Science & Sensibility

Childbirth Connection’s Listening to Mothers Initiative just released the Listening to Mothers III (LTMIII) results late last week.  For the third time in the past 11 years, this organization has gone out and queried women on a variety of topics related to pregnancy, birth, postpartum and breastfeeding.  They have questioned thousands of women to accurately assess how the actual experiences hold up against what we know to be best practice and evidence based maternity care. I have relied on the past two survey results frequently during my professional career in maternal health and am thrilled to have the new survey results now available.

I thought it would be interesting to run some of the LTMIII results through the filter of Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practices.  The Healthy Birth Practices were most recently updated by Lamaze in 2009, and consist of six simple, evidence based practices that greatly contribute to keeping birth safe and healthy for mothers and babies. Each easy to remember practice has its own short video that parents can watch that talks about that specific care practice and safe alternatives.  Additionally, each Healthy Birth Practice has an accompanying Practice Paper with all the citations for the peer-reviewed, gold standard research that supports that particular practice.

Some useful links and information upfront

Listening to Mothers I

Listening to Mothers II

New!  Listening to Mothers III

Survey Questionnaire 

Major Study Findings

Interesting facts before we get started

While the LTMIII survey only looked at 2400 women,  please be aware that one percentage point change in results would represent approximately 40,000 mother/baby pairs, based on a US birth rate of around 4 million births a year.

35% of women had not intended to be pregnant at the time of this pregnancy, including 5% who stated that they had never intended to become pregnant at all.

52% of those planning to get pregnant did have a preconception meeting with a health care provider, (which could be viewed as a wonderful time to determine if this health care provider might be a good match for their maternity care needs.)

85% of women based their maternity care provider on insurance requirements or restrictions.

78% of women worked with an obstetrician (this has dropped over the course of the three studies.)

9% of women worked with a family practice doctor

8% of women worked with a midwife who practiced in a hospital, as one of the requirements of the study was that the mother was having a hospital birth.

The average length of time spent actually in a prenatal appointment, with health care provider or their nurse was 32 minutes.  (OB: 31 min, Family Practice/MW 35 min.) I was pleasantly surprised that it was this long, I expected less.

Over the course of the three studies, the cesarean rate of study participants went up, (24% to 31%), the VBAC rate went down and labor augmentation was cut in half from 53% to 26%.  More women used nitrous oxide for pain relief during their labor in the most recent study (6%, up from 2% in the first study)

30% of the women chose not to ask a question that they wanted answered at least once during their prenatal appointments.

Overall, women were unable to make choices in line with the Healthy Birth Practices, and did not know that deviating from these practices was not evidence based and resulted in increased interventions.

Let’s see how things stack up

Healthy Birth Practice 1: Let Labor Begin on Its Own

Research shows that in the absence of medical issues, mothers, babies and labors do best when labor starts spontaneously on its own. The final few weeks of pregnancy are vital for the putting the “finishing touches” on baby and helping to make the transition to life on the outside as smooth as possible.

41% of all women surveyed attempted a medical (involved a care provider) induction and of those induced, 74% were successful, (the woman went into labor) for an overall medically induced labor rate of 31%

Reasons why women were induced

• 44% were full term
• 19% wanted to get the pregnancy over
• 11% wanted to control the timing of birth
• 16% were induced for a large baby (note: the average weight of these babies induced for suspected macrosomia was 7 lbs 15 ounces.)
• 18% were induced for being “overdue” (note: the average gestational age of those babies induced for being overdue was 39.9 weeks)
• 18% were induced for a maternal health problem

Interestingly, 26% of women had their due date changed toward the end of their pregnancy; 66% of those were given an earlier due date and 34% were given a later one.

68% of women had a late third trimester ultrasound to estimate fetal weight

Healthy Birth Practice 2: Walk, Move Around and Change Positions in Labor

Women with the ability to move and change positions are able to use this movement to help cope with the pain of labor.  Access to water in the form of a shower or tub can be a valuable coping technique.  Having access to intermittent fetal monitoring or telemetry movements can facilitate movement and promote labor progress for many women.

