Perinatal outcomes of low-risk planned home and hospital births under midwife-led care in Japan

Applicability of care quality indicators for women with low-risk pregnancies planning hospital birth: a retrospective study of medical records

Practices for planned birth among women with low-risk pregnancies vary by birth setting, medical professional, and organizational system. Appropriate monitoring is essential for quality improvement. Although sets of quality indicators have been developed, their applicability has not been tested. To improve the quality of childbirth care for low-risk mothers and infants in Japanese hospitals, we developed 35 quality indicators using existing clinical guidelines and quality indicators. We retrospectively analysed data for 347 women in Japan diagnosed with low-risk pregnancy in the second trimester, admitted between April 2015 and March 2016. We obtained scores for 35 quality indicators and evaluated their applicability, i.e., feasibility, improvement potential, and reliability (intra- and inter-rater reliability: kappa score, positive and negative agreement). The range of adherence to each indicator was 0-95.7%. We identified feasibility concerns for six indicators with over 25% missing data. Two indicators with over 90% adherence showed limited potential for improvement. Three indicators had poor kappa scores for intra-rater reliability, with positive/negative agreement scores 0.94/0.33, 0.33/0.95, and 0.00/0.97, respectively. Two indicators had poor kappa scores for inter-rater reliability, with positive/negative agreement scores 0.25/0.92 and 0.68/0.61, respectively. The findings indicated that these 35 care quality indicators for low-risk pregnant women may be applicable to real-world practice, with some caveats.

Maternal outcomes and birth interventions among women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

We previously concluded that risk of stillbirth, neonatal mortality or morbidity is not different whether birth is intended at home or hospital. Here, we compare the occurrence of birth interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women who begin labour intending to birth at home compared to women intending to birth in hospital.

METHODS

We used our registered protocol (PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk, No.CRD42013004046) and searched five databases from 1990-2018. Using R, we obtained pooled estimates of effect (accounting for study design, study setting and parity).

FINDINGS

16 studies provided data from ~500,000 intended home births for the meta-analyses. There were no reported maternal deaths. When controlling for parity in well-integrated settings we found women intending to give birth at home compared to hospital were less likely to experience: caesarean section OR 0.58(0.44,0.77); operative vaginal birth OR 0.42(0.23,0.76); epidural analgesia OR 0.30(0.24,0.38); episiotomy OR 0.45(0.28,0.73); 3rd or 4th degree tear OR 0.57(0.43,0.75); oxytocin augmentation OR 0.37(0.26,0.51) and maternal infection OR 0.23(0.15,0.35). Pooled results for postpartum haemorrhage showed women intending home births were either less likely or did not differ from those intending hospital birth [OR 0.66(0.54,0.80) and RR 1.30(0.79,2.13) from 2 studies that could not be pooled with the others]. Similar results were found when data were stratified by parity and by degree of integration into health systems.

INTERPRETATION

Among low-risk women, those intending to birth at home experienced fewer birth interventions and untoward maternal outcomes. These findings along with earlier work reporting neonatal outcomes inform families, health care providers and policy makers around the safety of intended home births.

FUNDING

Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant.

Home and Birth Center Birth in the United States: Time for Greater Collaboration Across Models of Care

There has been a small, but significant, increase in community births (home and birth-center births) in the United States in recent years. The rate increased by 20% from 2004 to 2008, and another 59% from 2008 to 2012, though the overall rate is still low at less than 2%. Although the United States is not the only country with a large majority of births occurring in the hospital, there are other high-resource countries where home and birth-center birth are far more common and where community midwives (those attending births at home and in birth centers) are far more central to the provision of care. In many such countries, the differences in perinatal outcomes between hospital and community births are small, and there are lower rates of maternal morbidity in the community setting. In the United States, perinatal mortality appears to be higher for community births, though there has yet to be a national study comparing outcomes across settings that controls for planned place of birth. Rates of intervention, including cesarean delivery, are significantly higher in hospital births in the United States. Compared with the United States, countries that have higher rates of community births have better integrated systems with clearer national guidelines governing risk criteria and planned birth location, as well as transfer to higher levels of care. Differences in outcomes, systems, approaches, and client motivations are important to understand, because they are critical to the processes of person-centered care and to risk reduction across all birth settings.

Perinatal or neonatal mortality among women who intend at the onset of labour to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

More women are choosing to birth at home in well-resourced countries. Concerns persist that out-of-hospital birth contributes to higher perinatal and neonatal mortality. This systematic review and meta-analyses determines if risk of fetal or neonatal loss differs among low-risk women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to low-risk women intending to give birth in hospital.

