In-hospital birth center with the same medical guidelines as standard care: a comparative study of obstetric interventions and outcomes

Midwife-Led Versus Obstetrician-Led Perinatal Care for Low-Risk Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Pregnancies

Background: The optimum model of perinatal care for low-risk pregnancies has been a topic of debate. Obstetrician-led care tends to perform unnecessary interventions, whereas the quality of midwife-led care has been subject to debate. This review aimed to assess whether midwife-led care reduces childbirth intervention and whether this comes at the expense of maternal and neonatal wellbeing. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant studies. Studies were checked for eligibility by screening the titles, abstracts, and full texts. We performed meta-analyses using the inverse variance method using RevMan software version 5.3. We pooled data using the risk ratio and mean difference with the 95% confidence interval. Results: This review included 44 studies with 1,397,320 women enrolled. Midwife-led care carried a lower risk of unplanned cesarean and instrumental vaginal deliveries, augmentation of labor, epidural/spinal analgesia, episiotomy, and active management of labor third stage. Women who received midwife-led care had shorter hospital stays and lower risks of infection, manual removal of the placenta, blood transfusion, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Furthermore, neonates delivered under midwife-led care had lower risks of acidosis, asphyxia, transfer to specialist care, and ICU admission. Postpartum hemorrhage, perineal tears, APGAR score < 7, and other outcomes were comparable between the two models of management. Conclusions: Midwife-led care reduced childbirth interventions with favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes in most cases. We recommend assigning low-risk pregnancies to midwife-led perinatal care in health systems with infrastructure allowing for smooth transfer when complications arise. Further research is needed to reflect the situation in low-resource countries.

The first alongside midwifery unit in Spain: A retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Midwife-led units have been shown to be safer and reduce interventions for women at low risk of complications at birth. In 2017, the first alongside birth center was opened in Spain. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for women with uncomplicated pregnancies giving birth in the Midwife-led unit (MLU) and in the Obstetric unit (OU) of the same hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study comparing birth outcomes between low-risk women, depending on their planned place of birth. Data were analyzed with an intention-to-treat approach for women that gave birth between January 2018 and December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 878 women were included in the study, 255 women chose to give birth in the MLU and 623 in the OU. Findings showed that women in the MLU were more likely to have a vaginal birth (91.4%) than in the OU (83.8%) (aOR 2.98 [95%CI 1.62-5.47]), less likely to have an instrumental delivery, 3.9% versus 11.2% (0.25 [0.11-0.55]), to use epidural analgesia, 19.6% versus 77.9% (0.15 [0.04-0.17]) and to have an episiotomy, 7.4% versus 15.4% (0.27 [0.14-0.53]). There were no differences in rates of postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, or adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates from the MLU to the OU were 21.1% and 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of obstetric interventions in Spain could be reduced by implementing midwife-led units across the whole system, without an increase in maternal or neonatal complications.

Does giving birth in a "birth environment room" versus a standard birth room lower augmentation of labor? - Results from a randomized controlled trial

Objective

In the last decade, there has been an increased interest in exploring the impact of the physical birth environment on midwifery practice and women's birth experiences. This study is based on the hypothesis that the environment for birth needs greater attention to improve some of the existing challenges in modern obstetric practice, for example the increasing use of augmentation and number of interventions during delivery.

Study design

A randomized controlled trial was carried out to study the effect of giving birth in a specially designed "birth environment room" on the use of augmentation during labor. The study took place at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herning Hospital, Denmark and included 680 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term with a fetus in cephalic presentation. Women were randomly allocated to either the "birth environment room" or a standard birth room. The primary outcome was augmentation of labor by use of oxytocin. Secondary outcomes were duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and mode of birth. Differences were estimated as relative risks (RR) and presented with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

No difference was found on the primary outcome, augmentation of labor (29.1% in the "birth environment room" versus 30.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.89-1.08). More women in the "birth environment room" used the bathtub (60.6% versus 52.4%, RR 1.18; 1.02-1.37), whereas a tendency to lower use of epidural analgesia (22.6% versus 28.2%) did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.87; 0.74-1.02). The chance of an uncomplicated birth was almost similar in the two groups (70.6% in the "birth environment room" versus 72.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.88-1.07) as were duration of labor (mean 7.9 hours in both groups).

Conclusions

Birthing in a specially designed physical birth environment did not lower use of oxytocin for augmentation of labor. Neither did it have any effect on duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and chance of birthing without complications. We recommend that future trials are conducted in birth units with greater improvement potentials.

Effects of Obstetric Interventions During Labor on Birth Process and Newborn Health

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the effects of the interventions in the delivery room on the delivery process and the newborn health.

METHOD

The analytical-cross-sectional study was carried out with 354 puerperal women who gave birth in hospital between December 2016 and June 2017 in a public hospital. The data were collected by the data collection form developed by the researchers. Data analysis was done by using descriptive statistics and chi-square test in SPSS 21.00 program.

