Lamaze Conference, Fort Worth TX

I'm back from another Lamaze conference. This year seemed to be "all about the baby." Almost every presentation I attended (and the talk I gave) was about breastfeeding, skin-to-skin, or other post-birth baby care. Last year Linda Smith, in her plenary address, urged us: "If you want to change birth practices, get on the breastfeeding bandwagon." It seems like people have taken her advice seriously!

Thursday's plenary session was about elective late pre-term and early term inductions (before 39 weeks). The presenter, Dr. Rebecca Ewing, showed the video RISK: Consequences of a Near Term Birth, aimed at discouraging parents from choosing inductions before 39 weeks because of the risks involved. I have some serious concerns that the movie will just foster more fear and guilt in parents, rather than motivating them to avoid an early induction. It told the story of two mothers who had late preterm/early term births at 36 and 37 weeks and whose babies had serious complications from being born early. But these mothers went into labor spontaneously. The film really should have featured women who had elective near term inductions, not spontaneous preterm births!

Friday's first plenary session was by Debra Pascali-Bonaro. She heads the International MotherBaby Childbirth Organization and has helped implement Mother-Friendly birth practices in hospitals and birth centers across the world. Her presentation "IMBCI: What Does an Optimal MotherBaby Model Look, Feel and Smell Like?" showed IMBCI hospitals from high, medium, and low-resource countries. It is amazing what these hospitals have been able to do, even with extremely high patient volumes and very little money.

I spoke during the first breakout session about "A Proactive Approach to Breastfeeding." I had an aha! moment while preparing my presentation and realized that learning how to breastfeed (in our culture) is like learning a foreign language. Sure, breastfeeding is natural and instinctual and almost all women can breastfeed successfully--but only in a culture where breastfeeding is still the "native tongue." But we don't live in that cultural context any more. We are fluent in bottle-feeding, not breastfeeding. So we have to learn (re-learn) the language of breastfeeding--how to hold a breastfed baby, what a good latch looks and feels like, how often and how long to feed the baby, how to know when a baby is hungry or is satiated. These are all things that women who are breastfeeding natives might not even be able to articulate; they would just know through observing it everywhere, day in and day out.

Next, I attended Ann Grauer's presentation "Seeing is Believing: Building Breastfeeding Confidence from the Start." Fantastic. So fantastic that I am dying to have her write a guest post and explain how breastfeeding really can be so easy to learn and to teach.

The last session on Friday was a research updated on labor management, fetal well-being, and induction of labor. Liz DeMaere, who used to work as a L&D nurse in Canada and now works for Salus Global Corporation implementing safety & quality measures, explained the newest research based on the SOGC's MORE OB program. Did you know that the ACOG has approved MORE OB? That means that (in theory, if not in reality) all low-risk laboring women should received intermittent auscultation as the standard of care, that primips should not be admitted until they are at least 3-4 cms dilated and having regular contractions (no admits at 1 cm and no effacement!), and that induction of labor should occur unless the reasons are "convincing, compelling, consented, and documented"?

On Saturday morning, I watched the new film The Magical Hour: Holding Your Baby Skin-to-Skin in the First Hour After Birth. Dr. Kajsa Brimdyr (love her name! pronounced "KAI-suh"), who produced the film, led a discussion after the film. This is a companion film to Skin to Skin in the First Hour after Birth: Practical Advice for Staff after Vaginal and Cesarean Birth, which I reviewed last year. So many parents and childibrht educators were using the practical advice film (which was aimed towards care providers and more technical and pragmatic) that Dr. Brimdyr decided to produce a more parent-oriented version. It's fantastic and at less than $40, an amazing value.

Following the film showing, I attended "Listening to Newborns: What Babies Have to Say About Transitions to Life" by Linda Jablonski. It was a research update about bulb suctioning, cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth, and self-attachment. She works at Baystate Franklin Medical Center and helped implement the practices supported by the latest research (no routine bulb suctioning, even after cesarean section; delayed cord clamping, at least 3 mins and/or when cord ceases pulsing; immediate S2S; and self-attachment, rather than actively helping the baby latch on). Her hospital, located in western MA, has a fantastic track record with the lowest cesarean rate in the state (21%) and a VBAC rate of 42% (80% successful). Her hospital really tries to be on the front line of offering innovations. They were the first hospital in the state to offer waterbirth and PCEA (patient-controlled epidural anesthesia). I came away with a thorough bibilography of the latest evidence base for these four practices.

Next, I went to three brief research presentations about chiropractic care in pregnancy (definitely underwhelmed by the quality of both the evidence and of the presentation), about prenatal care in home birth, and about the relationship between epidural anesthesia and childbirth outcome.

I was so tired by this point that I skipped the last session of the day and had a relaxing dinner & evening at home with Inga.

Sunday had one last set of breakout sessions. I attended "Whys and Hows of Supporting Newborns: 9 Stages During Skin-to-Skin" by Jeannette Crenshaw and Kajsa Brimdyr. I told you that it was all about the babies this year!

The last plenary session had nothing to do with childbirth. Instead, it featured a motivational speaker trying to get us to "Fire Up Your Life!". I'm just not into motivational speakers. I really want to hear about pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding at a Lamaze conference, not how to set goals or find balance in your life.

The journey home was long. I spent 8 hours in the DFW airport (I hoped to go standby on an earlier flight, but no luck). I graded papers and kept Inga amused and somehow we survived. We got home at 1:30 am; Eric had to wake up the kids and drive everyone to the airport to pick me up, so we were all pretty tired the next day.

Inga was the star of the show at the Lamaze conference. She was a total angel and stayed happy and quiet the entire four days of the conference. She loved all of the attention! In fact if people aren't paying attention to her, she will practically yell at them to catch their eye, then smile and preen once they look over.

Read more ...

