More

Dr Tina Harris

Job: Faculty Head of Research Students / Principal Lecturer

Faculty: Health and Life Sciences

School/department: School of Nursing and Midwifery

Research group(s): Reproduction Research Group, Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Mary Seacole Research Centre

Address: De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH.

T: +44 (0)116 257 7804

E: tiharris@dmu.ac.uk

W: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/hls

 

Close all sections
Open all sections

Personal profile

Tina Harris is Faculty Head of Research Students and Principal Lecturer in Midwifery within the School of Nursing and Midwifery at De Montfort University in Leicester.

Tina completed her nursing and midwifery training in the early eighties and then worked in hospital and community posts as a midwife. She completed an Advanced Diploma in Midwifery in 1986 and, following a three year period working in parent education in the USA, completed her honours degree in education in 1993. At this time she moved into an academic post as a midwifery lecturer.

In 2005 Tina successfully defended her PhD thesis, a grounded theory study which explored practice variation and decision making in third stage care among midwives. Her academic interests are now focused on supervising and supporting PhD students, researching and leading midwifery education at De Montfort University.

Tina’s research interests focus on the development of theory for midwifery practice and education utilising qualitative methodologies, with a particular interest in Grounded Theory approaches.

Research group affiliations

Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre

Reproduction Research Group

Mary Seacole Research Centre

Publications and outputs 

  • Risk of complicated birth at term in nulliparous and mutiparous women using routinely collected maternity data in England: cohort study
    Risk of complicated birth at term in nulliparous and mutiparous women using routinely collected maternity data in England: cohort study Jardine, Jennifer; Blotkamp, Andrea; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek; Knight, Hannah; Harris, Tina; Hawdon, Jane; van der Meulen, Jan; Walker, Kate; Pasupathy, Dharmintra Abstract Objectives To determine the rate of complicated birth at term in women classified at low risk according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline for intrapartum care (no pre-existing medical conditions, important obstetric history, or complications during pregnancy) and to assess if the risk classification can be improved by considering parity and the number of risk factors. Design Cohort study using linked electronic maternity records. Participants 276 766 women with a singleton birth at term after a trial of labour in 87 NHS hospital trusts in England between April 2015 and March 2016. Main outcome measure A composite outcome of complicated birth, defined as a birth with use of an instrument, caesarean delivery, anal sphincter injury, postpartum haemorrhage, or Apgar score of 7 or less at five minutes. Results Multiparous women without a history of caesarean section had the lowest rates of complicated birth, varying from 8.8% (4879 of 55 426 women, 95% confidence interval 8.6% to 9.0%) in those without specific risk factors to 21.8% (613 of 2811 women, 20.2% to 23.4%) in those with three or more. The rate of complicated birth was higher in nulliparous women, with corresponding rates varying from 43.4% (25  805 of 59 413 women, 43.0% to 43.8%) to 64.3% (364 of 566 women, 60.3% to 68.3%); and highest in multiparous women with previous caesarean section, with corresponding rates varying from 42.9% (3426 of 7993 women, 41.8% to 44.0%) to 66.3% (554 of 836 women, 63.0% to 69.5%). Conclusions Nulliparous women without risk factors have substantially higher rates of complicated birth than multiparous women without a previous caesarean section even if the latter have multiple risk factors. Grouping women first according to parity and previous mode of birth, and then within these groups according to presence of specific risk factors would provide greater and more informed choice to women, better targeting of interventions, and fewer transfers during labour than according to the presence of risk factors alone. open access article
  • NHS Maternity Care for Women with Multiple Births and Their Babies A study on feasibility of assessing care using data from births between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017 in England, Wales and Scotland.
    NHS Maternity Care for Women with Multiple Births and Their Babies A study on feasibility of assessing care using data from births between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017 in England, Wales and Scotland. Relph, Sophie; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek; Blotkamp, Andrea; Dunn, George; Harris, Tina; Hawdon, Jane; Pasupathy, Dharmintra; van der Meulen, Jan Introduction This report focuses on the maternity care for women with multiple births during the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2017 and their babies. The purpose of this report is to describe the feasibility of assessing maternity care for women with multiple births and their babies, using routinely collected data. Methods This study examines the feasibility of using existing data sources and linkages within NMPA to report the characteristics and outcomes of twin pregnancy and birth and to assess the care of