RESULTS

The interventions were determined in continuous electro fetal monitoring (80.5%), oxytocin induction (79.9%), restriction of free movement (56.8%), amniotomy (49.7%), enema (44.1%), and movement restriction (56.8%). The intervention period of the second phase of delivery was longer and the rate of cesarean section was higher, and the need for NICU, suction difficulty, 5th APGAR score less than 7, trauma development, difficulty in suction, and higher trauma rates were found in infants. It was determined that the rate of oxygen need in puerperals admitted to the delivery room with cervical dilatation below five cm, vacuum and episiotomy applications in those who underwent amniotomy, and vacuum application rates in those undergoing oxytocin inductions were found to be high. In addition, the rate of fundal compression and episiotomy was significantly higher in patients who used continuous electro fetal monitoring, fundal compression and vacuum rate in patients who were administered analgesic drugs, and episiotomy rates in patients using analgesic drugs.

CONCLUSION

It has been concluded that interventions in the first phase of labor negatively affect the delivery process and neonatal health and increase the need for intervention in the second phase.

Mapping the trajectories for women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital in New South Wales, Australia, between 2000 and 2012

BACKGROUND

In New South Wales (NSW) Australia, women at low risk of complications can choose from three birth settings: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, around 6.4% of pregnant women planned to give birth in a birth centre (6%) or at home (0.4%) and 93.6% of women planned to birth in a hospital. A proportion of the woman in the home and birth centre groups transferred to hospital. However, their pathways or trajectories are largely unknown.

AIM

The aim was to map the trajectories and interventions experienced by women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital over a 13-year period in NSW.

METHODS

Using population-based linked datasets from NSW, women at low risk of complications, with singleton pregnancies, gestation 37-41 completed weeks and spontaneous onset of labour were included. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and estimate the probabilities of the following: giving birth in their planned setting; being transferred; requiring interventions and neonatal admission to higher level hospital care. The trajectories were analysed by parity.

RESULTS

Over a 13-year period, 23% of nulliparous and 0.8% of multiparous women planning a home birth were transferred to hospital. In the birth centre group, 34% of nulliparae and 12% of multiparas were transferred to a hospital. Normal vaginal birth rates were higher in multiparous women compared to nulliparous women in all settings. Neonatal admission to SCN/NICU was highest in the planned hospital group for nulliparous women (10.1%), 7.1% for nulliparous women planning a birth centre birth and 5.1% of nulliparous women planning a homebirth. Multiparas had lower admissions to SCN/NICU for all thee settings (hospital 6.3%, BC 3.6%, home 1.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Women who plan to give birth at home or in a birth centre have high rates of vaginal birth, even when transferred to hospital. Evidence on the trajectories of women who choose to give birth at home or in birth centres will assist the planning, costing and expansion of models of care in NSW.

Factors associated with low Apgar in newborns in birth center

OBJECTIVE

to analyze factors associated with Apgar of 5 minutes less than 7 of newborns of women selected for care at the Center for Normal Birth (ANC).

METHOD

a descriptive cross-sectional study with data from 9,135 newborns collected between July 2001 and December 2012. The analysis used absolute and relative frequency frequencies and bivariate analysis using Pearson's chi-square test or the exact Fisher.

RESULTS

fifty-three newborns (0.6%) had Apgar less than 7 in the 5th minute. The multivariate analysis found a positive association between low Apgar and gestational age less than 37 weeks, gestational pathologies and intercurrences in labor. The presence of the companion was a protective factor.

CONCLUSION

the Normal Birth Center is a viable option for newborns of low risk women as long as the protocol for screening low-risk women is followed.

Value based maternal and newborn care requires alignment of adequate resources with high value activities

Background

Evidence based practice has been associated with better quality of care in many situations, but it has not been able to address increasing need and demand in healthcare globally and stagnant or decreasing healthcare resources. Implementation of value-based healthcare could address many important challenges in health care systems worldwide. Scaling up exemplary high value care practices offers the potential to ensure values-driven maternal and newborn care for all women and babies.

Discussion

Increased use of healthcare interventions over the last century have been associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. However, over an optimum threshold, these are associated with increases in adverse effects and inappropriate use of scarce resources. The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care framework provides an example of what value based maternity care might look like. To deliver value based maternal and newborn care, a system-level shift is needed, ‘from fragmented care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all’.

Ideally, resources would be allocated at population and individual level to ensure care is woman-centred instead of institution/ profession centred but oftentimes, the drivers for spending resources are ‘the demands and beliefs of the acute sector’. We argue that decisions to allocate resources to high value activities, such as continuity of carer, need to be made at the macro level in the knowledge that these investments will relieve pressure on acute services while also ensuring the delivery of appropriate and high value care in the long run. To ensure that high value preventive and supportive care can be delivered, it is important that separate staff and money are allocated to, for example, models of continuity of carer to prevent shortages of resources due to rising demands of the acute services.

Summary

To achieve value based maternal and newborn care, mechanisms are needed to ensure adequate resource allocation to high value maternity care activities that should be separate from the resource demands of acute maternity services. Funding arrangements should support, where wanted and needed, seamless movement of women and neonates between systems of care.