METHODS

In April 2018 we searched five databases from 1990 onward and used R to obtain pooled estimates of effect. We stratified by study design, study settings and parity. The primary outcome is any perinatal or neonatal death after the onset of labour. The study protocol is peer-reviewed, published and registered (PROSPERO No.CRD42013004046).

FINDINGS

We identified 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis including ~ 500,000 intended home births. Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03).

INTERPRETATION

The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital.

FUNDING

Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant.

RESEARCH IN CONTEXT

Evidence before this study Although there is increasing acceptance for intended home birth as a choice for birthing women, controversy about its safety persists. The varying responses of obstetrical societies to intended home birth provide evidence of contrasting views. A Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials addressing this topic included one small trial and noted that in the absence of adequately sized randomised controlled trials on the topic of intended home compared to intended hospital birth, a peer reviewed protocol be published to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis including observational studies. Reviews to date have been limited by design or methodological issues and none has used a protocol published a priori.Added value of this study Individual studies are underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences in rare outcomes. This study uses a published peer-reviewed protocol and is the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing outcomes of intended home and hospital birth. We take study design, parity and jurisdictional support for home birth into account. Our study provides much needed information to policy makers, care providers and women and families when planning for birth.Implications of all the available evidence Women who are low risk and who intend to give birth at home do not appear to have a different risk of fetal or neonatal loss compared to a population of similarly low risk women intending to give birth in hospital.

Obstetric practices in planned home births assisted in Brazil

OBJECTIVE

To describe obstetric practices in planned home births, assisted by qualified professionals in Brazil.

METHOD

This is a descriptive study, with data collected in an online bank maintained by 49 professionals from December 2014 to November 2015, in which the target population was women and newborns assisted in home births. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 667 women and 665 newborns were included. Most of the women gave birth at home (84.4%), in a nonlithotomic position (99.1%); none underwent episiotomy; 32.3% had intact perineum; and 37.8% had first-degree lacerations, some underwent amniotomy (5.4%), oxytocin administration (0.4%), and Kristeller's maneuver (0.2%); 80.8% of the women with a previous cesarean section had home birth. The rate of transfer of parturients was 15.6%, of puerperal women was 1.9%, and of neonates 1.6%. The rate of cesarean section in the parturients that started labor at home was 9.0%.

CONCLUSION

The obstetric practices taken are consistent with the scientific evidence; however, unnecessary interventions are still performed. The rates of cesarean sections and maternal and neonatal transfers are low. Home can be a place of birth option for women seeking a physiological delivery.

Home birth integration into the health care systems of eleven international jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to develop assessment criteria that could be used to examine the level of integration of home birth within larger health care systems in developed countries across 11 international jurisdictions.

METHODS

An expert panel developed criteria and a definition to assess home birth integration within health care systems. We selected jurisdictions based on the publications that were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis on planned place of birth. We sent the authors of the included publications a questionnaire about home birth practitioners and practices in their respective health care system at the time of their studies. We searched published peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and gray literature, and the websites of professional bodies to document information about home birth integration in each jurisdiction based on our criteria. Where information was lacking, we contacted experts in the field from the relevant jurisdiction.

RESULTS

Home birth is well integrated into the health care system in British Columbia (Canada), England, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ontario (Canada), and Washington State (USA). Home birth is less well integrated into the health care system in Australia, Japan, Norway, and Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper is the first to propose criteria for the evaluation of home birth integration within larger maternity care systems. Application of these criteria across 11 international jurisdictions indicates differences in the recognition and training of home birth practitioners, in access to hospital facilities, and in the supplies and equipment available at home births, which give rise to variation in the level of integration across different settings. Standardized criteria for the evaluation of systems integration are essential for interpreting planned home birth outcomes that emerge from contextual differences.

Utah obstetricians' opinions of planned home birth and conflicting NICE/ACOG guidelines: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently published recommendations that support planned home birth for low-risk women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) remains wary of planned home birth, asserting that hospitals and birthing centers are the safest birth settings. Our objective was to examine opinions of obstetricians in Salt Lake City, Utah about home birth in the context of rising home birth rates and conflicting guidelines.

METHODS

Participants were recruited through online searches of Salt Lake City obstetricians and through snowball sampling. We conducted individual interviews exploring experiences with and attitudes toward planned home birth and the ACOG/NICE guidelines.

