Objective: concerns about an apparent rise in defensive clinical practice h
ave centred on an alleged rise in intervention rates, particularly in mater
nity care. This, the second of two articles, explores the views of a number
of clinical and other practitioners concerning defensive practices.
Design: qualitative using semi-structured interviews.
Participants: (a) midwives and obstetricians who had responded to an earlie
r postal survey, and (b) a purposive sample of others with experience in th
is area.
Findings: differing views about the extent of defensive practices, and abou
t what constitutes defensiveness, were expressed. A discussion of these, an
d of the findings of the survey reported in the first article, casts doubt
on the view that defensive practices are necessarily detrimental. While an
increase in caesarean sections was claimed, and justification of this optio
n made, other move positive responses were also noted.
Key conclusions: the definition and extent of defensive practice are diffic
ult to determine. While some responses indicate that the fear of litigation
leads to restrictions on client choice through interventions which are dif
ficult to justify clinically, others claim that the same fear has improved
standards of communication and documentation. (C) 2000 Harcourt Publishers
Ltd.