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the effect of a "birth environment room" versus a standard labour room on birth outcomes and the birth experience

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, there has been an increased interest in exploring the impact of the physical birth environment on birth outcomes. The birth environment might have an important role in facilitating the production of the hormone oxytocin that causes contractions during labour. Oxytocin is released in a safe, secure and confidence-inducing environment, and environments focused on technology and medical interventions to achieve birth may disrupt the production of oxytocin and slow down the progress of labour. An experimental "birth environment room" was designed, inspired by knowledge from evidence-based healthcare design, which advocates bringing nature into the room to reduce stress. The purpose is to examine whether the 'birth environment room', with its design and decor to minimise stress, has an impact on birth outcomes and the birth experience of the woman and her partner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomised controlled trial will recruit 680 nulliparous women at term who will be randomly allocated to either the "birth environment room" or a standard room. The study will take place at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Herning Hospital, with recruitment from May 2015. Randomisation to either the "birth environment room" or standard room takes place just before admission to a birth room during labour. The primary outcome is augmentation of labour, and the study has 80% power to detect a 10% difference between the two groups (two-sided α = 0.05). Secondary outcomes are duration of labour, use of pharmacological pain relief, mode of birth, and rating of the birth experience by women and their partners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02478385(10/08/2016).

Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Research on caseload midwifery in a Danish setting is missing. This cohort study aimed to compare labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard midwifery care.

METHODS

A historical register-based cohort study was carried out using routinely collected data about all singleton births 2013-2016 in two maternity units in the North Denmark Region. In this region, women are geographically allocated to caseload midwifery or standard care, as caseload midwifery is only available in some towns in the peripheral part of the uptake areas of the maternity units, and it is the only model of care offered here. Labour outcomes of 2679 all-risk women in caseload midwifery were compared with those of 10,436 all-risk women in standard midwifery care using multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to women in standard care, augmentation was more frequent in caseload women (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.20; 95% CI 1.06-1.35) as was labour duration of less than 10 h (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.13-1.42). More emergency caesarean sections were observed in caseload women (aOR 1.17; 95% CI 1.03-1.34), but this might partly be explained by longer distance to the maternity unit in caseload women. When caseload women were compared to women in standard care with a similar long distance to the hospital, no difference in emergency caesarean sections was observed (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.28). Compared to standard care, infants of caseload women more often had Apgar ≤7 after 5 min. (aOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.11-2.23) and this difference remained when caseload women were compared to women with similar distance to the hospital. For elective caesarean sections, preterm birth, induction of labour, dilatation of cervix on admission, amniotomy, epidural analgesia, and instrumental deliveries, we did not obseve any differences between the two groups. After birth, caseload women more often experienced no laceration (aOR 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

For most labour outcomes, there were no differences across the two models of midwifery-led care but unexpectedly, we observed slightly more augmentation and adverse neonatal outcomes in caseload midwifery. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the overall low intervention and complication rates in this Danish setting and in the context of research that supports the benefits of caseload midwifery. Although the observational design of the study allows only cautious conclusions, this study highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluating new practices contextually.

An approach to assessing the quality of birth centres results of the Dutch birth centre study

OBJECTIVE

to determine the usability of a recently developed set of 30 structure and process birth centre quality indicators.

DESIGN

an explorative study using mixed-methods including literature, a survey, interviews and observations. The study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study. We first determined the measurability of birth centre quality indicators by describing them in detail. Next, we assessed the birth centres in the Netherlands according to these indicators using data derived from the Dutch Birth Centre General Questionnaire, the Dutch Birth Centre Integration Questionnaire, interviews, and policy documents.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

representatives of 23 birth centres in the Netherlands.

MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS

28 of the 30 quality indicators could be used to assess birth centres in the Netherlands, one had no optimal value defined, another could not be scored because the information was not available. Each quality indicator could be scored 0 or 1. Differences between birth centres were shown: the scores ranged from 7 to 22. Some of the quality indicators can be combined or made more specific so that they are easier to assess. Some quality indicators need adaptation because they are only applicable for some birth centres (e.g. only for freestanding or alongside birth centres).

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

28 of the 30 quality indicators are usable to assess structure and process quality of birth centres. With the findings of this study the set of structure and process quality indicators for birth centres in the Netherlands can be reduced to 22 indicators. This set of quality indicators can contribute to the development of a quality system for birth centres. Further research is necessary to formulate standards or minimum quality requirements for birth centres and to improve the set of birth centre quality indicators.

Comparison of midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care on maternal and neonatal outcomes in Singapore: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

to examine the maternal and neonatal outcomes of low-risk women receiving midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care. DESIGN, SETTING,&PARTICIPANTS: a retrospective cohort study design was used. Data were collected from a large tertiary maternity hospital in Singapore. This involved a medical record review of 368 women who had singleton, normal to low-risk, term pregnancy, and received midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care between 2013 to 2014.

MEASUREMENTS

a data extraction tool was used to solicit information on the outcome measures, including duration of labour, mode of delivery, episiotomy, and 5-minutes Apgar score (<7). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the women's 'characteristics. χ² and independent sample t-test were used to assess the differences in demographics and birth outcomes. Multiple linear and logistic regressions were used to examine the difference between the two comparison groups after adjusted for potential confounders.

