Emergency medical team interventions in Poland during out-of-hospital deliveries: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency medical teams are a crucial component of healthcare systems, routinely providing essential care to pregnant patients in various situations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the rate and outcomes of out-of-hospital deliveries attended by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Poland and identify areas for improvement in the care provided by emergency medical teams.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study was based on 41,335 EMS emergency calls to women in advanced pregnancy, of which 879 births were delivered directly by medical teams between January 2018 and December 2022. Data were obtained from the Polish National Monitoring Center for Emergency Medical Services, encompassing all EMS interventions in Poland.

RESULTS

The study involved 879 EMS team interventions for pregnant women, with an average patient age of 29.87 years. Most patients were in their 2nd pregnancy (28.26%) and delivering for the 2nd time (25.77%). The postnatal condition of newborns, assessed using the Apgar score, was missing in 408 cases (46.52%) due to incorrect completion of documentation. Emergency Medical Services teams, predominantly P-type (basic) teams, handled 69.78% of deliveries, while S-type (specialist) teams were involved in 30.22% of cases. Medical procedures often performed during childbirth included manual assistance in spontaneous delivery, pulse oximetry, physical examination, examination of systemic blood pressure, obtaining peripheral intravenous access, and gynecological examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the rate of encountered cases and the gaps identified in medical documentation, there is merit in potentially implementing a dedicated form to be completed by medical teams when caring for a pregnant patient. Ongoing training and enhancements in the range of assistance provided to the mother and newborn are imperative for ensuring appropriate care.

The impact of birth settings on pregnancy outcomes in the United States

In the United States, 98.3% of patients give birth in hospitals, 1.1% give birth at home, and 0.5% give birth in freestanding birth centers. This review investigated the impact of birth settings on birth outcomes in the United States. Presently, there are insufficient data to evaluate levels of maternal mortality and severe morbidity according to place of birth. Out-of-hospital births are associated with fewer interventions such as episiotomies, epidural anesthesia, operative deliveries, and cesarean deliveries. When compared with hospital births, there are increased rates of avoidable adverse perinatal outcomes in out-of-hospital births in the United States, both for those with and without risk factors. In one recent study, the neonatal mortality rates were significantly elevated for all planned home births: 13.66 per 10,000 live births (242/177,156; odds ratio, 4.19; 95% confidence interval, 3.62-4.84; P<.0001) vs 3.27 per 10,000 live births for in-hospital Certified Nurse-Midwife-attended births (745/2,280,044; odds ratio, 1). These differences increased further when patients were stratified by recognized risk factors such as breech presentation, multiple gestations, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, and postterm pregnancy. Causes of the increased perinatal morbidity and mortality include deliveries of patients with increased risks, absence of standardized criteria to exclude high-risk deliveries, and that most midwives attending out-of-hospital births in the United States do not meet the gold standard for midwifery regulation, the International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education. As part of the informed consent process, pregnant patients interested in out-of-hospital births should be informed of its increased perinatal risks. Hospital births should be supported for all patients, especially those with increased risks.

Home births as a "right" of female patients in the context of medicine, legislation and court jurisprudence

Currently, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, more and more women prefer a planned home birth to a hospital birth, despite the fact that the hospital provides a safe environment for laboring women, thanks to the possibility to intervene at any time in case of complications. These women consider childbirth a natural process, while obstetric care is often considered unnecessary. According to the World Health Organization, birth can only be defined as physiological after birth. Even though women can give birth without medical assistance, it is not possible to identify in advance the mothers and newborns who will need some kind of intervention during childbirth. Although a planned home birth is associated with fewer maternal interventions and the probability of a spontaneous vaginal birth, compared to a planned hospital birth, the risk of neonatal death is two- to three-times higher.

The Cost of Home Birth in the United States

Policy decisions about the accessibility of home birth hinge on questions of safety and affordability. Families consider safety and cost along with the comfort and familiarity of birthing venues. A substantial literature addresses safety concerns, generally reporting that for low-risk mothers in the care of credentialed midwives, the safety of planned home births is comparable to that in birth centers and hospitals. The lack of notable safety tradeoffs for low-risk mothers elevates the relevance of the economic efficiency of home births. The available cost figures for home births are largely out of date or anecdotal. The purpose of this research is to offer scholars, policymakers, and families improved estimates of both the cost of home births and the potential savings from greater access to home births. On the basis of a nationwide study, we estimate that the average cost of a home birth in the United States is USD 4650, which is significantly below existing cost estimates for an uncomplicated birth center or hospital birth. Further, we find that each shift of one percent of births from hospitals to homes would represent an annual cost savings to society of at least USD 321 million.