women with multiple birth. National guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and recommendations from Twins Trust and the Multiple Births Foundation were consulted in the development of audit measures. Maternal outcomes were reported per pregnancy. Perinatal outcomes were reported per pregnancy or per baby, as appropriate. The characteristics and outcomes of higher order births were assessed and reported separately from those of twins. Given that many of the national guidelines referred to local service configuration, an evaluation of the availability of specific services for women with multiple birth was conducted, by linking the results of the NMPA Organisational Survey 2017 with the location of birth of the women with multiple pregnancy.2 Key findings We have demonstrated that an audit of maternity and neonatal care for women and babies affected by multiple birth is feasible using NMPA methodology and data sources, but such an audit will be limited by data availability and quality issues. We identified 41608 babies born from multiple pregnancies in 20 655 women from England, Scotland and Wales. When compared with the number of multiple births reported in data from the Office for National Statistics, this represented an estimated case ascertainment of 89.5%, compared with case ascertainments of 92% in 2015/16 and 97% in 2016/17 for singleton births. Case ascertainment is affected by inaccuracies in the recorded number of infants born to each woman and by unavailability of data on the number of fetuses identified in the first trimester of pregnancy. Only two of 174 clinical guideline statements can be directly assessed using NMPA methods. These relate to recommendations that mothers should be supported to breastfeed and that neonatal networks should aim to reduce term neonatal admissions. The most common reason that recommendations or clinical guideline statements cannot be assessed isthe absence of information on chorionicity and amnionicity in the data. This information is not routinely collected in maternity datasets. Challenges were also identified in classifying caesarean section into categories according to whether the procedure was planned or the procedure was urgent or an emergency, particularly in the context of risk of spontaneous preterm labour in multiple pregnancies in women with planned caesarean birth. It is also not possible to assess provision of specialist services for twin babies with fetal complications (e.g. twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome) because these diagnoses and related therapeutic procedures are poorly recorded in the data. Assessing maternity care for women with multiple births: feasibility study viii Case mix adjustment using standard NMPA methods is more complex for women with twin births, compared with those with singleton births. For each pregnancy, a choice has to be made which of the two birthweights need to be included in the case mix adjustment. There is also a small number of women affected by less common comorbidities (e.g. hypertension) and antenatal complications (e.g. placenta praevia), usually included in the established NMPA adjustment method. A study of variation in measures of maternity care between NHS trusts or boards, or between hospital sites, is only possible for measures where the outcome is common (e.g. prelabour caesarean birth). When relevant features of care or outcomes are rare, maternity and neonatal care can only be assessed at regional or national level. For the evaluation of maternity and neonatal care that is specific to those babies admitted to a neonatal unit, successful linkage of NMPA maternity data with the NNRD was slightly lower for twin births before 32+0 weeks of gestation than the existing linkage of singleton neonates. For example, the linkage rate at 30+0 to 31+6 weeks of gestation was 87.7% for liveborn twins compared with 94.9% for all liveborn babies. This was particularly noted at gestations less than 28+0 weeks. The most likely explanation for this lower linkage rate is less complete and maybe less accurate data entry, including possible errors or omissions with neonatal NHS numbers. It is possible to assess the availability of specialist services at the level of NHS trust or board, or hospital site, for women giving birth following multiple pregnancy. However, this can currently only be studied according to the place of birth, as information on where antenatal care was received is not available. It should be noted that a similar problem exists for singleton births. Recommendations R1 Maternity service providers should consider the local reasons for inaccuracies in the recording of ‘number of infants’ at birth and work to correct these by the end of the 2020/21 reporting year. This might require auditing local data, mandating the ‘number of infants’ data item and checking data download reports for national datasets to ensure that ‘birth order’ has not been mislabelled as ‘number of infants’. R2 Maternity service providers and national organisations responsible for collating and managing maternity datasets should request/record data on the number of fetuses in the first trimester of pregnancy, in addition to number at birth, for women with multiple pregnancy, and should plan to be compliant with this for the next version of the national data specification. R3 Maternity service providers and national organisations responsible for collating and managing maternity datasets should make