FINDINGS

statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between the midwife-led care group and the obstetrician-led care group in terms of the total duration of labour and total antenatal visits were found. No statistically significant differences were observed for mode of delivery, episiotomy, intrapartum pain management, labour augmentation, labour induction, postpartum haemorrhage, perineal trauma, birth status, 5-minutes Apgar score (<7), low birth weight (<2500g), and neonatal admission to intensive care units between the midwife-led care group and the obstetrician-led care group.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

while interventions such as episiotomies and labour augmentation were more common in the midwife-led care group, no significant differences were found for most of the outcome measures between the two maternity groups except for total antenatal visits and duration of labour. Findings suggest that midwife-led care is as safe and effective as obstetrician-led care in achieving optimal birth outcomes, with no higher risk of adversities for low-risk women. Additional studies are necessary to continuously evaluate midwife-led care and to promote normal birth and reduce excessive use of obstetric procedures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

the provision of midwife-led care should continue to be extended as an additional choice in maternity care for women with low-risk pregnancies. Professional staff development with continuous education is needed to clear misconceptions about midwife-led care and to promote awareness in current practice guidelines. Prospective evaluation of midwife-led care will be beneficial in informing policies and practise guidelines.

Defining and describing birth centres in the Netherlands - a component study of the Dutch Birth Centre Study

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, a rapid increase of birth locations for low-risk births, other than conventional obstetric units, has been seen in the Netherlands. Internationally some of such locations are called birth centres. The varying international definitions for birth centres are not directly applicable for use within the Dutch obstetric system. A standard definition for a birth centre in the Netherlands is lacking. This study aimed to develop a definition of birth centres for use in the Netherlands, to identify these centres and to describe their characteristics.

METHODS

International definitions of birth centres were analysed to find common descriptions. In July 2013 the Dutch Birth Centre Questionnaire was sent to 46 selected Dutch birth locations that might qualify as birth centre. Questions included: location, reason for establishment, women served, philosophies, facilities that support physiological birth, hotel-facilities, management, environment and transfer procedures in case of referral. Birth centres were visited to confirm the findings from the Dutch Birth Centre Questionnaire and to measure distance and time in case of referral to obstetric care.

RESULTS

From all 46 birth locations the questionnaires were received. Based on this information a Dutch definition of a birth centre was constructed. This definition reads: "Birth centres are midwifery-managed locations that offer care to low risk women during labour and birth. They have a homelike environment and provide facilities to support physiological birth. Community midwives take primary professional responsibility for care. In case of referral the obstetric caregiver takes over the professional responsibility of care." Of the 46 selected birth locations 23 fulfilled this definition. Three types of birth centres were distinguished based on their location in relation to the nearest obstetric unit: freestanding (n = 3), alongside (n = 14) and on-site (n = 6). Transfer in case of referral was necessary for all freestanding and alongside birth centres. Birth centres varied in their reason for establishment and their characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-three Dutch birth centres were identified and divided into three different types based on location according to the situation in September 2013. Birth centres differed in their reason for establishment, facilities, philosophies, staffing and service delivery.

Quality of care provided in two Scottish rural community maternity units: a retrospective case review

BACKGROUND

Women in Scotland with uncomplicated pregnancies are encouraged by professional bodies and national guidelines to access community based models of midwife-led care for their labour and birth. The evidence base for these guidelines relates to comparisons of predominantly urban birth settings in England. There appears to be little evidence available about the quality of the care during the antenatal, birth and post birth periods available for women within the Scottish Community Maternity Unit (CMU) model. The research aim was to explore the safety and effectiveness of the maternity services provided at two rural Community Maternity Units in Scotland, both 40 miles by main road access from a tertiary obstetric unit.

METHODS

Following appropriate NHS and University ethical approval, an anonymous retrospective review of consecutive maternity records for all women who accessed care at the CMUs over a 12 month period (June 2011 to May 2012) was undertaken in 2013 -14. Data was extracted using variables chosen to provide a description of the socio-demographics of the cohort and the process and outcomes of the care provided. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Regarding effectiveness, the correct care pathway was allocated to 97.5% of women, early access to antenatal care achieved by 95.7% of women, 94.8% of women at one CMU received continuity of carer and 78.6% of those clinically eligible accessed care in labour. 11.9% were appropriately transferred to obstetrician-led care antenatally and 16.9% were transferred in labour. All women received one-to one care in labour and 67.1% of babies born at the CMUs were breastfed at birth. Regarding safety, severe morbidity for women was rare, perineal trauma of 3rd degree tear occurred for 0.3% of women and 1.0% experienced an episiotomy. Severe post partum haemorrhage occurred for 0.3% of women. Babies admitted to the Neonatal unit were discharged within 48 hrs.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the recommendations of professional bodies and national guidelines. Maternity service provision at rural CMUs achieved a consistently high standard of safety and effectiveness when measured against national standards and international evidence.

Different settings of place of midwife-led birth: evaluation of a midwife-led birth centre

Objectives

The claimed advantages of home deliveries, including fewer medical interventions, are potentially counter balanced by the small additional risk on perinatal adverse outcome compared to hospital deliveries in low risk women. Homelike birth centres have been proposed a new setting for low risk women combining the advantages of home and hospital, resulting in lower intervention rates with equal safety. This paper addresses whether the introduction of a midwife-led birth centre adjacent to the hospital combines the advantages of home and hospital deliveries. Additionally, we investigate whether the introduction of a midwife-led birth centre leads to a different risk selection of women planning their delivery either at home, at the hospital or at the birth centre.

Methods

Anonymized data, between January 2007 and June 2012, was collected from the four participating midwife practices. Women (n = 5558) were categorized according to intended place of birth. Women’s characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the period before and after its introduction using Chi square and Fisher’s Exact tests. Direct and indirect standardized rates were calculated for different outcomes [(1) intrapartum and neonatal mortality (<24 h), (2) composite outcome of neonatal morbidities, (3) composite outcome of maternal morbidities, and (4) medical intervention], taking the period before introduction as reference.