AHRQ invites public input on reducing cesarean sections

A message from Susan Hodges of Citizens for Midwifery:

~~~~~

Effective Health Care Program Update: 
New Draft Key Questions and a Draft Review Are Now Available for Comment

Dear Friends,

The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is preparing a review document about “interventions” that are effective in reducing cesarean sections, and all of us have a chance to give input!

ARHQ has drafted 4 key questions for members of the public to answer on-line, plus you can also upload a document.

Scroll down below the questions to read the draft review (not too long). This will help you to see where they are starting from. For example, the word “intervention” is really used to denote any action (or non-action) that is being studied for its effect on reducing cesarean rates, even if you don’t normally think of it as an intervention. Also, it is apparent that routine hospital practices (that we know can interfere with labor) aren’t really mentioned in the list of “interventions”…

NOTE: The deadline for comments is December 29!

Wonderful that AHRQ is looking seriously at the topic of how to reduce the cesarean section rate, and that they are inviting comments from the public! I would encourage you to be respectful and informative in your comments, so that they are helpful and useful for the purpose of this review.

Please feel free to pass this on to other relevant lists you may be on!

Sincerely,
Susan Hodges

Read more ...

Lamaze/ICEA Conference part 2

Saturday did not start well for me. I slept maybe 2 hours the night before, due to a combination of congestion and two little children who decided to wake up and either cry (Zari) or party (Dio) most of the night. I wondered how I would make it through the day...

But I didn't have much choice. My presentation--based on my article Attitudes Towards Home Birth in the US (PDF)--was in the morning. I arrived early and ran through my presentation to make sure I wouldn't go over time. I used prezi rather than PowerPoint, as I think it's a much more dynamic and visually interesting platform.

Safe or Selfish? Attitudes about home birth in the US on Prezi

I had a fun time giving the presentation. We had lots of discussion and comments both during and after my talk. Even though I was dead tired, I didn't feel it while I was speaking. We had to cut the discussion short to make it to the big celebratory luncheon. I sat with April, a lovely CPM from Dayton, Ohio, who works closely with Dr. Guy of Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton and Dr. Can't-Remember-His-Name in Cincinnati. These OBs are known for supporting women who want VBACs, vaginal breech births, vaginal twins & triplets, etc. She and I talked about her training (master's level degree from the Midwives College of Utah) and her reservations about the loopholes in the CPM certification process.

Later in the day, I found out that Geradine Simkins, president of MANA, and Dr. Raymond De Vries were both in my audience! I had never met them face-to-face before and so didn't know who they were at the time. I talked with Geradine afterwards for a while. She urged me to consider doing research with the home birth statistics MANA has been compiling over the past decade or so. She was especially curious about my suggestion that NARM upgrade the CPM certification into a 4-year university degree. We weren't able to talk much because of our busy schedules, so I'll have to continue our conversation via email or phone.

I did double duty in the afternoon breakout sessions. First, I listened to Christine Morton's presentation about the historical evolution of doulas and how the profession is intimately connected with the development of childbirth education. Really fascinating! I've "known" Christine online for a while--she's a sociologist at Stanford University and doula--but never saw her in person before the conference. I never had time to talk with her face-to-face, unfortunately. But here's a virtual wave hi, if you're reading!

I then ran to another session about MoreOB, an evidence-based program being adopted throughout Canada. The presenters were an obstetrician, Dr. Karen Bailey, and two nurses/childbirth educators, Liz DeMaere and Sharon Dalrymple. With MoreOB, what childbirth educators teach in the classroom is exactly what happens once the laboring woman arrives in the hospital. This is definitely not the case in most parts of the US, as attendees emphasized over and over again throughout the conference.

The speakers gave a case study about how MoreOB works in their hospital regarding fetal monitoring. The hospital staff has a clear set of guidelines for when to use intermittent auscultation (IA) and when to use continuous electronic fetal monitoring (cEFM). Basically, unless a woman has certain clearly-delineated risk factors, she will only be monitored with IA. If a nurse, midwife, or physician wants to use cEFM, they have to document which specific medical condition warrants using cEFM. If it does not meet the established criteria, they won't be allowed to use cEFM. And they'll receive a talking-to from the charge nurse!

I entered when Dr. Bailey was talking about the before and after experiences in her hospital. She works in a small rural hospital in High River, Alberta that cares for only low-risk laboring women. Before adopting MoreOB, every woman would automatically be hooked up to the fetal monitors and confined to bed. After MoreOB was put into place, no one goes on the monitors--no 20-minute admission strips, even--unless there's a very specific reason for it. At her hospital, that means almost everyone receives IA and is encouraged to stay out of bed. Dr. Bailey explained it like this: "I'm an old cowgirl. And every cowboy or cowgirl worth their salt knows that you can't just slip your feet into a good-fitting pair of cowboy boots. You have to wiggle and jump and shimmy your way into your boots!" (This said as she's hopping around the room on one foot demonstrating the gymnastics required to put on cowboy boots). She was adamant about keeping women walking and moving and out of bed. She joked about how they used to always know where to find the laboring women--in bed. But now, they never know where to find them. "Where's patient X? Not in her room? Not in the shower? Where could she be? Oh....probably the staircase!"

We then moved into three small groups, each tackling a common scenario in US hospitals: augmentation, induction, and restriction of food/drink. We were instructed to discuss how to implement evidence-based, consistent policies, similar to what their hospital has done, for these various scenarios. I joined the induction group, which Dr. Bailey was part of. Our group, I sensed, felt extremely hampered and frustrated with how little they felt they could do to change the rampant rates of both elective and quasi-medical inductions (i.e., for a "big baby" or being "overdue" at 40 weeks and 1 day). Where Dr. Bailey works, they only do elective inductions for really extreme circumstances--such as a grand multip with a history of 30-minute labors who lives two hours away from the hospital and a really big snowstorm is moving in (close to a direct quote from Dr. Bailey). They don't start offering inductions for post-dates until 41 weeks 3 days. So if a physician wants to book a patient for an induction, and the induction doesn't meet certain evidence-based criteria, the charge nurse will tell the doctor--and I quote Dr. Bailey--"Bullshit."

The last session on Saturday was a general session by Dr. Warren P. Newton. He teaches at the UNC School of Medicine and works with UNC's department of Family Medicine. He spoke about developing a systems approach to health care. While the quality of individual physician-patient (or midwife-client) interactions is key, we also need to ensure that everyone has equal access to such care. He explained the implementation of the Family Centered Medical Home into the UNC Family Medicine Center and demonstrated very impressive results: much less waiting time for appointments, better health outcomes, etc. I'm still fuzzy on what exactly a FCMH is and how it different from standard medical care systems, but it was very intriguing.

The last part of his presentation explained how he applies these approaches to maternal-child care. His staff includes family physicians, nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, and acupuncturists. They have really impressive numbers with their maternity patients. They do about 350 births/year and have a primary cesarean rate twice as low as the overall primary c/s rate at UNC. Their practice's epidural rate is 25%, compared to 82% for the rest of the hospital's maternity patients. (He noted that not allowing the anesthesiologists into the woman's room soon after admission to "talk about her pain relief options" and "assess her airway in case she needs an emergency cesarean under general anesthesia" had a significant impact on lowering the epidural rate.) He's also been involved in backing up the only freestanding birth center currently in North Carolina, the Women's Birth and Wellness Center, which does about 400 births per year. He demonstrated a strong belief in the normality of the childbearing process and of women's inherent ability to give birth, especially when given the time and space to do so.

By time 5:15 pm rolled around, I was beat. I could hardly stand upright and was feeling quite unwell. I wanted to stay longer and talk, but I needed to get back to the kids, eat dinner, and go to bed. My sister and I split a Tylenol PM; the sleep aid is benadryl, so it was perfect for our congested noses. (Thanks to April for finding someone with medications on hand!) It did the trick, and I was able to have a good night's sleep (which meant I only woke up 3 times to pee, and Dio only woke up once at 2am.) My apologies to anyone who thought I seemed disinterested or distracted on Saturday...it was just the fatigue!

Read more ...

Kingsdale Gynecologic Associates: Doula Ban and Birth Plan

Remember back when  the Aspen Women's Center banned "doulahs"? There's another obstetrical practice that has not only banned doulas, but also written up a one-size-fits-all birth plan.