chorionicity and amnionicity a compulsory data item in maternity information systems and national datasets for women with multiple pregnancy. This should be implemented in the next version of the national data specification. R4 Maternity service providers who offer specialist fetal procedures, such as intrauterine fetal laser therapy, should work with their coding departments to ensure that the fetal complications and procedures are properly coded into HES, SMR and PEDW by the end of the 2020/21 reporting year. R5 Maternity service providers and national organisations responsible for collating and managing maternity datasets should work to include a compulsory field on planned mode of birth, to enable distinction between those women who have an urgent caesarean birth following labour onset for new clinical reasons and those who have planned caesarean birth. This should be implemented in the next version of the national data specification. R6 Maternity service providers should put local systems in place by the end of the 2020/21 reporting year to ensure that the NHS number for every newborn baby is stored in the maternity information system and linked to the mother’s number. Particular care must be taken to ensure that the baby’s NHS number is not linked to the baby record of the other twin.
  • Waterbirth: characteristics and outcomes in low risk women and babies: a retrospective population cohort study in England 2015/16.
    Waterbirth: characteristics and outcomes in low risk women and babies: a retrospective population cohort study in England 2015/16. Aughey, Harriet; Jardine, Jen; Blotkamp, Andrea; Harris, Tina; NMPA Project Team Background Little is known about the incidence of delivery in water and concerns have been raised about the effects of waterbirth on women and their babies as it becomes more popular. Aims and objectives of the study To identify the proportion of low risk women who give birth in water. To compare the characteristics and outcomes of low risk women and their babies who give birth in water with women who do not. Methods Ethical approval was not required as data from maternity information systems was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for births in England from 1/4/15 -31/3/16. The cohort was restricted to singleton, term vaginal livebirths without instrument, in women with no risk factors requiring obstetric care, in trusts with complete data for birth in water. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine maternal characteristics and outcomes (PPH ≥1500ml, OASI) and neonatal outcomes (Apgar <7 at 5 mins, NNU admission). Findings Of 52,476 births, 7099 (13.5%) were recorded as having occurred in water. Water birth was more likely in older women (adjOR for age group 30-34 1.3, 95% CI (1.2,1.5), 35-39 1.3 (1.1,1.4)) and less likely in women of black (adjOR 0.42 (0.35, 0.94)) or Asian (0.26 (0.23, 0.31)) ethnicity, or of lower socioeconomic status (lowest quintile, adjOR 0.50 (0.45-0.55)). There was no association between delivery in water and low Apgar score (adjOR 0.99 (0.70,1.39)) or OASI (adjOR 1.09 (0.94,1.28)). There was a small association with reduced admission to a NNU (adjOR 0.91 (0.84,0.99)) and PPH (adjOR 0.69 (0.53,0.89)); however, in a subset who gave birth in a midwife-led setting, this effect did not persist. Conclusions and implications There is no evidence of harm to the mother (PPH, OASI) or the baby (low Apgar, NNU admission) from waterbirth. Small differences in rates of admission to NNU and PPH may be explained by unmeasured confounding variables from events during labour. Why some groups of women are less likely to experience waterbirth may reflect women‘s choice, or inequitable access. Tina Harris is the Senior Clinical Lead (Midwifery) for the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit and is Senior Author on this paper.
  • There is substantial variation in maternity care processes and outcomes among maternity care providers: what can midwives do with the evidence from the 2016/17 clinical report from the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit
    There is substantial variation in maternity care processes and outcomes among maternity care providers: what can midwives do with the evidence from the 2016/17 clinical report from the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit Harris, Tina After three years, The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) continues to provide evidence of substantial variation in the care of women and babies in Great Britain. Whilst some variation is inevitable and may reflect personalised care, all providers of maternity care, including midwives, need to reflect on this variation and ask the question, “Are we delivering the highest standard of care to all?” If not, “What can we do about it?” Drawing upon the results of the 2016/17 NMPA Clinical Report, the significant variation in processes and outcomes for women and babies giving birth in different NHS Trusts/boards will be presented. For the first time variation in a ‘Birth Without Intervention’ measure (BWI) is reported for England, with the proportion of women experiencing BWI varying from 23% to 48%. The proportion of women experiencing Induction of labour also varies from 17-43%. Even more concerning is the variation seen in the proportion of women experiencing a 3rd or 4th degree tear (<1%-7.9%) or a blood loss of 1500 mls or more (<1%-5.4%) and in babies born with an Apgar score below 7 (0.4%-3.6%. Variation in these three measures is seen as so significant for women and babies that providers who have results above the ‘expected’ range are reported to the relevant healthcare regulator and asked to investigate and develop action plans for improvement. Midwives will be challenged to reflect on the variation seen at national level, encouraged to compare findings for their local service with others around the country and against the national mean and encouraged to reflect on what they are doing well and areas that can be improved in the care of women and babies. Through the sharing of actions others maternity care providers have undertaken as a result of NMPA findings, midwives will also be encouraged to get involved in local quality improvement initiatives that address unnecessary variation in care processes and outcome for the benefit of all women and their babies. The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit is commissioned by HQIP on behalf of NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh governments. The RCOG in collaboration with the RCM, RCPCH and LSHTM deliver the audit.
  • National Maternity and Perinatal Audit: Clinical report 2019. Based on births in NHS maternity services between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017
    National Maternity and Perinatal Audit: Clinical report 2019. Based on births in NHS maternity services between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017 Aughey, Harriet; Blotkamp, Andrea; Carroll, Fran; Geary, Rebecca; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek; Harris, Tina; Hawdon, Jane; Heighway, Emma; Jardine, Jen; Knight, Hannah; Mamza, Lindsey; Moitt, Natalie; Pasupathy, Dharmintra; Thomas, Nicole; Thomas, Louise; van der Meulen, Jan In the wake of national maternity and neonatal reviews and other improvement initiatives, changes are being implemented in the delivery of care to mothers and their babies in England, Scotland and Wales. Use of electronic records for maternity care is constantly developing, and provides a rich source of data to understand and evaluate these changes. The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) uses these data to produce information that can usefully support the improvement of maternity and perinatal care. This report presents measures of maternity and perinatal care based on births in English, Welsh and Scottish NHS services between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017. The report also provides contextual information describing the characteristics of women and babies cared for by NHS maternity services during this time period. The majority of the measures presented in this report are the same as presented in our previous report on 2015/16 data. One measure has been removed: early elective delivery without documented clinical indication. Four measures have been added. The first is birth without intervention, a composite measure to describe births that start and proceed spontaneously. The other new measures relate to babies admitted to a neonatal unit following birth: the proportions of term and late preterm babies who are admitted to a neonatal unit; the proportion of term babies who receive mechanical ventilation in the first 72 hours of life; and the proportion of babies who develop an encephalopathy in the first 72 hours of life. The results in this report are presented at trust/board level, rather than by site with an obstetric unit, as was the case for most measures in the previous report. This follows feedback from clinical services to the NMPA team,* and enables a more balanced inclusion of births in freestanding midwifery units and at home, as these can be included in trust level results but not as individual sites owing to low numbers.† The majority of trusts have a single obstetric unit and for those trusts this reporting change makes little difference. Site level results continue to be reported on the NMPA website.
  • National Maternity and Perinatal Audit: Organisational Report 2019
    National Maternity and Perinatal Audit: Organisational Report 2019 Blotkamp, Andrea; Aughey, Harriet; Carroll, Fran; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek; Harris, Tina; Hawdon, Jane; Heighway, Emma; Jardine, Jennifer; Knight, Hannah; Mamza, Lyndsey; Moitt, Natalie; Pasupathy, Dharmintra; Thomas, Nicole; Thomas, Louise; van der Meulen, Jan Maternity and neonatal services in England, Scotland and Wales are going through an eventful time. Wide-ranging transformation plans are being implemented as a result of the English national maternity services review and the Scottish maternity and neonatal services review,1,2 and an updated Welsh vision for maternity care is in preparation at the time of writing. Services are being reconfigured and changes made to ways of working across the three countries. The second organisational survey of the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) maps current service provision as of January 2019 across England, Scotland and Wales. This report describes how services have changed since the last survey in January 2017, where service provision has improved and where further improvement is still needed in order to meet recommendations. It is hoped that this report will help inform the transformation and other improvement initiatives which are underway. open access report
  • Giving birth in water in England; a National retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use in 50,482 women