Results

After the introduction of the birth centre a different risk selection was observed. Women’s characteristics were most unfavourable for intended birth centre births. Additionally, an higher neonatal risk load was seen within these women. After its introduction neonatal morbidities decreased (5.0 vs. 3.8 %) and maternal morbidities decreased (8.3 vs. 7.3 %). Interventions were about equal. Direct and indirect standardization provided similar results.

Conclusion

Neonatal morbidity and maternal morbidity tended to decrease, while overall intervention rates were unaffected. The introduction of the midwife-led birth centre seems to benefit the outcome of midwife-led deliveries. We interpret this change by the redistribution of the higher risk women among the low risk population intending birth at the birth centre instead of home.

Evaluation of satisfaction with care in a midwifery unit and an obstetric unit: a randomized controlled trial of low-risk women

Background

Satisfaction with birth care is part of quality assessment of care. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in satisfaction with intrapartum care among low-risk women, randomized to a midwifery unit or to an obstetric unit within the same hospital.

Methods

Randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway. A total of 485 women with no expressed preference for level of birth care, assessed to be at low-risk at onset of spontaneous labor were included. To assess the overall satisfaction with intrapartum care, the Labour and Delivery Satisfaction Index (LADSI) questionnaire, was sent to the participants 6 months after birth. To assess women’s experience with intrapartum transfer, four additional items were added. In addition, we tested the effects of the following aspects on satisfaction; obstetrician involved, intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to the obstetric unit during labor, mode of delivery and epidural analgesia.

Results

Women randomized to the midwifery unit were significantly more satisfied with intrapartum care than those randomized to the obstetric unit (183 versus 176 of maximum 204 scoring points, mean difference 7.2, p = 0.002). No difference was found between the units for women who had an obstetrician involved during labor or delivery and who answered four additional questions on this aspect (mean item score 4.0 at the midwifery unit vs 4.3 at the obstetric unit, p = 0.3). Intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to an obstetric unit, operative delivery and epidurals influenced the level of overall satisfaction in a negative direction regardless of allocated unit (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Low-risk women with no expressed preference for level of birth care were more satisfied if allocated to the midwifery unit compared to the obstetric unit.

Trial registration

The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00857129. Initially released 03/05/2009.

Birth outcomes in a tertiary teaching hospitals and local outposts: a novel approach to service delivery from Iran

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of childbirth care in a tertiary teaching hospital and Safe Delivery Posts (SDPs) to determine the safety of out-of-hospital care by midwives in Zahedan, Iran.

STUDY DESIGN

A quasi-experimental design was applied in this study.

METHODS

In this study, 2063 women who gave birth in SDPs, along with 983 women who underwent vaginal delivery in a tertiary teaching hospital, were evaluated in 2011-2012. Retrospective chart review was applied to collect data from the medical records of mothers and neonates. Only low-risk women with a singleton live birth, cephalic presentation, gestational age ≥37 weeks, spontaneous labour, and no prior history of uterine scar were recruited.

RESULTS

Based on the findings, episiotomy, perineal tear, cervical laceration, postpartum haemorrhage and need for blood transfusion (or hysterectomy) were less commonly reported in the SDP group, compared to the hospital group. In the SDP group, 15 (0.73%) women were transferred to the hospital after delivery. Overall, one (0.10%) case from the hospital group and two (0.10%) cases from the SDP group were admitted to the intensive care unit. One-minute Apgar score lower than seven, resuscitation, NICU admission and neonatal death were more commonly reported in the hospital group, compared to the SDP group. Overall, hospital transfer was reported in 12 (0.58%) neonates born in SDPs.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, women who gave birth in SDPs had more opportunities to experience natural birth with fewer adverse outcomes. However, considering the possibility of life-threatening complications for mothers and newborns, substantial evidence is required to improve the quality of care before implementing such novel strategies in different settings.

Swedish women's interest in models of midwifery care - Time to consider the system? A prospective longitudinal survey

BACKGROUND

Sweden has an international reputation for offering high quality maternity care, although models that provide continuity of care are rare. The aim was to explore women's interest in models of care such as continuity with the same midwife, homebirth and birth center care.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal survey where 758 women's interest in models such as having the same midwife throughout antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care, homebirth with a known midwife, and birth center care were investigated.

RESULTS

Approximately 50% wanted continuity of care with the same midwife throughout pregnancy, birth and the postpartum period. Few participants were interested in birth center care or home birth. Fear of giving birth was associated with a preference for continuity with midwife.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuity with the same midwife could be of certain importance to women with childbirth fear. Models that offer continuity of care with one or two midwives are safe, cost-effective and enhance the chance of having a normal birth, a positive birth experience and possibly reduce fear of birth. The evidence is now overwhelming that all women should have maternity care delivered in this way.

Evaluating the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme': A mixed method study in England

BACKGROUND

caesarean section plays an important role in ensuring safety of mother and infant but rising rates are not accompanied by measurable improvements in maternal or neonatal mortality or morbidity. The 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme' was a facilitative initiative developed to promote opportunities for normal birth and reduce caesarean section rates in England.