Yes, despite the very strong evidence that doulas have significant positive effects on the course of labor, on intervention rates, and on women's experiences, Kingsdale Gynecologic Associates has banned doulas "because of concerns for increased risk to you or your baby." Their "thoughtful, unanimous decision" to ban doulas comes down to this: "It has been our experience that they may serve to create a state of confusion and tension in the delivery room, which may compromise our ability to provide the safest delivery situation possible for you and your baby."

Not only does the pregnant woman no longer have access to a companion of her choice during labor, she has to sign the physicians' birth plan. Among other things, this birth plan notes that IVs are necessary for a safe labor, that you will only be allowed ice chips and popsicles, that you'll probably want drugs, that they will cut episiotomies to avoid bad tears, and that continuous fetal monitoring provides the "safest possible delivery."
Evidence-based medicine has been tossed out the window.

But this one takes the cake:

The labor and delivery nurses and doctors together act as “doulas” in a sense that we will be your advocate to provide positioning options, pain control and pushing techniques to make the process as easy as possible.

Yes, the physician who arrives when the baby is crowning and the nurses who are tending to several laboring women and spending almost no time doing direct labor support are somehow the equivalent of a doula--a person who knows the woman well, whose entire task is to provide continuous support and information and encouragement, and who never leaves the woman's side.

I'm sure a lot of us could come up with snarky/sarcastic/witty remarks to the doula ban and the birth plan (hey, it rhymes!). But better yet, I'd love to see someone edit the documents purely from an evidence-based medicine point of view, complete with up-to-date references. Perhaps we could create a wiki and work on this together? I'd be more than happy to send the completed documents back to Kingsdate Gynecologic Practice.

You're also free to write directly to the physician group and voice your thoughts:

Kingsdale Gynecologic Associates
1315 West Lane Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43221
Click here for Directions

Phone: (614) 457-4827
Fax: (614) 326-0250

Still, the best reaction is if pregnant women leave Kingsdale Gynecologic Associates in favor of a provider who respects women's wishes and supports evidence-based care. For example, CNM Emily Neiman wrote that her midwife/physician practice, Women's Contemporary Health Care, would be "happy, thrilled, ecstatic to have these women transfer to our practice. We have no issues with doulas, 'allow' you to write your OWN birth plan, and provide continuous labor support."

Read more ...

Test leads to needless c-sections

In an article about electronic fetal monitoring for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Test leads to needless C-sections, maternal-fetal medicine specialist Alex Friedman tells the story of an eclamptic patient:

My patient needed to be delivered. She had just developed eclampsia, a potentially fatal disease that afflicts women in the second half of pregnancy. She had suffered a seizure and dangerously high blood pressure, and was at risk for far worse, including a stroke. No one knows why this condition arises, but delivery sure clears it up in a hurry.

So we gave medication to start labor, and the nurses placed a fetal heart monitor....

For three or four hours that night, I struggled with my patient's bad fetal heart strip. I wanted her to avoid a cesarean section. She had type 1 diabetes, and I expected her sugars to swing wildly after surgery, and her recovery to be slow.

To improve the strip, the nurses and I tried giving her oxygen, changing her position in the bed, even rubbing the baby's head through the cervix to wake it up.

Finally, at 3 a.m., I felt compelled to recommend cesarean. The strip continued to look bad, and my patient's labor progressed slowly.

We went to the operating room, and delivered the baby by cesarean. My patient's child greeted the world pink and well-oxygenated.

The test was wrong again.

Between those opening and closing paragraphs, Dr. Friedman discusses the strange history of electronic fetal monitoring. As a resident, he had strong faith in fetal monitoring's ability to detect a compromised baby.

I have performed hundreds of cesarean sections during residency, and many were the result of bad heart-rate strips....For the worst readings, we believed every second counted and rushed the surgery: If the baby wasn't delivered one minute from the first incision into the skin, we had moved too slowly.... But almost every time we whisked a mother back to the operating room, and I cut through skin, fat, fascia, and finally the muscle of the uterus, expecting a blue, floppy baby, the child I delivered emerged pink, healthy, and a little bit angry.

Were we saving lives and averting disaster? Or were we performing unnecessary surgery?

The rest of his article discusses the ins (few indeed) and outs (many, and increasingly well-documented) of electronic fetal monitoring, which Dr. Friedman calls "an appallingly poor test." Towards the end, he discusses why obstetricians still use EFM when the evidence is strongly weighted against it [emphasis mine]:

Why do doctors cling to continuous fetal heart monitoring? An obstetrician will most likely point to the fear of being sued, but the complete answer is more complex. Our medical culture prizes technology and tests, even if they don't work and can cause harm. "It's our bias that anything that can be quantified is an improvement," said H. Gilbert Welch, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School whose research focuses on harm caused by screening and over-diagnosis. "I think we get in trouble when we start promising things to . . . well [patients]," Welch said in an interview. "It is not that hard to make them worse."

Read more ...

Necessary/Unnecessary: A round of birth stories

The fourth Lamaze Healthy Birth Carnival about "avoiding unnecessary or routine interventions" is about to begin and I hope I'm not too late! I have several birth stories to share, all featuring long, exhausting, non-progressive labors.

Paxye, a mother of four, recently wrote about her first two births. Both began in birth centers in Quebec, and both were very long, posterior labors. She transferred to a hospital after a day and a half of laboring and very nearly had a cesarean with her first baby--the only reason she didn't was her persistent refusal and her son's birth one minute before the absolute deadline her doctors gave her for a vaginal birth. Her second labor followed much the same pattern, but she insisted on staying at the birth center and, with a very supportive midwife, gave birth on her own power. Her third birth was a planned unassisted birth, one that went very smoothly and quickly compared to her first two. A year after that birth, she wrote about why she chose unassisted birth. She just gave birth to her fourth child and first daughter Wilhelmina. It was a long, stop-and-start, posterior labor like her first two births. She commented:

As I grew in my knowledge and my confidence the stories show a progression. The first ended up being a hospital transfer and a whole array of interventions short of a C-Section, but only because I would not consent. The second, with me refusing the transfer and staying at the birth centre but still with more intervention than I would have liked and then finally my second unassisted birth [Wilhelmina], which resembled the first two labours, yet I had all of the control.

Jenne's first birth, a planned unmedicated hospital with CNMs, turned into a traumatic ordeal when she had a long period of "failure to progress" early in labor at 3 cms. She wrote about this birth for the Lamaze Healthy Birth Carnival #4. In her words:

I was bullied, harassed, threatened and manipulated into accepting pitocin augmentation and AROM. I knew it was not necessary and I felt no need--physical or emotional--to speed up my labor. I was coping well and was trusting the natural process that birth is.

Eventually as I was so adamantly refusing to consent, I was summarily kicked out of the hospital. I say it that way because there was no gentleness or supportiveness in the attitude of the attendants. They used it as a threat to get me to cooperate. When I didn't, they rudely told me to leave and left it at that.

You can read the full birth story here. This birth was so traumatic that she developed PTSD. Jenne has also channeled those negative experiences into positive action; she helped found the support group Solace for Mothers. Jenne gave birth unassisted to her second baby about a month after Dio was born. She recently revisited what birth means to her, if you're interested in reading that.


Amy Romano's sister Katherine just had a homebirth-turned hospital transfer-turned c-section. She wrote about the labor and birth in the post my lovely c-section. She labored at home for a long, long time and finally decided to transfer after no cervical progression. She tried an epidural, pitocin, and sleep to see if that would help her labor pick up. Eventually she chose to move to a cesarean section and, although it was the last thing she had planned for, she felt very positively about her decision.

And, if you've been reading my blog, you heard about my sister-in-law's birth in Failure to progress or reason to be patient? She wanted an unmedicated birth, but after a marathon labor and several hours of no progress past 8 cms, she chose a few interventions. After 8 hours of no progress, she tried AROM and an IV for hydration. She gave it another 2 hours and, when she was still 8 cms dilated and starting to fall asleep standing up, she chose an epidural (to help her sleep) and Pitocin (to augment the contractions). That did the trick, and she gave birth vaginally just a few hours later.

So I've been mulling over the question "what makes an intervention necessary or unnecessary?" The prominent theme in these four sets of birth stories is that the women who felt the interventions were necessary and welcome (Katherine and my SIL), rather than unnecessary and traumatizing (Paxye and Jenne), freely chose the interventions on their own--on their own request, on their own timetable, and on their own initiative. They knew it was time for assistance. They were the primary actors in their births, rather than recipients of others' agendas. They held the locus of control, even when that meant asking others to do things for or to them at some point (IV, epidural, Pitocin, or c-section).

