thereby compromising the safety of future patients. Such an omission could also lead to professional disciplinary action for failing to adhere to reporting requirements. Another incorrect approach involves prioritizing the immediate completion of the quality review form over the direct care of the patient. While quality review is crucial, it should never supersede the immediate clinical needs of a patient. Delaying essential care to fill out paperwork is a direct violation of the duty of care and ethical obligations to the patient, potentially leading to adverse outcomes and professional misconduct. A third incorrect approach is to rely solely on anecdotal recollection for the quality review without thorough, contemporaneous documentation. While the midwife’s memory is important, official quality and safety reviews require objective, detailed records. Relying solely on memory can lead to inaccuracies, omissions, and a subjective interpretation of events, which compromises the integrity of the review process and its ability to drive meaningful improvements. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a clear hierarchy of priorities: first, ensure immediate patient safety and provide necessary clinical care. Second, meticulously document all aspects of the event contemporaneously, adhering to institutional policies and professional standards. Third, initiate the formal quality and safety review process, providing all documented information. Finally, engage in reflective practice and team debriefing to identify learning points and contribute to systemic improvements. This systematic approach ensures both immediate patient well-being and the long-term enhancement of midwifery quality and safety.