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates' programme, by assessment of: impact on caesarean section rates, use of service improvements tools and participants׳ perceptions of factors that sustain or hinder work within participating maternity units.

DESIGN

a mixed methods approach included analysis of mode of birth data, web-based questionnaires and in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

twenty Hospital Trusts in England (selected from 68 who applied) took part in the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme' initiative. In each hospital Trust, the head of midwifery, an obstetrician, the relevant lead for organisational development, a supervisor of midwives, or a clinical midwife and a service user representative were invited to participate in the independent evaluation.

METHODS

collection and analysis of mode of birth data from 20 participating hospital Trusts, web-based questionnaires administered to key individuals in all 20 Trusts and in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with key individuals in a sample of six Trusts.

FINDINGS

there was a marginal decline of 0.5% (25.9% from 26.4%) in mean total caesarean section rate in the period 1 January 2009 to 31 January 2010 compared to the baseline period (1 July-31 December 2008). Reduced total caesarean section rates were achieved in eight trusts, all with higher rates at the beginning of the initiative. Features associated with lower caesarean section rates included a shared philosophy prioritising normal birth, clear communication across disciplines and strong leadership at a range of levels, including executive support and clinical leaders within each discipline.

CONCLUSIONS

it is important that the philosophy and organisational context of care are examined to identify potential barriers and facilitative factors.

Obstetric interventions in two groups of hospitals in Catalonia: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Childbirth assistance in highly technological settings and existing variability in the interventions performed are cause for concern. In recent years, numerous recommendations have been made concerning the importance of the physiological process during birth. In Spain and Catalonia, work has been carried out to implement evidence-based practices for childbirth and to reduce unnecessary interventions.To identify obstetric intervention rates among all births, determine whether there are differences in interventions among full-term single births taking place in different hospitals according to type of funding and volume of births attended to, and to ascertain whether there is an association between caesarean section or instrumental birth rates and type of funding, the volume of births attended to and women's age.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study, taking the hospital as the unit of analysis, obstetric interventions as dependent variables, and type of funding, volume of births attended to and maternal age as explanatory variables. The analysis was performed in three phases considering all births reported in the MBDS Catalonia 2011 (7,8570 births), full-term single births and births coded as normal.

RESULTS

The overall caesarean section rate in Catalonia is 27.55% (CI 27.23 to 27.86). There is a significant difference in caesarean section rates between public and private hospitals in all strata. Both public and private hospitals with a lower volume of births have higher obstetric intervention rates than other hospitals (49.43%, CI 48.04 to 50.81).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitals in Catalonia, both the type of funding and volume of births attended to have a significant effect on the incidence of caesarean section, and type of funding is associated with the use of instruments during delivery.

Dutch women in midwife-led care at the onset of labour: which pain relief do they prefer and what do they use?

Background

Pain experienced during labour is more extreme than many other types of physical pain. Many pregnant women are concerned about labour pain and about how they can deal with this pain effectively.

The aim of this study was to examine the associations among low risk pregnant women’s characteristics and their preferred use and actual use of pain medication during labour.

Methods

Our study is part of the DELIVER study: a dynamic prospective multi-centre cohort study. The data for this study were collected between September 2009 and March 2011, from women at 20 midwifery practices throughout the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria for women were: singleton pregnancies, in midwife–led care at the onset of labour and speaking Dutch, English, Turkish or Arabic. Our study sample consisted of 1511 women in primary care who completed both questionnaire two (from 34 weeks of pregnancy up to birth) and questionnaire three (around six week post partum). These questionnaires were presented either online or on paper.

Results

Fifteen hundred and eleven women participated. Prenatally, 15.9% of women preferred some method of medicinal pain relief. During labour 15.2% of the total sample used medicinal pain relief and 25.3% of the women who indicated a preference to use medicinal pain relief during pregnancy, used pain medication. Non-Dutch ethnic background and planned hospital birth were associated with indicating a preference for medicinal pain relief during pregnancy. Primiparous and planned hospital birth were associated with actual use of the preferred method of medicinal pain relief during labour. Furthermore, we found that 85.5% of women who indicated a preference not to use pain medication prenatally, did not use any medication.

Conclusions

Only a small minority of women had a preference for intrapartum pain medication prenatally. Most women did not receive medicinal pain relief during labour, even if they had indicated a preference for it.

Care providers should discuss the unpredictability of the labour process and the fact that actual use of pain medication often does not match with women’s preference prenatally.

The effect of midwifery care on rates of cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether changing to a midwifery-led maternity service model was associated with a lower national rate of cesarean delivery.

METHODS

We analyzed trends in the rate of cesarean delivery per 1000 live births between 1996 and 2010 in New Zealand. Estimates of relative increases in rate were calculated via Poisson regression for several maternal age groups over the study period.

RESULTS

Rates of cesarean delivery increased over the study period, from 156.9 per 1000 live births in 1996 to 235 per 1000 in 2010: a crude increase of 49.8%. Increasing trends were apparent in each age group, with the largest increases occurring before 2003 and relatively stable rates in the subsequent period. The smoothed estimate showed that the increase in cesarean rate across all age groups was 43.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.6-45.8) over the 15-year period.

CONCLUSION

A national midwifery-led care model was not associated with a decreased rate of cesarean delivery but, instead, with an increase similar to that in other high-resource countries. This indicates that other factors may account for the increase. Further research is needed to examine maternity outcomes associated with different models of maternity care.