Read more ...

Things that make me smile

I came across three things today that made me smile.

First, NursingBirth's post How one mom “Walked, moved around, and changed positions” to a successful hospital VBAC! This was written as part of Science & Sensibility's Healthy Birth Blog Carnival #2 on moving, walking, and changing positions during labor.

Second, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women have announced the winners of their writing contest. The contest "asked law students to address the statutory, constitutional, and/or human rights arguments that can be made to challenge the trend of banning pregnant women from having a vaginal birth after a caesarean section (VBAC)."

And finally, this lovely short film Too Big For My Skin. Thanks to TopHat!

Read more ...

The Six Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices

I am taking the liberty of reposting the entire announcement from Lamaze, written by Amy Romano, here.

Launched in 2004 to summarize the evidence for a healthy, safe, and natural approach to labor and birth care, Lamaze’s Care Practice Papers, have just undergone their second update. Now referred to as  The Six Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices, the latest update incorporates current evidence as well as more clear language that we know will resonate with women more effectively. These papers supplement the video series and handouts launched earlier this summer in partnership with InJoy Birth & Parenting Videos, and are trustworthy resources for women as well as childbirth educators and other birth professionals.

Each of the Healthy Birth Practices is supported by decades of high quality research. I like to think of the practices as “the basic needs of childbearing women.” Some women will need high tech monitoring and intervention to birth safely, but the standard should be care that supports and facilitates the normal physiologic processes, intervening with the safest, most effective, and least disruptive approach only when a medical need arises and with fully informed consent.

Routinely depriving women of The Healthy Birth Practices makes birth unnecessarily difficult, and complications more likely.  Got it? Good.

So here they are! Drumroll, please…

1. Let labor begin on its own - lead author Debby Amis, RN, BSN, CD(DONA), LCCE, FACCE
2. Walk, move around, and change positions throughout labor - lead author Teri Shilling, MS, CD(DONA), IBCLC, LCCE, FACCE
3. Bring a loved one, friend, or doula for continuous support - lead authors Jeanne Green, MT, CD(DONA), LCCE, FACCE, and Barbara A. Hotelling, MSN, CD(DONA), LCCE, FACCE
4. Avoid interventions that are not medically necessary - lead author Judith A. Lothian, RN, PhD, LCCE, FACCE
5. Avoid giving birth on the back and follow the body’s urges to push - lead author Joyce DiFranco, RN, BSN, LCCE, FACCE
6. Keep mother and baby together - it’s best for mother, baby, and breastfeeding - lead author Jeannette Crenshaw, MSN, RN, NEA-BC, IBCLC, LCCE, FACCE

Read more ...

Burn the male midwife!

A British midwife and PhD recently submitted an article to Evidence Based Midwifery, a publication of the Royal College of Midwives. Some of his viewpoints were featured in an article in The Observer. Its headline proclaimed: It's good for women to suffer the pain of a natural birth, says medical chief. The midwife argued that epidurals are overused and that having an unmedicated birth can be beneficial to women by helping them bond with their baby, preparing them for the demands of motherhood, and serving as a significant rite of passage. Instead of routinely offering epidurals, the midwife wrote, hospitals should encourage non-pharmaceutical forms of pain relief, such as yoga, hypnosis, and birthing pools. Any article discussing pain relief--whether epidurals are over- or under-utilized--is bound to be controversial. But this midwife's perspective has elicited an outpouring of what can only be described as mass hysteria.

Why? Because the midwife, Dr. Denis Walsh, is a man.

The outcry has been fierce and swift. Newspapers (mostly in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) and bloggers quickly joined in the debate. Most simply repeated what The Observer reported, but with increasing levels of embellishment, outrage, and indignation. A sampling of headlines from various media reports about Dr. Walsh's paper:

The Mail Online's headline announced: Why mothers should put up with pain of childbirth - by a male expert in midwifery. A companion article in the same publication began with these words: "Obviously, it was a man who said it. A man who will never know the intense fury of a contraction, the hours of desperation or the waves of fear as a baby makes its painful way into the world," wrote Laura Kemp in I dare you to say that to a woman in labour.

Momlogic's headline asserted that "Midwife Says Childbirth SHOULD Be Painful." The first line of the article shouted (emphasis theirs): "When he pushes a baby out of HIS body, maybe we'll give a damn what he has to say!...Of course, this would be A GUY who says this ... a guy who has never had to go through the pain of childbirth himself!"

British midwife calls for end to pain relief during childbirth, says Australia's 3News. `

From the UK's Marie Claire: Male Midwife: Women Should Endure Labor Pains.

Medical News Today announced that More Women Should Endure Labour Pains Says Leading UK Midwife.

This is a classic case of telephone--each article reporting what another article said, each step away from the source becoming more extreme and distorted. For example, you'd think that Dr. Walsh were saying that no one should ever have the option of any pain relief and that all women should just suffer in agonizing pain. However, he did not say that at all. In fact, he strongly advocated the use of other techniques that reduce the pain of labor, including hypnosis, yoga, and water immersion. (Hydrotherapy in labor is the second-most effective form of pain relief, eclipsed only by the epidural, and was rated as the safest form of pain relief by Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.)

Even the original article in The Observer probably distorted Dr. Walsh's intended message. I have been interviewed multiple times for magazines, newspapers, and television. Most of the direct quotes attributed to me were, in fact, inaccurate. I never actually said those things verbatim. Instead, the people interviewing me made up quotations approximating what I said. In addition, the process of writing an article necessitates emphasizing some points and omitting others--further changing the interviewee's original message.

I doubt that any of the authors actually read Dr. Walsh's original article about "Epidural Culture." Why? Because it does not yet exist! If the authors and readers submitting comments had actually taken a moment to do some research, they would have discovered that his paper has not even been published yet! (It is currently undergoing peer review.) Nevertheless, many of the articles assume the article has been published, and that Dr. Walsh's quotes are taken from the article, because of the wording in The Observer:

He has set out his controversial views in an article for the journal Evidence Based Midwifery, which is published by the Royal College of Midwives (RCM). In a sharply worded critique of the rising popularity of pain-free labour, Walsh warns that normal birth is in danger of being "effectively anaesthetised by the epidural epidemic" in the NHS. A widespread "antipathy to childbirth pain" has emerged in the past 20 years and combined with increased patient rights and risk-averse doctors to create a situation where almost all hospitals now offer epidurals on demand, even if that is not in the mother's or baby's interests.

It sure sounds like those quotes are coming from the article, right? But they aren't, and the article doesn't yet exist.

On top of playing telephone, most of the commentary about Dr. Walsh's views suffers from a classic case of killing the messenger. Notice how quickly so many of the authors and bloggers and comments are quick to discredit his viewpoints, simply because he is a man and has therefore not given birth. Because if we can dismiss anything a male midwife says, simply because of his gender, then we surely must also discount any viewpoints on pain relief from male OBs. And we must also dismiss anything from any female midwives or OBs who have not had children. And, for that matter, any female birth attendants who have had a baby by cesarean--since they would not know what giving birth feels like, right? What we have is a reductio ad absurdum argument: if you have not given birth and experienced exactly what I felt, you have no right to have an opinion, research-based or not, about the value of labor pain.

There is a serious case of gender bias going on here. Not only is he male, he is a male midwife. Almost as weird as a male nurse. Note how many of the articles mentioned his gender. However, if the author had been a female midwife, they would not have emphasized her gender and mentioned it alongside her profession. I wonder if the response would have been as dismissive if it had been a male OB, rather than a male midwife, voicing the same ideas.

I also sense a lot of defensiveness about the use of pain relief, as if people feel threatened or personally attacked because this particular midwife feels epidurals are used too commonly and that there is value to feeling the sensations of labor. If having an epidural was the right choice for a woman, why the need to be defensive about it? (Besides the obvious reasons--1) he is a man and 2) most authors and readers were reacting to someone else's perception and interpretation of Dr. Walsh's message.)

More posts about Dr. Denis Walsh, Male Midwife:

• Village Midwife of Australia remarks that labor IS a rite of passage
• Lisa Barrett, another Australian midwife, writes about Denis Walsh and Andrew Lavender at Homebirth: Midwifery Mutiny.
• Bellies and Babies writes about Pain in Labor
• MedGuru reports that It’s good for women to undergo labour pain: Professor Denis Walsh
• The Times says: Pain in Childbirth. Professor says endure it!
• 'Embrace the pain' of birth, mums told, reports Northern Territory News of Australia