Pivoting to Childbirth at Home or in Freestanding Birth Centers in the US During COVID-19: Safety, Economics and Logistics

Birth-related decisions principally center on safety; giving birth during a pandemic brings safety challenges to a new level, especially when choosing the birth setting. Amid the COVID-19 crisis, the concurrent work furloughs, business failures, and mounting public and private debt have made prudent expenditures an inescapable second concern. This article examines the intersections of safety, economic efficiency, insurance, liability and birthing persons' needs that have become critical as the pandemic has ravaged bodies and economies around the world. Those interests, and the challenges and solutions discussed in this article, remain important even in less troubled times. Our economic analysis suggests that having an additional 10% of deliveries take place in private homes or freestanding birth centers could save almost $11 billion per year in the United States without compromising safety.

Emergent Change in a Mexican Midwifery Center Organization Amidst the COVID-19 Crisis

Luna Maya is a Mexican NGO that operates two full-scope midwifery centers in Mexico City and Chiapas, Mexico, providing woman-centered, culturally appropriate midwifery model maternity care on a sliding cost scale. The COVID-19 health crisis has made it necessary for Luna Maya to quickly incorporate safety protocols for out-of-hospital maternity care. Yet many of the emerging guidelines on maternity care have focused on high-income and hospital settings; there are no specific guidelines for such care in out-of-hospital settings in low- and middle-income countries. Thus we have had to create our own, based on best available and emerging evidence. In this article, we describe the guidelines and protocols we have created in response to COVID-19, the international evidence and recommendations on which we base them, and precisely how we carry them out in practice. We also present and analyze the results of qualitative interviews we conducted for this article with eight of our midwives and eight of our midwifery clients. These interviews reveal the tremendous stresses both midwives and pregnant and birthing women are experiencing as a result of the pandemic, their creative adaptations, and the structural flaws, deficiencies, and inequities of the Mexican healthcare system. The article also addresses Luna Maya's ongoing challenges in continuing to provide care completely outside of governmental support and in difficult economic times, and demonstrates the extreme need for improvements in the Mexican system of maternity care and for full integration of community-based midwives and out-of-hospital birth.

Fathers' Experiences of Being Present at an Unplanned Out-of-Hospital Birth: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate fathers' experiences of being present at an unplanned birth outside a maternity facility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a qualitative interview study with 12 fathers from six of Norway's eleven counties. All had been present at an unplanned out-of-hospital birth in 2015-2020. Data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

The data analysis resulted in four themes. The first theme described the fathers' stress and worry and how they managed to keep a cool head and think rationally in a totally unprepared situation. The second theme described the fathers' need for help and the reassuring feeling provided by contact with health professionals. The third theme described how the birth increased the father's attachment to his partner and baby, while the fourth theme described fathers' feelings of exclusion and their reactions following the birth.

CONCLUSION

Fathers' perceived lack of expertise and their fear of complications led to stress, worry and anxiety, but support from health personnel provided reassurance and control. Many fathers experienced mastery, pride and joy after the birth, but when arriving at hospital, they felt rejected and wished that maternity care staff had approached them to talk about the experience.

Home Birth in the Era of COVID-19: Counseling and Preparation for Pregnant Persons Living with HIV

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States, a majority of states have instituted "shelter-in-place" policies effectively quarantining individuals-including pregnant persons-in their homes. Given the concern for COVID-19 acquisition in health care settings, pregnant persons with high-risk pregnancies-such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV)-are increasingly investigating the option of a home birth. Although we strongly recommend hospital birth for PLHIV, we discuss our experience and recommendations for counseling and preparation of pregnant PLHIV who may be considering home birth or at risk for unintentional home birth due to the pandemic. We also discuss issues associated with implementing a risk mitigation strategy involving high-risk births occurring at home during a pandemic. KEY POINTS: · Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has increased interest in home birth.. · Women living with HIV are pursuing home birth.. · Safe planning is paramount for women living with HIV desiring home birth, despite recommending against the practice..

Unplanned out-of-hospital deliveries in Finland: A national register study on incidence, characteristics and maternal and infant outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Unplanned out-of-hospital deliveries (UOHDs) have earlier been related to higher perinatal mortality and morbidity, but recent research has not paid much attention to them. Our aim was to evaluate the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity in UOHDs in Finland.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a national register study on births, causes of death and congenital anomalies for all live and stillbirths during 1996-2013. The study group included 1420 infants delivered by mothers with UOHDs. The 1 051 139 infants born in hospitals during the study period were the reference group. Data on maternal and delivery characteristics, obstetric procedures, infants' characteristics, neonatal care unit admissions, diagnoses, congenital anomalies and causes of death were collected.