Physician-led, hospital-linked, birth care centers can decrease cesarean section rates without increasing rates of adverse events

BACKGROUND

This study compares outcomes at a hospital-linked, physician-led, birthing center to a traditional hospital labor and delivery service.

METHODS

Using de-identified electronic medical records, a retrospective cohort design was employed to evaluate 32,174 singleton births during 1998-2005.

RESULTS

Compared with hospital service, birth care center delivery was associated with a lower rate of cesarean sections (adjusted Relative Risk = 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.91; p < 0.001) without an increased rate of operative vaginal delivery (adjusted Relative Risk = 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.13; p = 0.25) and a higher initiation of breastfeeding (adjusted Relative Risk = 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.30; p ≤ 0.001). A maternal length of stay greater than 72 hours occurred less frequently in the birth care center (adjusted Relative Risk = 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.66; p < 0.001). Comparing only women without major obstetrical risk factors, the differences in outcomes were reduced but not eliminated. Adverse maternal and infant outcomes were not increased at the birth care center.

CONCLUSION

A hospital-linked, physician-led, birth care center has the potential to lower rates of cesarean sections without increasing rates of operative vaginal delivery or other adverse maternal and infant outcomes.

Change in risk status during labor in a large Norwegian obstetric department: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to observe risk status on admission to hospital and change in risk status during labor.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study allocating all women into low-risk and high-risk groups on admittance to hospital and during labor based on prespecified risk criteria.

SETTING

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in a district hospital.

POPULATION

All 6406 deliveries from 2 May 2004 to 30 September 2006.

METHODS

A special form was filled out for all women admitted to the department in labor classifying them as either low or high risk. A change in risk status during labor was also recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk status (low and high risk) on admittance to hospital and change in risk status during first stage of labor.

RESULTS

On admittance, 67% of women with an intended vaginal delivery were low risk. During the first stage of labor, 41% of the low-risk women changed risk status. Use of epidural anesthesia gave rise to 73% of the risk changes during the first stage of labor and use of oxytocin caused 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-thirds of the women were low risk before labor, and 39% of these remained low-risk at the end of the first stage of labor. The main reason for a change of risk status in the obstetric department was the use of epidural anesthesia.

Obstetric interventions for low-risk pregnant women in France: do maternity unit characteristics make a difference?

BACKGROUND

In many countries the closure of small maternity units has raised concerns about how the concentration of low-risk pregnancies in large specialized units might affect the management of childbirth. We aimed to assess the role of maternity unit characteristics on obstetric intervention rates among low-risk women in France.

METHODS

Data on low-risk deliveries came from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey of a representative sample of births (n = 9,530). The maternity unit characteristics studied were size, level of care, and private or public status; the interventions included induction of labor; cesarean section; operative vaginal delivery (forceps, spatulas or vacuum); and episiotomy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were adjusted for maternal confounding factors, gestational age, and infant birthweight.

RESULTS

The rates of induction, cesarean section, operative delivery, and episiotomy in this low-risk population were 23.9 percent, 10.1 percent, 15.2 percent, and 19.6 percent, respectively, and 52.0 percent of deliveries included at least one of them. Unit size was unrelated to any intervention except operative delivery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.10-1.96) for units with >3,000 deliveries per year vs units with <1,000). The rate of every intervention was higher in private units, and the aOR for any intervention was 1.82 (95% CI, 1.59-2.08). After adjustment for maternal characteristics and facility size and status, significant variations in the use of interventions remained between units, especially for episiotomies. Results for level of care were similar to those for unit size.

CONCLUSIONS

The concentration of births in large maternity units in France is not associated with higher rates of interventions for low-risk births. The situation in private units could be explained by differences in the organization of care. Additional research should explore the differences in practices between maternity units with similar characteristics.

Economic evaluation of birth care in low-risk women. A comparison between a midwife-led birth unit and a standard obstetric unit within the same hospital in Norway. A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

to investigate the cost-effectiveness in birth care for low-risk women, in an alongside midwife-led unit (MU) compared to a standard obstetric unit (SCU) within the same hospital.

DESIGN

economic evaluation based on the findings of a randomised trial, randomising participants either into the MU or SCU. The hospital's activity-based costing system CPP was used to estimate costs, as no data on complete resource use exists.

SETTING

the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

the study population consists of 1,110 consenting healthy women, assessed to be at low-risk at spontaneous onset of labour.

MEASUREMENTS

effect measures; avoided caesarean sections, instrumental vaginal deliveries, complications requiring treatment in the operating room, epidural analgesia and oxytocin augmentation. Costs (€) were calculated by costs per day multiplied with length of stay, added costs for procedures performed outside the units. The results are expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with SCU as comparator.

FINDINGS

total costs per stay were significantly lower for women at the MU (€1,672) compared to the SCU (€1,950, p<0.001). The ICER showed that MU was a dominant strategy (lower costs and reduction in clinical procedures) for all effect measures. Based on the sensitivity analysis, allocating low-risk women to MU significantly reduced costs, but was not a dominant strategy for all outcomes.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

the MU is more cost-effective than the SCU for low-risk women without prelabour preference for level of birth care provided equal capacity at the units.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

it is cost-effective to organise birth care for low-risk women in a separate midwife-led unit.