    Giving birth in water in England; a National retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use in 50,482 women Aughey, Harriet; Jardine, Jen; Moitt, Natalie; Blotkamp, Andrea; Pasupathy, Dharmintra; Harris, Tina; The NMPA Project Team
  • Technical Report: linking the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit Data Set to the National Neonatal Research Database for 2015/16
    Technical Report: linking the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit Data Set to the National Neonatal Research Database for 2015/16 Aughey, Harriet; Blotkamp, Andrea; Carroll, Fran; Cromwell, David; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek; Harris, Tina; Hawdon, Jane; Jardine, Jen; Knight, Hannah; Mamza, Lindsey; Moitt, Natalie; Pasupathy, Dharmintra; van der Meulen, Jan The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) is a national audit of the NHS maternity services across England, Scotland and Wales, commissioned in July 2016 by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) on behalf of NHS England, the Welsh Government and the Health Department of the Scottish Government. The NMPA is led by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in partnership with the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). The overarching aim of the NMPA is to produce high-quality information about NHS maternity and neonatal services which can be used by providers, commissioners and users of the services to benchmark against national standards and recommendations where these exist, and to identify good practice and areas for improvement in the care of women and babies. This short report from the NMPA explores the feasibility of linking the NMPA data set, which contains data relating to the majority of women who give birth, to the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD), which contains detailed information about the majority of babies admitted to a neonatal unit. This feasibility study is limited to linkage between neonatal records and maternity records in England, as a pilot for developing this linkage across England, Scotland and Wales. The linkage of neonatal data to maternity data offers many potential advantages. In particular, it allows the exploration of associations between maternal antenatal and intrapartum factors and neonatal outcomes. It also offers the potential to use one or more neonatal outcomes, such as admission to neonatal care, as an outcome measure of maternity care, and to explore variation in neonatal outcomes between maternity settings. The purpose of this report is to describe the feasibility of linking the NMPA data set with the NNRD data set. It describes the technical process of linking these data sets and explores whether this linked data set can be used on an annual basis to construct clinically relevant measures of maternity care.
  • Maternity admissions to intensive care in England, Wales and Scotland in 2015/16: A report from the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit.
    Maternity admissions to intensive care in England, Wales and Scotland in 2015/16: A report from the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit. Jardine, Jen; Aughey, Harriet; Blotkamp, Andrea; Carroll, Fran; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek; Harris, Tina; Hawdon, Jane; Knight, Hannah; Mamza, Lindsey; Moitt, Natalie; Pasupathy, Dharmintra; van der Meulen, Jan The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) is a national audit of the NHS maternity services across England, Scotland and Wales, commissioned in July 2016 by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) on behalf of NHS England, the Welsh Government and the Health Department of the Scottish Government. The NMPA is led by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in partnership with the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). The overarching objective of the NMPA is to produce high-quality information about NHS maternity and neonatal services that can be used by providers, commissioners and users of the services to benchmark against national standards and recommendations where these exist, and to identify good practice and areas for improvement in the care of women and babies. This report focuses on maternal admissions to intensive care in England, Wales and Scotland. The NMPA, and the data it holds, offers a unique opportunity to link maternity data, which contain information about the mother, her pregnancy and her baby, to data from national data sets for intensive care admissions. The purpose of this report is to describe the feasibility of linking the NMPA’s maternity data to intensive care data and to evaluate the suitability of rates of maternal admission to intensive care as an indicator of care quality. It also describes the demographics of women admitted to intensive care and the reasons for admission.
  • National Maternity and Perinatal Audit
    National Maternity and Perinatal Audit Forrester, M.; Harris, Tina This session will give participants an overview of the National and Maternal Perinatal Audit. We will explore the relevance of the audit to clinical practice and look at how findings can be applied to improve the quality of care provided to women and babies. Learning outcomes Participants will • gain an understanding of the National and Maternal Perinatal Audit • learn how to relate findings to their own trust/board • learn how to apply audit outcomes to clinical practice