If you only have time to read one link, be sure to visit the commentary at Feminist Philosophers: A Brief Defense of My Current Hero, Denis Walsh. Here is an excerpt:

SO, big dumb MALE midwife versus women just trying to do the best they can to cope with horrible pain, right? No. Not at all. Denis Walsh has made it his mission to write about and try to put into practice good, well-designed midwifery and obstetric research, with a particular emphasis on respect for the woman as a dignified person in a highly vulnerable and difficult circumstance. I know this because–in preparation for a second delivery, of which I was formerly shitless on account of a *terrible* first–I happen to have recently read Walsh’s midwifery text Evidence-Based Care for Normal Labour and Birth. Here is a brief run-down of what I took from his text wrt epidurals:

* epidurals interfere with, slow, and generally throw off the body’s efforts at expelling the fetus, thus greatly increasing the instance of assisted delivery. (For those not in the know, “assisted delivery” means they slice into your genitals with a sharp knife and then shove heavy metal tongs up your vagina to yank the baby out. It is not fun, and even if it’s “simple” (as you’ll hear in the interview linked below), it is certainly not nice–nor are the lasting pain and disfigurement caused by it. And charmingly, in many instances of use (take my experience, for example) it doesn’t even seem to be medically indicated.)
* Midwives (a) have in some delivery ward contexts become so accustomed to routine intervention and pain relief that they’ve simply lost the ability to accurately judge ‘how it’s going’: they see a woman screaming in labour pain and think something’s gone wrong, when in fact she’s simply in labour. Because of this, midwives are quite often quick to try to “fix” the situation by offering epidural; (b) are sometimes simply not willing to take part in helping women to manage pain; in a nutshell, they simply don’t like putting up with screaming patients; and so they like for their patients to receive epidural as quickly as possible.
* Childbirth is a frightening experience, especially for women who aren’t well-educated about it, and as such, midwives tend to influence very heavily what decisions women make for themselves in childbirth.

Read more ...

Mother's Advocate: 6 Steps to a Safer Birth

I discovered a new website for expectant parents that helps them have healthier, safer births: Mother's Advocate.

It has both videos and print materials explaining the 6 Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices:

1. Let labor begin on its own.
2. Walk, move around, and change positions throughout labor.
3. Bring a loved one, friend, or doula for continuous support.
4. Avoid interventions that are not medically necessary.
5. Avoid giving birth on your back, and follow your body’s urges to push.
6. Keep your baby with you—it’s best for you, your baby, and breastfeeding.

Mother's Advocate is a fantastic resource for women in their childbearing years who are planning hospital births. (These 6 care practices also apply to out-of-hospital settings, of course, but they are already the standard of care in birth centers and home births.) You can watch women pushing in upright positions, moving and changing positions during labor, and having immediate skin-to-skin contact with their babies. And the best thing is that you see these things happening in a hospital environment.

The videos are short and easy to understand. The accompanying print material explains the principles more in depth. Besides handouts about each of the 6 Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices, Mother's Advocate offers 10 additional printouts on topics ranging from how to choose a care provider to positions for labor.

Jill at Unnecessarean posted about Healthy Birth Practice #5: avoid giving birth on your back, and follow your body’s urges to push. In Getting Upright in Labor, Jill includes several different perspectives and quotes about vertical birth, including screen shots from one of the Mother's Advocate videos.

This is a great place to send pregnant women when they are beginning to think about their birth options. My only wish is that the videos also showed women laboring in less institutional settings. Footage from hospital-based or freestanding birth centers, for example, would provide a nice counterpoint to the images of women clad in hospital gowns and hooked up to monitors.

Read more ...

Wednesday wrap-up

I might start doing a weekly wrap-up of miscellaneous news & articles that I find interesting. If I wait much longer than week, they start piling up rather quickly:

Speaking of upright/vertical birth...

• This midwife-designed stainless steel mirror is designed especially for women adopting upright birthing positions
• Mom's Tinfoil Hat had some thoughts about Standing up for birth

Home birth

• The "Authorities" Resolve Against Home Birth: a recent editorial by Nancy K. Lowe, editor of the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing ( Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 1-3). Click on the article title for the full text. An excerpt from her editorial: "The point is that we have no system of maternity care in the United States that provides a healthy woman the choice of giving birth at home and if she needs to transfer to a different type of care during labor, the transfer is easy. We do not have a system in which this woman is treated with respect and kindness, and her provider either maintains responsibility for her care or professionally and respectfully is able to transfer responsibility to another provider. Interestingly, while ACOG and AMA have declared that hospital grounds are the only safe place to give birth in the United States, the National Perinatal Association (NPA) adopted a position paper in July 2008 titled, 'Choice of Birth Setting.' The paper supports a woman's right to home birth services....Further, in Canada following the model of British Columbia, the province of Alberta has recently expanded its health care system to include women's access to midwifery services 'in a variety of locations including hospitals, community birthing centers, or in their homes.' "
• Two Charleston Gazette articles: Midwife delivers babies in mothers' homes and Home delivery: After three hospital births, fourth-time mom was determined to deliver the old-fashioned way
• A Herald Tribune (FL) article narrates how a home birth unfolds in Home Delivery
• An article featuring Womancare Midwives of North Idaho
• Tribute to Maude Callen, a nurse-midwife serving rural South Carolina for over 70 years. Make sure you click on the Life photo archive for lots of fantastic pictures!
  
• Adventures in (Crunchy) Parenting wishes to move beyond binary views of safety
  
• Future Search Conference on Home Birth currently being planned. From the description:
• It will be a multi-disciplinary consensus conference of key stakeholders around the provision of home birth services in the United States, to be convened by the University of California San Francisco and various organizations, including the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of Certified Nurse Midwives, Mothers and Midwives Associated, Lamaze International, Association of Women Hospital Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, and the International Center for Traditional Childbirth. Further, it is hoped that public health practitioners and students, insurers, government agencies, health economists, medical anthropologists, state and national legislators, and women who have given birth will be among the eventual participants. The purpose of the conference is to start to bridge the "divide" between the medical and midwife communities over out-of-hospital births in the United States. Safety of birth in any setting is of utmost priority. Rights to choice and self-determination and culturally appropriate healing are also core values in American discourse that influence this issue. The purpose of this multidisciplinary conference of key stakeholders will be to craft a consensus policy and strategy on provision of home birth services. The project may also inform regulatory discourse, alternative funding structures, and the required modifications of curricula to prepare physicians and midwives in urban, rural and remote settings to provide maternity services across birth settings.

Research studies & articles

• Evidence-based labor and delivery management. Berghella V, Baxter JK, and Chauhan SP. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Nov;199(5):441-2. From the abstract: "Evidence-based good quality data favor hospital births, delayed admission, support by doula, training birth assistants in developing countries, and upright position in the second stage. Home-like births, enema, shaving, routine vaginal irrigation, early amniotomy, "hands-on" method, fundal pressure, and episiotomy can be associated with complications without sufficient benefits and should probably be avoided." (Email me for full text).
  
• Born in the USA: Exceptionalism in Maternity Care Organisation Among High-Income Countries by Edwin van Teijlingen, Sirpa Wrede, Cecilia Benoit, Jane Sandall and Raymond DeVries. Sociological Research Online, Volume 14, Issue 1. From the abstract: "In lay terms, childbirth is regarded as a purely biological event: what is more natural than birth and death? On the other hand, social scientists have long understood that 'natural' events are socially structured. In the case of birth, sociologists have examined the social and cultural shaping of its timing, outcome, and the organization of care throughout the perinatal period. Continuing in this tradition, we examine the peculiar social design of birth in the United States of America, contrasting this design with the ways birth is organised in Europe."
• Postnatal quality of life in women after normal vaginal delivery and caesarean section. Behnaz Torkan, Sousan Parsay, Minoor Lamyian, Anoshirvan Kazemnejad, and Ali Montazeri. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9: 4. From the conclusion: "Although the study did not show a clear cut benefit in favor of either methods of delivery that are normal vaginal delivery or caesarean section, the findings suggest that normal vaginal delivery might lead to a better quality of life especially resulting in a superior physical health. Indeed in the absence of medical indications normal vaginal delivery might be better to be considered as the first priority in term pregnancy." (full text available by clicking on article title).