Safety of non-medically led primary maternity care models: a critical review of the international literature

The Australian government has announced major reforms with the move to a primary maternity care model. The direction of the reforms remains contentious; with the Australian Medical Association warning that the introduction of non-medically led services will compromise current high standards in maternity services and threaten the safety of mothers and babies. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical review of the literature to determine whether there is convincing evidence to support the safety of non-medically led models of primary maternity care. Twenty-two non-randomised international studies were included representing midwifery-led care, birth centre care and home birth. Comparative outcome measurements included: perinatal mortality; perinatal morbidity; rates of medical intervention in labour; and antenatal and intrapartum referral and transfer rates. Findings support those of the three Cochrane reviews, that there is sufficient international evidence to support the conclusion of no difference in outcomes associated with low risk women in midwifery-led, birth centre and home birth models compared with standard hospital or obstetric care. These findings are limited to services involving qualified midwives working within rigorous exclusion, assessment and referral guidelines, limiting the number of urgent intrapartum transfers that come with increased risk of perinatal mortality.

Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether primary midwife care (caseload midwifery) decreases the caesarean section rate compared with standard maternity care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-care women's hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

POPULATION

A total of 2314 low-risk pregnant women.

METHODS

Women randomised to caseload received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife with some care by 'back-up' midwives. Women randomised to standard care received either midwifery or obstetric-trainee care with varying levels of continuity, or community-based general practitioner care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRIMARY OUTCOME

caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included instrumental vaginal births, analgesia, perineal trauma, induction of labour, infant admission to special/neonatal intensive care, gestational age, Apgar scores and birthweight.

RESULTS

In total 2314 women were randomised-1156 to caseload and 1158 to standard care. Women allocated to caseload were less likely to have a caesarean section (19.4% versus 24.9%; risk ratio [RR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91; P = 0.001); more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (63.0% versus 55.7%; RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; P < 0.001); less likely to have epidural analgesia (30.5% versus 34.6%; RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.996; P = 0.04) and less likely to have an episiotomy (23.1% versus 29.4%; RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.92; P = 0.003). Infants of women allocated to caseload were less likely to be admitted to special or neonatal intensive care (4.0% versus 6.4%; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P = 0.01). No infant outcomes favoured standard care.

CONCLUSION

In settings with a relatively high baseline caesarean section rate, caseload midwifery for women at low obstetric risk in early pregnancy shows promise for reducing caesarean births.

Satisfaction with a modified form of in-hospital birth center care compared with standard maternity care

BACKGROUND

For safety reasons an in-hospital birth center was replaced by a modified form of birth center care with the same medical guidelines and equipment as in standard care. The aim of this study was to investigate women's and men's satisfaction with modified care compared with standard care.

METHODS

Women in both groups gave birth from July 2007 to July 2008. The same medical low-risk criteria during pregnancy applied to both groups. Of those invited to the study, 547 (82.7%) women in modified birth center care and 445 (66.7%) men returned a questionnaire posted 2 months after the birth, and 786 (71.6%) women and 639 (58.2%) men in standard care. Odds ratios (ORs) for being satisfied were calculated with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) and adjusted for possible confounders. We also explored the effects of different components of care on overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

Adjusted ORs for being satisfied overall were approximately doubled in the modified birth center group compared with the standard care group: antenatal care-OR: 2.1 (95% CI: 1.6-2.7) in women and OR: 2.2 (95% CI: 1.5-2.8) in men; intrapartum care-OR: 2.2 (95% CI: 1.7-2.9) in women and OR: 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3-2.4) in men; and postpartum care-OR: 1.7 in women (95% CI: 1.4-2.2) and OR: 2.1 (95% CI: 1.6-2.8) in men. Important explanations of these differences included perception of the midwife as being more supportive, the presence of a calmer environment and atmosphere (intrapartum), and the option for fathers to stay overnight (postpartum).

CONCLUSION

In-hospital birth center with medical equipment on site increased overall satisfaction with all episodes of care compared with standard care. (BIRTH 39:2 June 2012).

Características da assistência ao trabalho de parto e parto em três modelos de atenção no SUS, no Município de Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil

Estudo transversal com 831 gestantes, de risco habitual, sobre o manejo do trabalho de parto num Centro de Parto Normal (CPN), num hospital vencedor do título "Galba de Araújo" (HG) e numa maternidade com modelo assistencial prevalente (HP). O uso da ocitocina no CPN foi de 27,9%, no HG 59,5% e no HP 40,1%, enquanto a amniotomia foi realizada em 67,6%, 73,6% e 82,2% das mulheres, respectivamente. A realização da episiotomia foi menor nas modalidades com incorporação de práticas humanizadas: 7,2% no CPN e 14,8% no HG versus 54,9% no HP. A prática de oferta liberal no HG resultou numa taxa de analgesia superior (54,4%) à do HP (7,7%). O percentual de internação dos recém-nascidos e o de parto a fórceps foram mais altas no HP, mas não houve diferenças para o índice de Apgar e para a taxa de cesárea. Os resultados sugerem resistência ao uso seletivo de intervenções em todos os modelos assistenciais, embora favoreçam o CPN como estratégia no controle das intervenções durante o trabalho de parto e parto nas gestantes de risco habitual sem prejuízos para as mulheres e os recém-nascidos.