Click here to view a full listing of Tina Harris' publications and outputs.

Research interests/expertise

  • Midwifery practice
  • Midwifery education
  • Decision making in clinical care
  • Practice variation
  • Care of childbearing women from ethnic minority and migrant backgrounds
  • Parent education
  • Obesity.

Areas of teaching

  • NURS3001 Dissertation Module
  • REST7016 Introduction to the Faculty of health and Life Sciences for postgraduate research students.
  • Supervision of undergraduate students completing their dissertations
  • Supervision of postgraduate students completing their dissertations
  • Supervision of MPhil and PhD students
  • Undergraduate and post graduate teaching in midwifery.

Qualifications

PhD, RN, RM, ADM Recordable Teaching Qualification

BSc Hons Education Studies (Midwifery) 1st Class

Courses taught

  • BSc Hons Midwifery
  • BSc Hons Midwifery (shortened)
  • MSc Midwifery Practice

Membership of external committees

  • Member of validation panel as external reviewer for Masters in Midwifery programme at Liverpool John Moores University 2004
  • External advisor on research project at Liverpool John Moores University with Irene Walton: A study of the decision making processes of the midwife in the care of low risk women in labour 2005-2007
  • Member of the LME Strategic Reference Group at the NMC 2006-2015
  • Member of panel for revalidation of curriculum at University of Manchester on 2 occasions as external reviewer 2008/2009
  • Participant in NMC consultation on changes to the constitution rules 2008
  • External examiner University of Bedfordshire 2007-2009
  • External examiner University of Bournemouth 2009-present
  • External advisor for periodic review at University of Manchester 2009
  • External specialist advisor for revalidation of midwifery programmes 2008/9
  • External Specialist advisor for revalidation of graduate degree and postgraduate diploma in midwifery. University of Hull 2009
  • Leader for Initial and Higher Education Group of the Education Standing Committee for the International Confederation of Midwives 2009-date
  • Member of Leading Midwifery Services Programme Advisory Panel NHS East Midlands Strategic Health Authority 2010
  • Expert Advisor to the NHS Evidence (NICE) specialist collection on ethnicity and health 2011-
  • Member of ICM Midwifery Research Advisory Network 2003 to date
  • Member of ICM Midwifery Education Advisory Network 2008 to date
  • Member of ICM Education Standing Committee 2011 - 2017
  • Specialist member of validation panel for revalidation of curricular Edgehill 11/3/11
  • Specialist member of validation panel for revalidation of midwifery curriculum Liverpool John Moores University 30/6/11
  • Member of Leicester University Board of Studies 2013
  • CQC Clinical Specialist Advisor
  • Registrant member of the Midwifery Committee, Nursing and Midwifery Council 2014- date
  • External examiner Trinity College, Dublin (pre-registration midwifery programme) 2014 to date
  • National Maternity and Perinatal Audit Programme Senior Clinical Lead (Midwifery) 2016 - date

Membership of professional associations and societies

  • CMB/UKCC/NMC 1982 to date
  • RCM 1982 to date
  • NATFE which became UCE 1996 to date
  • ILT which became HEA 2000 to date
  • ICM Midwifery Research Advisory Network 2003 to date
  • ICM Midwifery Education Advisory Network 2008 to date
  • ICM Education Standing Committee

Professional licences and certificates

  • Certificate in Research Supervision De Montfort University, Leicester June 2003
  • Certificate IN research Supervision Update  De Montfort Univeristy, 2011
  • Advanced Diploma in Midwifery Birmingham Maternity Hospital (ADM) 1986
  • Registered Midwife with recordable teaching qualificatin