RESULTS

The annual rate of UOHDs increased in 1996-2013 from 46 to 260 per 100 000 deliveries, whereas the number of delivery units decreased from 44 to 29. UOHD infants had five times higher perinatal mortality rates than those delivered in hospitals. The perinatal mortality rate did not change by time in the UOHDs, whereas it diminished among in-hospital deliveries. Maternal morbidity in UOHDs was low. The predictors for UOHDs were delivery after the year 2001, delivery in sparsely populated areas, alcohol, drug abuse and/or smoking during pregnancy, being single, fewer prenatal visits, having delivered earlier and birthweight <2500 g. UOHD was one of the predictors of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Among the UOHD cases, the predictors of perinatal morbidity or mortality included low birthweight and preterm delivery. Time period seemed not to predict morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The UOHD rate increased, probably due to multifactorial causes, including living in area with low population density and short duration of labor. UOHD was a significant predictor of perinatal morbidity or mortality, but the numbers were very small. Neonatal morbidity and mortality in UOHDs did not seem to be related to the area or time period of birth.

Low-Risk Planned Out-of-Hospital Births: Characteristics and Perinatal Outcomes in Different Italian Birth Settings

BACKGROUND

The present observational study aimed to describe women and delivery characteristics and early birth outcomes according to planned out-of-hospital delivery and to compare this information with comparable planned in-hospital deliveries.

METHODS

1099 healthy low-risk women who delivered out-of-hospital between 2014 to 2018, with a gestational age of 37-42 completed weeks of pregnancy, with single, vertex babies whose birth was expected to be vaginal and spontaneous were enrolled. Moreover, a case-control study was designed comparing characteristics of these births to a matched 1:5 sample.

RESULTS

living in a medium city (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19-2.74), being multiparous (RR 1.66, CI 1.09-2.51), having the first child at ≥35 years old (RR 1.84, CI 1.02-3.33), not working (RR 1.77, CI 1.06-2.96), not being omnivorous (RR 1.80, CI 1.08-3.00), and not smoking (RR 2.53, CI 1.06-6.07) were all related to an increased chance of delivering at home compared to in a freestanding midwifery unit. The significant factors in choosing to give birth out-of-hospital instead of in-hospital were living in a large or medium city (OR 2.20; 1.75-2.77; OR 2.41; 1.93-3.02) and having a secondary or higher level of education (OR > 2 for both parents). Within the first week of delivery, 6 of 1099 mothers and 19 of 1099 neonates were hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

out-of-hospital births in women with low-risk pregnancies is a possible option that needs to be planned, monitored, regulated, and evaluated according to healthcare control systems in order to work, as in hospitals, for the safest and most effective care to a mother and her neonate(s).

Very preterm birth before arrival at hospital

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to report perinatal characteristics of very preterm births before arrival (BBAs) at a hospital, and perinatal and infant mortality rates up to one year, comparing BBAs with births in a hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A population-based cohort study of 22-31 weeks' gestation births in the state of Victoria, Australia from 1990-2009. BBAs were defined as unintentional births at home or on route to hospital. Perinatal data were obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria. Perinatal and infant mortality data comparing BBAs with births in hospitals were analysed by logistic regression, adjusted for gestational age, birthweight and sex.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three BBAs were recorded: 51 (38%) stillbirths and 82 (62%) livebirths. Compared with births in a hospital, BBAs were less mature (26.3 weeks (SD 2.9) vs 27.7 weeks (SD 2.8), P < 0.001) and a higher proportion were born to teenagers: 13% versus 5% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.86, P < 0.001). BBAs were significantly more likely to be stillborn (aOR 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41, 3.23, P < 0.001) die within 28 days of livebirth (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.54, 5.73, P = 0.001) or die within a year of livebirth (aOR 2.87, 95% CI 1.51, 5.46, P = 0.001) compared with hospital births. Overall, 54 BBAs survived to one year (41% all BBAs, 67% liveborn BBAs), compared with 69% of hospital births (87% of livebirths).

CONCLUSIONS

Very preterm birth before arrival is more common in teenagers and is associated with significantly increased risks of perinatal and infant mortality compared with birth in a hospital.