Only 43% of women walked around after being admitted to the hospital in labor

40% of women used position changes and movement for non-pharmacological pain relief

Healthy Birth Practice 3: Bring a Loved One, Friend or Doula for Continuous Support

Many women will thrive in labor if surrounded by a caring, supportive birth team.  Adding a skilled birth doula to the team has been shown in many studies to improve the outcome of birth and reduce interventions and cesareans.  While more and more birthing women are aware of a doula, many are still not having one in attendance at their birth.

99% of mothers had at least one support person present, (most often this was a partner, then a family member or friend)

6% women used a doula

75% of mothers were aware of what a doula does and of those 75% who knew, 27% would have liked a doula supporting them at their birth.

Healthy Birth Practice 4: Avoid Interventions That are Not Medically Necessary 

Although research shows that routine and unnecessary interference in the natural process of labor and birth is not likely to be beneficial—and may indeed be harmful—most U.S. births today are intervention-intensive.

98% of the women had at least one ultrasound during pregnancy and 70% had three or more over the course of their pregnancy

68% of women had a late third trimester ultrasound to estimate fetal weight.

83% of women had some type of pain medication

67% had an epidural or spinal, and 92% of those who did reported this to be “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful.”

62% of women surveyed had an IV during labor

51% of women had one or more vaginal exams in labor. (I was surprised at this, I would have suspected higher)

47% had bladder (Foley) catheters

31% of women had a labor augmented with pitocin

50% of birthing women had their labor either induced or augmented with pitocin

20% had their membranes ruptured artificially (AROM)  after labor began

36% of women had their labor started or augmented by AROM

1% of women requested and had a maternal request cesarean for non-medical reasons

40% of women drank fluids during their labor

21% of the women ate during labor

85% of women birthing vaginally did so without forceps or vacuum

87% of women responding had at least one of the five big interventions (attempted labor induction, epidural, pitocin augmentation, assisted delivery with vacuum or forceps or cesarean.

60% of the women had at least two of the above five interventions listed above

Healthy Birth Practice 5: Avoid Giving Birth on Your Back and Follow Your Body’s Urges to Push

Women push most effectively when permitted to push in the positions that feel best for them.  Allowing the baby to “labor down” even after reaching full dilation until moms feel the urge to push can help women to push a baby out quicker and under their own steam.  Pushing in positions that allow the pelvis to open as much as possible and making space by getting the sacrum out of the way can help promote descent during pushing.

68% of women surveyed birthed on their backs

23% birthed in a semi-sitting position

8% gave birth in a position off their back, either side-lying, squat or hands & knees

Healthy Birth Practice 6: Keep Mother and Baby Together; Its Best for Mother, Baby and Breastfeeding

Experts now recommend that right after birth, a healthy newborn should be placed skin-to-skin on the mother’s abdomen or chest and should be dried and covered with warm blankets. Any care that needs to be done immediately after birth can be done with your baby skin-to-skin on your chest.  This early time together promotes breastfeeding, helps stabilize the newborn’s temperature and blood sugar and also offers a unique chance for high levels of natural oxytocin that promote bonding and help with immediate postpartum bleeding.

47% of mothers responding had their baby in their arms within the first hour

40% of mother-baby pairs were not skin to skin when they were first held

33% of all babies were with hospital staff the first hour

60% of mother-baby pairs roomed in together

18% of babies spent time in the NICU

25% of babies spent their days with mom and their nights in the nursery

49% of mothers who stated that they intended to exclusively breastfeed were given formula samples or offers.

29% of newborns were supplemented with water or formula during the hospital stay

Summary

After reading through the LTMIII report, I found myself discouraged by the current results.  It was clear that women were making choices and/or being informed by their care providers to choose practices that have long been known to create a cascade of interventions, do not improve outcomes for mothers or babies and are not evidence based.  For the majority of the women who responded to this survey, the Healthy Care Practices are still a pipe dream and not a reality in their hospitals and with their current providers.  I know change comes slowly, and it can take years for protocols to catch up with the evidence but frankly, after reading the summary of how things did or did not change over the course of the three studies I was still shocked.

Have you had a chance to go through the study yet?  What were your thoughts?  Anything surprise you?  Can you share a bright point that you noticed?

Join us later this week as I examine what the LTMIII survey had to say about childbirth education and how women are receiving pregnancy and birth information and from where.