Conference attendance

  • Harris T (2000) Oral presentation “Midwifery Practice in the third stage of labour” Midwives Marking the Millennium: the diversity of Practice. Two day International Conference 8-9 June, Highcliffe Hotel, Bournemouth.
  • Crompton A and Harris T (2000) Oral presentation “Defining and understanding birth to skin-to-skin” Are Midwives losing the art of keeping birth normal? Conference 27 November Hayes Conference Centre, Swanwick, Derbyshire.
  • Harris T (2001) Oral presentation “The use of an egalitarian paradigm in a qualitative research project entitled Midwifery Practice in the Third Stage of Labour” 2nd International Qualitative Evidence-Based Practice Conference 14-16 May 2001 Coventry.
  • Harris T (2002) Lecture "Midwifery practice in the third stage of labour" International Confederation of Midwives 26th triennial Congress April 14-18 2002 Vienna Austria Centre, Vienna.
  • Harris T (2002) Oral presentation "The use of qualitative research to inform midwifery practice" International Confederation of Midwives 26th triennial Congress April 14-18 2002 Vienna Austria Centre, Vienna.
  • Harris T (2002) Poster presentation."Normality for the third stage of labour" International Confederation of Midwives 26th triennial Congress April 14-18 2002 Vienna Austria Centre, Vienna.
  • Harris T (2002) Oral presentation “Deciding what we mean by active and expectant management of the third stage of labour” 1st Normality in Midwifery Conference. 29th October 2002 University of Central Lancashire, Preston .
  • Harris T (2002) Oral presentation. “The use of qualitative research to inform midwifery practice on the third stage of labour”. 3rd Annual International Research Conference: Transforming healthcare through research, education and technology 13-15 November 2002. University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin
  • Harris T (2002) Oral presentation. “Practice variation among midwives during the third stage of labour”. 3rd Annual International Research Conference: Transforming healthcare through research, education and technology 13-15 November 2002. University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin.
  • Harris T (2002) Poster presentation. “Normality for the third stage of labour: a critique of active management in women at low risk”. 3rd Annual International Research Conference: Transforming healthcare through research, education and technology 13-15 November 2002. University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin.
  • Harris T (2006) Poster presentation “Midwives decision making in third stage care” RCM annual conference 9-12 May 2006 Riviera International Conference Centre, Torquay.
  • Harris T (2006) Oral presentation “An explanation for third stage practice variation: the theory of contingent decision making Normal Labour and Birth: 3rd Research Conference 7-9 June 2006Grange Hotel, Grange-over-Sands.
  • Harris T (2006) Oral presentation in concurrent session “Midwifery practice in the third stage of labour”. 6th European Qualitative Research Conference in Health and Social Care 4-6 September 2006 : Bournemouth University, Bournemouth .
  • Harris T (2006) Oral presentation in maternity care stream “Models of care among midwives and their influence on the management of the third stage of labour: results from a grounded theory study”. 7th Annual Interdisciplinary Research Conference: transforming healthcare through research, education and technology. 8-10 November 2006.
  • Doughty R, Harris T and McLean M (2006) Oral presentation at concurrent workshop “Tripartite Assessment of Learners during Practice Placements in Midwifery Pre-Registration Programmes”. UVAC Annual Conference. 30/11/06-1/12/06. Royal York Hotel, York.
  • Harris T ( 2008) Third stage practice variation-midwives individualising care? ARM Annual conference. Mencap: Sheffield. Keynote speaker.
  • Muxlow A, Harris T (2008) Aspects of organisational culture which enable midwifery practice. ICM 28th Triennial Congress: Midwifery: A worldwide commitment to women and the newborn. 1-5 June 2008: Glasgow SEEC Oral presentation within concurrent session.
  • Harris T, Doughty R, Addo A, Mee K (2008) The return of the midwifery viva: an innovation to assess fitness for practice. ICM 28th Triennial Congress: Midwifery: A worldwide commitment to women and the newborn. 1-5 June 2008: Glasgow SEEC Oral presentation within concurrent session.
  • Harris T and Garratt R (2008) Grading of practice at De Montfort University. LME workshop on grading clinical practice. Invited speaker. City University, London. 30 September 2008.
  • Bawadi H, Culley L, Harris T (2008) Migrant Arab Muslim women’s experience of childbirth in the UK. Concurrent paper 11th Annual conference. Making midwives and women’s health matter. 2 October 2008. Liverpool Women’s Hospital.

  • Harris T, Nyombi S, Doughty R, Norrie P (2012) An evaluation of student midwife knowledge of breast feeding following involvement in a student led activity in the community. NICER Conference Nottingham 7/8 September 2012 University of Nottingham

    Harris T (2012) The quest for graduate education has led to the demise of the midwifery profession and the loss of the essence of being with woman”. RCM Debate Invited speaker. 30th April 2012 National Liberal Club London – presented opposing the motion.

    Harris T, Doughty R, Norrie P, and Nyombi S (2012) Student midwives making a difference in the local community supporting breast feeding; a De Montfort University Square Mile project. Invited speaker. RCM Annual Conference 13th-14th November 2012 Brighton.

    Harris T, Anthony D, Doughty R and Fowler J (2012) Two’s company. Three’s a crowd? The assessment of practice in midwifery. Invited Speaker. RCM Annual Conference 13th-14th November 2012 Brighton.

