Which level of risk justifies routine induction of labor for healthy women?

Making good care essential: The impact of increased obstetric interventions and decreased services during the COVID-19 pandemic

Problem & background

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, policies have been implemented to limit interpersonal contact in clinical and community settings. The impacts of pandemic-related policies on experiences of pregnancy and birth are crucial to investigate and learn from.

Aim

To examine the impact of pandemic policy changes on experiences of pregnancy and birth, thereby identifying barriers to good care; to inform understandings of medicalization, care, pregnancy, and subjectivity during times of crisis; and to critically examine the assumptions about pregnancy and birth that are sustained and produced through policy.

Methods

Qualitative descriptive study drawing on 67 in-depth interviews with people who were pregnant and/or gave birth in Canada during the pandemic. The study took a social constructionist standpoint and employed thematic analysis to derive meaning from study data.

Findings

The pandemic has resulted in an overall scaling back of perinatal care alongside the heavy use of interventions (e.g., induction of labour, cesarian section) in response to pandemic stresses and uncertainties. Intervention use here is an outcome of negotiation and collaboration between pregnant people and their care providers as they navigate pregnancy and birth in stressful, uncertain conditions.

Discussion

Continuity of care throughout pregnancy and postpartum, labour support persons, and non-clinical services and interventions for pain management are all essential components of safe maternal healthcare. However, pandemic perinatal care demonstrates that they are not viewed as such.

Conclusion

The pandemic has provided an opportunity to restructure Canadian reproductive health care to better support and encourage out-of-hospital births – including midwife-assisted births – for low-risk pregnancies.

Intrapartum interventions and outcomes for women and children following induction of labour at term in uncomplicated pregnancies: a 16-year population-based linked data study

OBJECTIVES

We compared intrapartum interventions and outcomes for mothers, neonates and children up to 16 years, for induction of labour (IOL) versus spontaneous labour onset in uncomplicated term pregnancies with live births.

DESIGN

We used population linked data from New South Wales, Australia (2001-2016) for healthy women giving birth at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed for intrapartum interventions, postnatal maternal and neonatal outcomes, and long-term child outcomes adjusted for maternal age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, parity and gestational age.

RESULTS

Of 474 652 included births, 69 397 (15%) had an IOL for non-medical reasons. Primiparous women with IOL versus spontaneous onset differed significantly for: spontaneous vaginal birth (42.7% vs 62.3%), instrumental birth (28.0% vs 23.9%%), intrapartum caesarean section (29.3% vs 13.8%), epidural (71.0% vs 41.3%), episiotomy (41.2% vs 30.5%) and postpartum haemorrhage (2.4% vs 1.5%). There was a similar trend in outcomes for multiparous women, except for caesarean section which was lower (5.3% vs 6.2%). For both groups, third and fourth degree perineal tears were lower overall in the IOL group: primiparous women (4.2% vs 4.9%), multiparous women (0.7% vs 1.2%), though overall vaginal repair was higher (89.3% vs 84.3%). Following induction, incidences of neonatal birth trauma, resuscitation and respiratory disorders were higher, as were admissions to hospital for infections (ear, nose, throat, respiratory and sepsis) up to 16 years. There was no difference in hospitalisation for asthma or eczema, or for neonatal death (0.06% vs 0.08%), or in total deaths up to 16 years.

CONCLUSION

IOL for non-medical reasons was associated with higher birth interventions, particularly in primiparous women, and more adverse maternal, neonatal and child outcomes for most variables assessed. The size of effect varied by parity and gestational age, making these important considerations when informing women about the risks and benefits of IOL.

The predicted clinical workload associated with early post-term surveillance and inductions of labour in south Asian women in a non-tertiary hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth increases steeply after 42 weeks gestation; hence, induction of labour (IOL) is recommended after 41 weeks. Recent Victorian data demonstrate that term stillbirth risk rises at an earlier gestation in south Asian mothers (SAM).

AIMS

To determine the impact on a non-tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia, if post-dates IOL were recommended one week earlier at 40 + 3 for SAM; and to calculate the proportion of infants with birthweight < 3rd centile that were undelivered by 40 weeks in SAM and non-SAM, as these cases may represent undetected fetal growth restriction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Singleton births ≥ 37 weeks during 2017-18 were extracted from the hospital Birthing Outcomes System. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes for pregnancies that birthed after spontaneous onset of labour or IOL were analysed according to gestation and country of birth.

RESULTS

There were 5408 births included, and 24.9% were born to SAM (n = 1345). SAM women had a higher rate of IOL ≥ 37 weeks compared with non-SAM women (42.5% vs 35.0%, P < 0.001). If all SAM accepted an offer of IOL at 40 + 3, there would be an additional 80 term inductions over two years. There was no significant difference in babies < 3rd centile undelivered by 40 weeks in SAM compared with non-SAM (29.6% vs 37.7%, P = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier IOL for post-term SAM would only modestly increase the demand on birthing services, due to pre-existing high rates of IOL. Our current practices appear to capture the majority at highest risk of stillbirth in our SAM population.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, November 2020

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of diversity in the maternity care workforce and commentaries on reviews focused on burnout in midwifery and a cross-national comparison of guidelines for uncomplicated childbirth.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, September 2020

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of “spin” in scientific reporting and its effect on summaries and syntheses of the literature and commentaries on reviews about early versus late amniotomy as part of labor induction protocols and the economic burden associated with maternal morbidity.