RESULTS

Fifteen obstetricians who varied according to years of experience, location of medical training, sex, and subspecialty (resident, OB/GYN, maternal-fetal medicine specialist) were interviewed. Participants did not recommend home birth but supported a woman's right to choose her birth setting. Obstetrician opinions about planned home birth were shaped by misconceptions of home birth benefits, confusion surrounding the scope of care at home and among home birth providers, and negative transfer experiences. Participants were unfamiliar with the literature on planned home birth and/or viewed the evidence as unreliable. Support for ACOG guidelines was high, particularly in the context of the United States health care setting.

CONCLUSION

Physician objectivity may be limited by biases against home birth, which stem from limited familiarity with published evidence, negative experiences with home-to-hospital transfers, and distrust of home birth providers in a health care system not designed to support home birth.

Prevalence of Perineal Lacerations in Women Giving Birth at Midwife-Led Birth Centers in Japan: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

INTRODUCTION

Perineal lacerations during birth can cause ongoing physical, psychological, and social problems. However, the prevalence of lacerations following normal spontaneous vaginal birth in women with low-risk pregnancies is unknown. We investigated the prevalence of perineal lacerations and factors associated with lacerations among low-risk Japanese women who had normal spontaneous vaginal births.

METHODS

Pregnant women who were cared for between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2011, in 3 midwife-led birth centers in Tokyo, Japan, where invasive medical interventions are rarely applied, were included. We investigated the prevalence of perineal lacerations and conducted univariate and multivariate analyses on the relationship between the prevalence of lacerations and selected maternal and neonatal characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 1881 pregnant women had initial antenatal care at one of the 3 study sites. Of these, 1521 were eligible for inclusion. Intact perineum rates were 49.5% (209/422) and 69.9% (768/1099) in nulliparous and multiparous women, respectively. First-degree lacerations occurred in 36.7% (155/422) of nulliparous women and 27.1% (298/1099) of multiparous women, and second-degree lacerations occurred in 13.5% (57/422) of nulliparous women and 3.0% (33/1099) of multiparous women. One multiparous woman experienced a third-degree laceration (0.1%). No women suffered fourth-degree or cervical lacerations. Logistic regression analyses showed that older age (≥ 35 years), the hands-and-knees position, and using a birthing chair during birth increased the risk of perineal laceration both in nulliparous and in multiparous women. In addition, waterbirths increased the risk of perineal laceration in multiparous women.

DISCUSSION

In normal spontaneous vaginal births among a low-risk population, it is possible to avoid episiotomy and achieve a high rate of intact perineum, with few second-degree and third-degree lacerations.

Recent Clinical Characteristics of Labors Using Three Japanese Systems of Midwife-Led Primary Delivery Care

Objective. The objective of this study was to describe the recent clinical characteristics of labor using 3 systems of Japanese midwife-led primary delivery care, as follows: (1) those intending to give birth at home managed by midwives who do not belong to our hospital, (2) those planning to give birth in our hospital managed by the same midwives, and (3) those planning to give birth managed by midwives who belong to our hospital. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Results. There were no significant differences in the obstetric or neonatal outcomes among the 3 groups. The rate of transfers during labor with the system involving midwives belonging to our hospital was higher than those with the other 2 systems. In addition, the timing of transfers in the system with the midwives belonging to our hospital was earlier than with the other 2 systems. Among the 3 groups, there were no significant differences in the rate of the main 2 indications for transfers: fetal heart rate abnormality and failure to progress. Conclusion. There were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes among the 3 systems; however, there were some differences in the status of transfers to obstetric shared care.

Planned home birth: benefits, risks, and opportunities

While the number of women in developed countries who plan a home birth is low, the number has increased over the past decade in the US, and there is evidence that more women would choose this option if it were readily available. Rates of planned home birth range from 0.1% in Sweden to 20% in the Netherlands, where home birth has always been an integrated part of the maternity system. Benefits of planned home birth include lower rates of maternal morbidity, such as postpartum hemorrhage, and perineal lacerations, and lower rates of interventions such as episiotomy, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean birth. Women who have a planned home birth have high rates of satisfaction related to home being a more comfortable environment and feeling more in control of the experience. While maternal outcomes related to planned birth at home have been consistently positive within the literature, reported neonatal outcomes during planned home birth are more variable. While the majority of investigations of planned home birth compared with hospital birth have found no difference in intrapartum fetal deaths, neonatal deaths, low Apgar scores, or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, there have been reports in the US, as well as a meta-analysis, that indicated more adverse neonatal outcomes associated with home birth. There are multiple challenges associated with research designs focused on planned home birth, in part because conducting randomized controlled trials is not feasible. This report will review current research studies published between 2004 and 2014 related to maternal and neonatal outcomes of planned home birth, and discuss strengths, limitations, and opportunities regarding planned home birth.