 

 

 

 

Sharon Muza Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Doula Care, Epidural Analgesia, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Lamaze International, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, New Research, Newborns, News about Pregnancy, Research, Transforming Maternity Care, Uncategorized Childbirth Connection, Healthy Birth Practices, Lamaze International, Listening to Mothers III, Listening to Mothers surveys, research, Sharon Muza

By Geradine Simkins, CNM, MSN, Executive Director of Midwives Alliance of North America

This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement on home birth. While the statement affirmed “the right of women to make a medically informed decision about delivery”, many advocates expressed concerns. The statement failed to recognize Certified Professional Midwives, the providers most likely to attend a home birth in the United States. In this response, the Midwives Alliance of North America helps families, providers, and policy makers understand the critical role CPMs play in safe, healthy birth options. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

High-quality out-of-hospital newborn and postpartum care is standard for midwives

 

The Midwives Alliance of North America welcomes the primary concept communicated in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ April 24, 2013, policy statement entitled “Planned Home Birth.” As should be expected, AAP reminds its practitioners that newborn infants—regardless of the setting in which they are born—deserve an equal and unbiased, high-quality standard of care. The Midwives Alliance joins with AAP in affirming the need for a collaborative and integrated maternity care system that addresses the needs of all mothers and infants, regardless of the provider type or birth setting a woman chooses.

We are disappointed, however, in AAP’s decision to align with the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists’ policy on home birth. Serving the needs of the growing number of families choosing to birth at home, Certified Professional Midwives attend the majority of intended home births in the U.S., when a skilled attendant is present, making them the primary care providers for newborns in the home setting.

Certified Professional Midwives are skilled maternity care providers

AAP’s itemized recommendations for infant and newborn care, contained in their policy statement, are standard practice for credentialed midwives. In that respect, we find much with which we agree. These standard newborn exams, screens, and preventative care practices are wholly part of a credentialed midwife’s scope of practice, and further endorsed by individual state health departments. We also note that as AAP Neonatal Resuscitation Program certificate holders (required for certification and recertification), credentialed midwives follow guidelines laid out in AAP’s recommendations, and typically surpass those standard recommendations by having at least two NRP- and CPR-trained attendants at out-of-hospital births.

In fact, the AAP’s guidelines for the care of infants intentionally born at home parallel those standards practiced by trained midwives in all birth settings. The practices listed—such as working medical equipment, emergency plans of transfer, thorough newborn exams, and so forth—are professional standards exhibited and documented by credentialed midwives, regardless of the place of birth.

The AAP policy statement, however, did not recognize or acknowledge Certified Professional Midwives (CPM), indicating that AAP may not have a thorough understanding of the training, skills, knowledge, and abilities of this country’s primary maternity care provider for infants born out of the hospital. The Certified Professional Midwife is the only national midwifery credential that requires practitioners to be trained specifically to provide prenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care in out-of-hospital settings. CPMs are knowledgeable, expert and independent midwifery practitioners who have met the standards for certification set by the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM). NARM is accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) to issue the professional credential of Certified Professional Midwife, which is the same agency that accredits the American Midwifery Certification Board to issue the professional credentials of Certified-Nurse Midwife, and Certified Midwife.  

Midwives are the providers of choice for out-of-hospital births, whether they occur at home or in freestanding birth centers. Offered since 1994, the CPM is currently the basis for licensure in 27 states while 11 additional states are actively seeking CPM licensure. In fact, one in nine newly certified midwives in the U.S. are Certified Professional Midwives.  

The AAP policy statement endorses birth center maternity care, which is another area in which we are in agreement. Recent numbers from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) indicate that a significant proportion of accredited birth centers are owned and operated by Certified Professional Midwives. A January 2013 study, The National Birth Center Study II , conducted by AABC and published in the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, the official journal of the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM), highlights the benefits for women who seek care at midwife-led birth centers. Findings also reinforce longstanding evidence that providers at midwife-led birth centers provide safe and effective health care for women during pregnancy, labor, birth, and the postpartum period.  