• Health Care Reform in the U.S. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Working Paper #665, Feb. 6. 2009 by David Carey, Bradley Herring and Patrick Lenain. From the abstract: "In spite of improvements, on various measures of health outcomes the United States appears to rank relatively poorly among OECD countries. Health expenditures, in contrast, are significantly higher than in any other OECD country. While there are factors beyond the health-care system itself that contribute to this gap in performance, there is also likely to be scope to improve the health of Americans while reducing, or at least not increasing spending. This paper focuses on two factors that contribute to this discrepancy between health outcomes and health expenditures in the United States: inequitable access to medical services and subsidized private insurance policies; and inefficiencies in public health insurance." Full text PDF available by clicking on the article title.

VBAC & Cesarean Section

• List of abstracts on VBACs with twin gestations
• Some NHS trusts will no longer offer primary elective cesareans because of cost and safety issues. Read more in Caesarean births rationed by hospitals in order to cut costs
• A midwife-led initiative in Southampton has lowered cesarean rates and boosted VBAC rates

Birth Centers
For Expectant Moms, a Happy Medium Between Hospital and Home Births: profiles the struggles of one birth center to obtain permission to open

Breastfeeding
Pedialyte Alternative recipe (not necessary for breastfeeding babies, but great for older children & adults)

Gardening
25 plants you should consider growing

Read more ...

RGOC and RCM on Home Births

Compare the below statement (long but worth reading) from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Midwives with ACOG's recent statement about home birth. I hope for the day when ACOG can produce a similar document that actually examines the evidence and listens to what women are saying. Imagine what we could achieve if ACOG were an ally to all birthing women!

Home BirthsRCOG and Royal College of Midwives Joint Statement No.2.April 2007

Summary

The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) support home birth for women with uncomplicated pregnancies. There is no reason why home birth should not be offered to women at low risk of complications and it may confer considerable benefits for them and their families. There is ample evidence showing that labouring at home increases a woman’s likelihood of a birth that is both satisfying and safe, with implications for her health and that of her baby.^1–3

1. Introduction

1.1 The rate of home births within the UK remains low at approximately 2%,^4–6 but it is believed that if women had true choice the rate would be around 8–10%.7
1.2 The development of maternity polices over the last four decades, combined with frequent reorganisations of service structure, have impacted on the availability of home birth and have concentrated on births in hospitals.^8–10 Reasons for this appear to include:

• financial constraints
• the values and beliefs of organisations about maternity care
• lack of staff with the appropriate competencies.¹¹

1.3 Throughout this time, women and voluntary organisations have challenged the onedimensional approach to options for place of birth and have influenced the portfolio of evidence now available to support a return to a more diverse range of childbirth environments.^12–15

2. Review of the evidence: benefits and harms

2.1 The review of the diverse evidence available on home birth practice and service provision demonstrates that home birth is a safe option for many women.^2,16,17 However, this is not to define safety in its narrow interpretation as physical safety only but also to acknowledge and encompass issues surrounding emotional and psychological wellbeing. Birth for a woman is a rite of passage and a family life event, as well as being the start of a lifelong relationship with her baby. Home births will not be the choice for every woman.⁷
2.2 Randomised controlled trials to assess the safety of home births are not currently feasible. The observational data available show lower intervention rates and higher maternal satisfaction with planned home birth compared with hospital birth. Overall, the literature shows that women have less pain at home and use less pharmacological pain relief, have lower levels of intervention, more autonomy and increased satisfaction.^1,12,18–20 The studied interventions included induction, augmentation, perineal trauma and episiotomy, instrumental delivery and caesarean section. These are not insignificant interventions and may have considerable impact on a woman’s long-term health and emergent relationship with her baby, as well as her satisfaction with her birth experience.
2.3 Furthermore, the studies into women’s descriptions of home birth experiences have produced qualitative data on increased sense of control, empowerment and self esteem, and an overwhelming preference for home birth.^3,21–27
2.4 A distinction needs to be made between women who plan for a home birth and those who have an unintended home birth, as unintended home births or women who received no antenatal care are linked to a higher rate of both maternal and perinatal complications.²⁰
2.5 A proportion of women who plan a home birth are transferred to hospital,^9,13,14,19 most commonly for slow progress or needing pain relief not available at home, such as epidural anaesthesia. The most serious reasons for transfer are maternal haemorrhage, concerns about fetal wellbeing and the neonate born in an unexpectedly poor condition. Delay in transfer under these circumstances may have serious consequences. Owing to poor collection of maternity data, the comparative statistics for women being transferred in labour are unclear. Higher transfer rates are associated with nulliparity.^13,14,19,28 The discussion with women regarding their potential transfer in labour should include consideration of the distance between birth settings and of other local circumstances which may introduce delay in transfer.

3. Achieving best practice

3.1 Both the RCM and the RCOG believe that to achieve best practice within home birth services it is necessary that organisations’ systems and structures are built to fully support this service. These will include developing a shared philosophy, fostering a service culture of reciprocal valuing of all birth environments.
3.2 Comprehensive involvement by local multidisciplinary teams and users to underpin home birth practices within a clinical governance framework results in a quality service which demonstrates commitment to supporting women in their choices.^4–6 Equally, it supports the development of responsible and responsive practices that are maintained by effective clinical decision making.

4. Provision of information, informed choice and user involvement in planning the services

4.1 The key principles include providing unbiased information on birth environment options and being transparent about the potential advantages or disadvantages of home birth.^14,29–33 Written information regarding place of birth should be available for all women, all women should be encouraged to participate actively in the full range of antenatal care and women can make the choice for a particular place of birth at any stage in pregnancy.¹⁴
4.2 The support for women’s choices is linked to clinical assessments during pregnancy and labour, to update the care pathway.¹² It is acknowledged that there are no known risk assessment tools which have an effective predictive value concerning outcomes in the antenatal period and labour.^34,35
4.3 Home birth provision should take into account women’s individual needs, especially women from socially excluded, disadvantaged and minority backgrounds,^4,36–38 as they are less likely to access services or to ask for home births
4.4 The involvement of fathers/partners in planning and attending home birth is encouraged as pregnancy and birth are the first major opportunities to engage fathers/partners in the appropriate care and upbringing of their children.⁴

5. Continuity and communication

5.1 Continuing communication between health professionals, women and their families is requisite for continuity of care. ‘A midwife providing care to women, regardless of the setting, must take care to identify possible risk and pre plan to mitigate those risks through her approach to care, knowledge of local help systems and communication with colleagues and the woman and her family’.¹⁵ Planned referral pathways in pregnancy are designed to facilitate effective communication and feedback at all levels and with any agency involved in providing care.
5.2 UK maternity policies recognise that, for the majority of women, pregnancy and childbirth are normal life events and that promoting women’s experience of having choice and control in childbirth can have a significant effect on children’s healthy development.^4–6 The improved relationships built upon continuity of care and carer can lead to considerable advantages in the promotion of breastfeeding, reduction in smoking in pregnancy and improved nutrition for women.
5.3 Continuity of care is a complex concept as it can mean continuity of care from a team of midwives or continuity of carer by a single known midwife. Organisations need to explore ways of promoting home births within these care schemes, especially for socially excluded women.^36–39
5.4 Another aspect in ensuring effective communication is clear and detailed documentation of the care plan for home birth.^32,36

6. Service structure support

6.1 The recent recruitment and retention problems of midwives within the maternity services have led to some NHS trusts withdrawing home birth services or informing women at the last minute that staff are not available. For women to believe throughout their pregnancy that they will have a home birth and for this option to be withdrawn late in pregnancy or in labour is not acceptable and will lead to further pressure on labour wards and midwives, as they have to manage women who are disaffected by the service at the start of their labour. Any possibility of not being able to provide the service should be highlighted in early pregnancy.