    S. Nyombi, T. Harris, R. Doughty.  (2014) Service learning with student midwives: giving something back. The breast feeding baby on the go square mile project at DMU. ICM 30th Triennial Congress 1-5th June 2014. Prague. Concurrent paper

    G. Mulheron and T. Harris. (2014). A grounded theory study of midwives experiences of supporting women to have a lotus birth.  ICM 30th Triennial Congress 1-5th June 2014. Prague. Concurrent paper

Recent research outputs

Harris, T (2015) Grounded Theory. Nursing Standard. 29(35) 37-43. 29th April.

Harris T (2016) “Care in the third stage of labour” in Mayes’ Midwifery: a textbook for midwives 15th edition. In Press. 

Key research outputs

Harris T (2005) “ Midwifery practice in the third stage of labour” PhD thesis. Leicester : De Montfort University

Doughty R, Harris T, McLean M (2007) “Tripartite Assessment of Learners during Practice Placements in Midwifery Pre-Registration Programmes Education and Training Volume 49 Issue 3 p227-235

Khodayar Oshvandi1, Vahid Zamanzadeh, Fazlollah Ahmadi,

Eskandar Fathi-Azar, Denis Anthony andTina Harris (2008) “Barriers to Nurse Job motivation”. Research Journal of Biological Sciences 3(4) 426-434

Harris T (2011) “Care in the third stage of labour” in Mayes’ Midwifery: a textbook for midwives 14th edition. Edinburgh : Bailliere Tindall 

Harris, T (2015) Grounded Theory. Nursing Standard. 29(35) 37-43. 29th April.

Harris T (2016) “Care in the third stage of labour” in Mayes’ Midwifery: a textbook for midwives 15th edition. In Press.

dd key research outputs information here] 

 

Consultancy work

As an experienced midwifery lecturer with a recordable teaching qualification, Tina is regularly invited to be a member of revalidation and periodic review panels for midwifery programmes across the UK. She is also a member of a number of national and international committees relating to midwifery research, education and practice:

National Maternity and Perinatal Audit Programme (Senior Clinical Lead (Midwifery), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Lindsay Stewart centre

Midwifery Committee, Nursing and Midwifery Council (Registrant member)ICM

Education Standing Committee

Education Advisory Network (ICM)

Research Advisory Network (ICM)

Tina is also a clinical specialist advisor for the Care Quality Commission and an external examiner for Trinity College, Dublin (pre-registration midwifery programmes)

Tina has a number of years experience successfully supervising and examining PhD students. She has been a specialist advisor on research projects with other Universities and has worked collaboratively across institutions on research projects.

Tina is available as a consultant in the following areas:

  • Midwifery education
  • Midwifery practice
  • Midwifery research (including PhD supervision and examining)
  • Qualitative research methodologies, particularly grounded theory
  • Practice variation in clinical care
  • Decision making in clinical care

Current research students

  • Rowena Doughty  - The experience of obesity in childbearing
  • Aveen Haji Mam  - The effects of an antenatal education programme for obese women on pregnancy outcomes.
  • Azza Alqaabi - Factors which influence the choice of health care careers among Emeratis.
  • Nicky Genders - 30 years of Learning disabilities nursing in England: a narrative study

Externally funded research grants information

An evaluation of the effect of NHS Trust financial support on pre-registration mentorship and preceptorship in midwifery – a collaborative project with Nottingham University and University of Northampton East Midlands Healthcare Workforce Deanery funded project 2008

Midwifery education worldwide – a collaborative project with Kuldip Bharj (University of Leeds) 2010

 

 

 

Internally funded research project information

  • Breast feeding baby ‘on the go’ – A De Montfort University funded project as part of the University Square Mile project. 2011

    Evaluation of the tripartite assessment process in midwifery A De Montfort University funded project 2012

Professional esteem indicators

  • Reviewer for Journal of Advanced Nursing 2003-date
  • Reviewer for Nurse researcher 2009-date
  • Reviewer for Midwifery 2009-date
  • Reviewer for Nursing Inquiry 2010 - date
  • Reviewer of ICM abstracts for Triennial ICM Congresses 2005-date
  • Invited speaker at the RCM debate “The quest for graduate education has led to the demise of the midwifery profession and the loss of the essence of being with woman”. 30 April 2012 National Liberal Club London – presented opposing the motion
Tina Harris

Search Who's Who