"The First Intervention Is Leaving Home": Reasons for Electing an Out-of-hospital Birth among Minnesotan Mothers

The Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul), Minnesota, has seen a recent increase in the number of mothers seeking an out-of-hospital birth. This research uses in-depth interviews with 24 mothers who intended an out-of-hospital birth in the previous two years, exploring their reasons for pursuing an alternative approach to birth. For many women, an out-of-hospital birth fits within a philosophy that rejects the pathologizing of birth. Escaping rigid hospital protocols is seen as critical to avoiding what many mothers described as unnecessary interventions. In addition, homebirth midwives are perceived as offering more holistic care for the expectant and new mother. Home itself is seen as providing a more pleasant and calm, family-friendly atmosphere than a hospital, helping the mother relax, with the expectation that this will expedite labor. Many of the recommendations developed here have applicability to improving hospital birth experiences as well as furthering our understanding of out-of-hospital birth.

Miriam's Beautiful Birth

A mother describes the beautiful birth of her fifth child. Under the care of a midwife, she feels free, for the first time, to dream of a birth without interventions. During pregnancy, she visualizes, over and over again, the kind of birth she wants. Labor moves quickly, and she gives birth in her van on the way to the hospital. She encourages women to remember that their bodies know just what to do in labor.

Dueling Statistics: Is Out-of-Hospital Birth Safe?

In this article, two recent studies comparing out-of-hospital birth and hospital birth are discussed. The author critiques the studies highlighting the possible reasons for differences in the findings related to home birth. In addition, the findings of both studies add to the body of knowledge that suggests there are risks associated with hospital birth.

Trends and Characteristics of United States Out-of-Hospital Births 2004-2014: New Information on Risk Status and Access to Care

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital births are increasing in the United States. Our purpose was to examine trends in out-of-hospital births from 2004 to 2014, and to analyze newly available data on risk status and access to care.

METHODS

Newly available data from the revised birth certificate for 47 states and Washington, DC, were used to examine out-of-hospital births by characteristics and to compare them with hospital births. Trends from 2004 to 2014 were also examined.

RESULTS

Out-of-hospital births increased by 72 percent, from 0.87 percent of United States births in 2004 to 1.50 percent in 2014. Compared with mothers who had hospital births, those with out-of-hospital births had lower prepregnancy obesity (12.5% vs 25.0%) and smoking (2.8% vs 8.5%) rates, and higher college graduation (39.3% vs 30.0%) and breastfeeding initiation (94.3% vs 80.8%) rates. Among planned home births, 67.1 percent were self-paid, compared with 31.9 percent of birth center and 3.4 percent of hospital births. Vaginal births after cesarean (VBACs) comprised 4.6 percent of planned home births and 1.6 percent of hospital and birth center births. Sociodemographic and medical risk status of out-of-hospital births improved substantially from 2004 to 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in risk status of out-of-hospital births from 2004 to 2014 suggest that appropriate selection of low-risk women is improving. High rates of self-pay for the costs of out-of-hospital birth suggest serious gaps in insurance coverage, whereas higher-than-average rates of VBAC could reflect lack of access to hospital VBACs. Mandating private insurance and Medicaid coverage could substantially improve access to out-of-hospital births. Improving access to hospital VBACs might reduce the number of out-of-hospital VBACs.

How do pregnancy and birth experiences influence planned place of birth in future pregnancies? Findings from a longitudinal, narrative study

BACKGROUND

A perception that first birth is more risky than subsequent births has led to women planning births in obstetric units (OU) and to care providers supporting these choices. This study explored the influence of pregnancy and birth experiences on women's intended place of birth in current and future pregnancies.

METHODS

Prospective, longitudinal narrative interviews (n = 122) were conducted with 41 women in three English National Health Service sites. During postnatal interviews, women reflected on their recent births and discussed where they might plan to give birth in a future pregnancy. Longitudinal narrative analysis methods were used to explore these data.

RESULTS

Women's experience of care in their eventual place of birth had more influence on decisions about the (hypothetical) next pregnancy than planned place of birth during pregnancy did. Women with complex pregnancies usually planned hospital (OU) births, but healthy women with straightforward pregnancies also chose an OU and would often plan the same for the future, particularly if they experienced giving birth in an OU setting during recent births.

DISCUSSION

The experience of giving birth in a hospital OU reinforced women's perceptions that birth is risky and uncertain, and that hospital OUs are best equipped to keep women and babies safe. The assumption that women will opt for lower acuity settings for second or subsequent births was not supported by these data, which may mean that multiparous women who best fit criteria for non-OU births are reluctant to plan births in these settings. This highlights the importance of providing balanced information about risks and benefits of different birth settings to all women during pregnancy.