6.2 It is essential that formal local multidisciplinary arrangements are in place for emergency situations, including transfer in labour and midwives referring directly to the most senior obstetrician on the labour ward and/or to the paediatrician. The midwife is responsible for transfer and must remain to care both for the woman and the baby during transfer and, where possible, continuing on in the transferred unit. These protocols need to encompass the independent practitioners providing home birth service. The use of ‘flying squads’ is no longer supported and in the event of an emergency, transfer in is the only option.
6.3 Other agencies have an integral role in the collaborative management of home birth services, particularly the regional ambulance service. Therefore, developing a service agreement with these agencies will provide an improved risk management framework; for example, in the event of emergency transfer ambulances should take women to the consultant obstetric unit rather than the accident and emergency department. Babies need to be transferred to maternity units where there are appropriate neonatal services.
6.4 The clinical and personal safety of the midwife practitioner at home birth requires extra resources. For example, it is the employer’s responsibility to set minimum agreed levels of equipment for carrying out the role, including equipment for communication.^33,40 In addition, midwives working alone in the community should have appropriate lone-worker arrangements provided by their local NHS trust or employer.
6.5 Midwifery supervision is integral to any midwifery practice and all organisations must ensure that there are adequate numbers of supervisors of midwives to ensure 24-hour access.⁴¹ Where a woman has a risk factor which may deem her unsuitable for a home birth it is advisable that the midwife involves a manager and supervisor of midwives.

7. Skills and competencies

7.1 Midwife practitioners must be competent within the home birth environment and may require enhancement or updating of their existing midwifery skills prior to providing home birth services.¹⁵ Midwives’ personal accountability for only undertaking duties for which they have competencies, is governed by Midwives’ Rules and Standards.⁴¹ The organisation’s responsibility is to provide resources for acquiring new or maintaining existing skills associated with home birth practices, both linked to facilitating and observing physiological labour, as well as acting on emergencies. The mandatory ‘drills and skills’ training must include environments outside labour ward and simulation models should be available to encourage practising of skills. Up-to-date registers should be kept of those participating in skills drills to ensure that all staff participate regularly in a rolling programme.⁴²
7.2 The advanced courses in obstetric emergencies and neonatal resuscitation require adequate funding for further training.
7.3 Risk assessment must take place with what limited tools are available. Careful selection of low-risk maternities is important to minimise complications. Ideally, this should be by senior midwifery and obstetric staff.

8. Record keeping, audit and user surveys

8.1 Contemporary and accurate record keeping is vital; as for all aspects of health care.^33,41,43 The health records maintained on various sites need to be stored as a complete set and most organisations now require computer input for the birth records and obtaining the baby’s NHS number. These computer programmes aid auditing practices, both personal and organisational. Areas of service or practice for audit should include home birth, transfer and intervention rates as a minimum. User satisfaction surveys and focus groups need to be linked with home birth services. There should be robust clinical governance systems for monitoring the quality of home birth services. These should include both qualitative and quantitative audit data. Consideration should be given to women’s experiences, stories, transfer rates, ambulance response times and emergency scenarios. In the case of serious adverse outcome a detailed root cause analysis should be undertaken.⁴²

9. Conclusion

9.1 The RCM and RCOG support the provision of home birth services for women at low risk of complications. If the service is provided by midwives committed to this type of practice within continuity of care schemes and appropriately supported, outcomes are likely to be optimal. Services need evidence-based guidelines, where possible. Good communications, adequate training and emergency transfer policies are vital.

References

1. Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, Van der Zee J, Berghs GA. Outcome of planned home birth and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. BMJ 1996;313:1309–13.
2. Olsen O. Meta-analysis of the safety of the home birth. Birth 1997;24:4–13.
3. Ogden J, Shaw A, Zander L. Deciding on a home birth: help and hindrances. Br J Midwifery 1997;5:212–15.
4. Department of Health. The National Service Framework for Children and Young People. Maternity Services. Standard 11. London: Department of Health; 2004 [www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/09/05/23/04090523.pdf].
5. Welsh Assembly Children’s Health and Social Care Directorate. National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government; 2005 [www.wales.nhs.uk/sites/documents/441/ACFD1F6.pdf].
6. 6. Scottish Executive. A Framework for Maternity Services in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive; 2001 [www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/health/ffms–00.asp].
7. Department of Health. Changing Childbirth: Report of the Expert Maternity Group. London: HMSO; 2003.
8. Department of Health and Social Security. Standing Maternity and Midwifery Advisory Committee (Chairman J. Peel). Domiciliary midwifery and maternity bed needs. London: HMSO; 1970.
9. Campbell R, Macfarlane A. Where to be Born: the Debate and the Evidence. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 1987.
10. Tew M. Safer Childbirth? A Critical History of Maternity Care. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1998.
11. Demilew J. Homebirth in urban UK. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 2005;15:4(Suppl 2).
12. Edwards N. Choosing a Home Birth. London: Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services; 1994.
13. Chamberlain G, Wraight A, Crowley P. Home Births: The Report of the 1994 Confidential Enquiry by the National Birthday Trust Fund. Carnforth: Parthenon; 1997.
14. National Childbirth Trust. NCT Home Birth In the United Kingdom. London: NCT; 2001.
15. Nursing and Midwifery Council. Midwives and Home Birth. NMC Circular 8–2006. London: NMC;2006 [www.nmc-uk.org/aFrameDisplay.aspx?DocumentID=1472].
16. Springer NP, Van Weel C. Home birth. BMJ 1996;313:1276–7.
17. Olsen O, Jewell MD. Home versus hospital births. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1998;(3):CD000352.
18. Northern Region Perinatal Mortality Survey Coordinating Group. Collaborative survey of perinatal loss in planned and unplanned home births. BMJ 1996;3:371–5.
19. Davies J. The Midwife in the Northern Regions Home Birth Study. Br J Midwifery 1997;5:219–24.
20. Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. 5th Annual Report. Focus group place of delivery. London: Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium; 1998.
21. Viisainen K. Negotiating control and meaning: home birth as a self-constructed choice in Finland. Soc Sci Med 2002;52:1109–21.
22. Andrews A. Home birth experience 2:births/postnatal reflections. Br J Midwifery 2004;12:552–7.
23. Munday R. Women's experience of the postnatal period following a planned home birth; a phenomenological study. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 2004;13:371–5.
24. O’Brien M. Home and hospital: a comparison of the experiences of mothers having home and hospital confinements. J R Coll Gen Pract 1978;28:460–6.
25. Goldthorp WO, Richman J. Maternal attitudes to unintended home confinements: a case study of the effects of the hospital strike upon domiciliary confinement. Practitioner 1974;212:818–53. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Midwives Joint Statement No.2 5 of 6
26. Alment EA, Barr A, Reid M, Reid JJ. Normal confinement: home or hospital? The mother’s preference. BMJ 1967;I:52–53.<>
27. Paddison J. Home Birth a Family Affair: A Qualitative Research Case Study of Home Birth and Social Boundaries. Wigtownshire: Impart Publishing; 2005.
28. Campbell R, Macfarlane A. Where to be Born? The Debate and the Evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, 1994.
29. Emslie MJ, Campbell MK, Walker KA, Robertson S, Campbell A. Developing consumer-led maternity services: a survey of women’s views in a local healthcare setting. Health Expectations 1999;2:195–207.
30. Hundley V, Rennie AM, Fitzmaurice A, Graham W, Van Teijlingen E, Penney G. A national survey of women’s views of their maternity care in Scotland. Midwifery 2000;16:303–13.
31. Singh D, Newburn M. Access to Maternity Information and Support: the needs and experiences of pregnant women and new mothers. London: National Childbirth Trust; 2000.
32. Royal College of Midwives. Home Birth Hand Book: Volume 1: Promoting Home Birth. London: RCM; 2002.
33. Royal College of Midwives. Home Birth Hand Book: Volume 2: Practising Home Birth. London: RCM; 2003.
34. Enkin MW, Keirse MJ, Renfrew MJ, Neilson JP. A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2000. p. 52.
35. Campbell R. Review and assessment of selection criteria used when booking pregnant women at different places of birth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;550–6.
36. Hutchings J, Henty, D. Caseload practice in partnership with Sure Start: changing the culture of birth. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 2002;(Suppl 1):538–40.
37. Sandall J, Davis J, Warwick C. Evaluation of the Albany Midwifery Final Report. London: Florence Nightingale School of Midwifery, King’s College; 2001.
38. Royal College of Midwives. Making Maternity Services Work for Black and Minority Ethnic Women: A Resource Guide for midwives. London: RCM; 2004.
39. Hodnett ED. Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD000062.
40. Royal College of Midwives. Safety for Midwives Working in Community. Position Paper 12. London: RCM; 1996.
41. Nursing and Midwifery Council. Midwives Rules and Standards. London: NMC; 2004 [www.nmc–uk.org/aFrameDisplay.aspx?DocumentID=169].
42. National Health Service Litigation Authority. Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts, Maternity. Clinical Risk Management Standards. London: NHSLA; 2007 [www.nhsla.com/NR/rdonlyres/F8184718–3AF9–400E–A3F3–5D9309E2 AA72/0/CNSTMaternityClinicalRiskManagementStandardsApril2007website.pdf].
43. Royal College of Midwives. Litigation: A Risk Management Guide for Midwives. 2nd ed. London: RCM Trust; 2005

Valid until April 2010 unless otherwise indicated.
This statement was produced on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives by: Miss JL Cresswell FRCOG, Chesterfield, and Ms E Stephens RM and peer reviewed by: Ms J Demilew, Ms C Dowling, Dr MCM Macintosh MRCOG, Ms P McConn, Dr MP Mohajer FRCOG, Mr RJ Porter FRCOG and Mr PJ Thompson FRCOG.

Read more ...

10 responses to ACOG's statement on home birth

On the heels of ACOG's newest statement on home birth, I wanted to share my responses.

1) For the first time, ACOG has suddenly started supporting freestanding birth centers, a drastic shift from its long-standing opposition to out-of-hospital births. The research on birth centers has not changed—in fact, the outcomes from the National Birth Center Study are similar to those of the CPM 2000 study for things such as cesarean rates (4.4% vs 3.7%), hospital transfers (15.8 % vs 12.1%; urgent transfers were 2.4% vs 3.4%) and intrapartum/neonatal mortality (1.3 vs 1.7/1000). Although the data on out-of-hospital births has not changed in the past year and a half, compare ACOG’s 2006 statement with its recent position on home birth:

November 2006: "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes that the hospital, including a birthing center within a hospital complex...is the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate postpartum period....Although ACOG acknowledges a woman’s right to make informed decisions regarding her delivery, ACOG does not support programs or individuals that advocate for or who provide out-of-hospital births."

February 2008: "ACOG acknowledges a woman's right to make informed decisions regarding her delivery and to have a choice in choosing her health care provider, but ACOG does not support programs that advocate for, or individuals who provide, home births....ACOG believes that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate postpartum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex...or in a freestanding birthing center."

2) ACOG claims that “Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre.” Ricki Lake’s documentary and The Big Push for Midwives, among other recent developments, are evidently unsettling to ACOG. The rate of home birth has remained relatively stable for the past several decades; I would argue that it is hardly fashionable or trendy in that sense. Women choosing home birth face significant social stigma. It is not an easy or socially acceptable path. Instead, it is a choice that some women will always make out of deeply held philosophical or religious beliefs. This statement also implies that women choose home birth for frivolous reasons without serious thought or carefully weighing the risks and benefits of various options.

On the other hand, one recent trend in childbirth—elective cesareans with no medical indication—is supported by ACOG as ethically justifiable “if the physician believes that cesarean delivery promotes the overall health and welfare of the woman and her fetus more than does vaginal birth.”

3) ACOG yet again pays lip service to “a woman’s right to make informed decisions regarding her delivery and to have a choice in choosing her health care provider” while working to undermine women’s ability to make those very decisions. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), for example, is increasingly difficult to arrange in the United States as a direct result of an ACOG recommendation. Hundreds of hospitals have banned VBACs since 1999, when ACOG revised its recommendations on VBAC and stated that VBAC “should be attempted in institutions equipped to respond to emergencies with physicians immediately available to provide emergency care.”[1] In practice, this translated into 24-hour in-house anesthesia and OB coverage, a requirement that often only large, tertiary hospitals can guarantee.

Dr. Marsden Wagner has noted that ACOG “has no data to support it [the 1999 VBAC recommendations], no studies showing improvements in maternal mortality or perinatal mortality related to the characteristics of institutions or availability of physicians.” In fact, the studies that do exist show no elevated mortality rates among VBACs in smaller hospitals compared to large tertiary hospitals.[2] When the American Academy of Family Physicians reviewed all of the evidence on VBAC and the necessity of 24-hour OB and anesthesia, it recommended that "TOLAC should not be restricted only to facilities with available surgical teams present throughout labor since there is no evidence that these additional resources result in improved outcomes." (Read the full report here).

Despite the fact that ACOG’s 1999 recommendation was not evidence-based, obstetricians and hospital administrators are under heavy pressure to comply with the recommendations. As a result of ACOG’s new position on VBAC, hundreds of smaller hospitals have instituted a no-VBAC policy, requiring women to have mandatory repeat cesareans or to travel elsewhere—sometimes very long distances—to give birth. ACOG’s active opposition to home birth and to non-nurse midwives also undermines a woman’s ability to choose her health care provider. It is akin to saying “We support your right to chose any color of car you want. But since we believe that only blue cars are safe, we will oppose any attempts to legalize the manufacture, sale, or distribution of non-blue cars.” In sum, ACOG’s supposed support of a woman’s right to autonomy is nothing more than thinly veiled paternalism.

4) ACOG claims that a woman “attempting” a VBAC at home “puts herself and her baby’s health and life at unnecessary risk.” This shows ACOG’s distrust in a woman’s ability to make her own decisions. Whether or not a HBAC—or a hospital VBAC or an elective cesarean—is unnecessarily risky is for each individual woman to decide, based on a complex set of factors, values, and life experiences. Again, this is an example of paternalism. Instead of respecting a woman’s ability and right to make her own decisions, ACOG has made a sweeping pronouncement that attempts to speak for women.

5) ACOG claims to be concerned about the rising cesarean rate and states that it “remains committed to reducing it.” However, several of ACOG’s actions actively promote higher cesarean rates, including its support of patient choice cesareans as ethically justifiable and its 1999 VBAC recommendation.

6) When all else fails, blame the woman: After stating its concern with rising cesarean rates, ACOG then places the blame back on women themselves: “Multiple factors are responsible for the current cesarean rate, but emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes.”

7) ACOG repeats its claim that “studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous.” It claimed this about out-of-hospital births (including freestanding birth centers) in 2006. Yet with no new research on birth centers in the past year and a half, ACOG has recently reversed its stance. ACOG also ignores the CPM 2000 study about midwife-attended home birth, a large, prospective study of all CPM-attended births in the year 2000.

8) ACOG states: “The availability of an obstetrician-gynecologist to provide expertise and intervention in an emergency during labor and/or delivery may be life-saving for the mother or newborn and lower the likelihood of a bad outcome.” I agree that access to emergency services when needed is essential, and unfortunately continued opposition to home births only makes that access more difficult. In states where midwifery is illegal, many midwives are forced to abandon their clients if they transfer to a hospital out of fear of being arrested. Midwives in many states cannot openly refer clients or consult with backup physicians. Surely these situations do nothing to improve safety for the birthing woman. Decriminalization of midwifery (and removing sanctions from collaborating physicians) would help remedy this situation.

9) ACOG states that “lay or other midwives attending to home births are unable to perform live-saving emergency cesarean deliveries and other surgical and medical procedures that would best safeguard the mother and child.” Yes, this is true for all midwives and many family practice physicians, in and out of hospitals: a CNM or family doctor working in a hospital cannot perform a cesarean (unless the family doctor has done additional training in obstetrics). They must transfer care to an obstetrician if the need for surgery arises. Nurse-midwives cannot do forceps deliveries or vacuum extractions.

10) ACOG labels women who choose home birth as selfish and narcissistic. ACOG writes: “The main goal should be a healthy and safe outcome for both mother and baby. Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.” This statement as insulting as it is misinformed, and it shows ACOG’s inability to recognize that women choosing home birth do it to safeguard their baby’s well-being. Accusing women of being “bad mothers” is both unprofessional and paternalistic.

This statement also reveals a fundamental rift in belief systems between obstetrics and midwifery. In the obstetric worldview, women’s emotional needs are often portrayed as pitted against the fetus’ physical well-being. In the midwifery paradigm, however, safety isn’t a matter of either/or. (Either you have an emotionally satisfying but dangerous home birth or you have a safe hospital birth where you sacrifice your own comfort and emotional needs for the good of the baby). It is an and/and situation where the well-being of mother and baby are inextricably intertwined.

[1] ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 5, July 1999, “Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Section.” According to the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN), over 300 hospitals have banned VBACs since 1999. ICAN is currently compiling a comprehensive list of the status of VBAC in every U.S. hospital.
[2] Marsden Wagner. What Every Midwife Should Know About ACOG and VBAC. Midwifery Today. McMahon, M. (1996). Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. New Eng J Med 335 (10): 689-695.

Read more ...