Midwives provide high-quality care that meets both national and international guidelines 

In highlighting the ethic of high-quality care for all infants across the spectrum—regardless of the site of birth—it should be noted that Certified Professional Midwives provide care intentionally similar to that of nurse-midwives and physicians. Yet we also know that CPMs are able to offer additional and valued care in terms of frequency of home visits and intense monitoring of newborns in their homes in the first weeks of life—a benefit not normally conferred to women and babies who have experienced hospital births.

This high-quality midwifery care includes routine newborn APGAR assessments, comprehensive head-to-toe physical examinations, measurements of length, head, abdomen and birth weight, monitoring vital signs including thermoregulation, assessment of respiratory sounds and patterns, assessments of cardiac sounds and peripheral pulses, assessment of gestational age and physical maturity, neuromuscular assessments, and assistance with initiation and ongoing assessment of breastfeeding. All findings are recorded in patient records and shared with mothers, per professional standards.

In addition, CPMs provide newborns with Vitamin K treatment, antibiotic eye ointment, umbilical cord care, metabolic newborn screening, glucose and bilirubin testing as indicated, and either perform Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE) hearing screens or refer to area audiologists. Midwives in a number of states are moving toward, or already offering, pulse-oximetry screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects (CCHD) per AAP guidelines, in advance of many hospital systems. In the rare cases when newborns require consultation or referral, infants are transferred to the tertiary care system, and pediatricians where available, for active management.

Not only do Certified Professional Midwives and Certified Nurse-Midwives who attend home births provide the level of care outlined by the AAP, they provide it in a personalized, woman-centered, family-centered, culturally competent, and individualized manner that is qualitatively different from the customary assembly-line postpartum care commonly experienced in U.S. hospitals.

For example, in a home birth setting, the midwife typically conducts the initial newborn exam in the presence of the mother and family, which does not disrupt the crucial process of mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding, and is focused on being instructive to the family. Midwives provide holistic care to the mother-baby dyad in concordance with World Health Organization’s Baby-Friendly best practices.

As a way of illustrating important differences in care practices, we can point to the recent Breastfeeding Report Card issued by the CDC (2012) that indicates only six percent of U.S. hospitals are offering care that aligns with the international best practices outlined by Healthy People 2020.   By contrast in a 2005 study, 95% of babies born at home under the care of Certified Professional Midwives were exclusively breastfeeding at six weeks of age (Johnson & Daviss, 2005). This is just one area where midwives are well-trained, skilled, and uniquely positioned to help families succeed.

An opportunity for collaboration and integrated care 

Physician conversations about home birth and midwife-led birth will be better informed and more useful to maternity care consumers if AAP is able to become more cognizant of important changes in the landscape of U.S. midwifery. 

The release of the AAP policy statement on care of newborns born at home is an opportunity to reinforce the need for professional and seamless collaboration with members of community health care teams. We view this statement’s release as an opportunity to align best practices for all parties who care for and support families choosing home birth.

The Midwives Alliance stands ready to work with other pediatric and maternity care providers to establish best practices in the postpartum period to not merely provide the basic level of care in the first hours, days and weeks of life for the newborn as outlined in the latest AAP statement, but to elevate that standard to include support for breastfeeding and the personal attention that can prevent infant death and improve maternal and child health.  Babies born in all settings deserve this kind of care.

About Geradine Simkins

Geradine Simkins, CNM, MSN is an activist, midwife and author. She began as a direct-entry home birth midwife in 1976 and became a nurse-midwife twenty years later. For over thirty years she has provided health care for women, infants and families in a variety of settings, including attendance at births in the home, a freestanding birth center, and hospitals. Geradine’s work with migrant farmworkers and American Indian tribes focuses on addressing health care disparities and engendering a more equitable maternity care system for all women and infants.  Geradine is currently the Executive Director of Midwives Alliance of North America, a professional organization that promotes excellence in midwifery and is dedicated to unifying and strengthening the profession, thereby increasing access to quality health care and improving outcomes for women, babies and their families. She is the editor of the recently published book entitled Into These Hands: Wisdom from Midwives, an anthology of the life stories of 25 remarkable women who have dedicated their lives and careers to the path of midwifery and social change.  More info about Geraldine Simkins can be found here.

Sharon Muza ACOG, American Academy of Pediatrics, Babies, Delayed Cord Clamping, Home Birth, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Midwifery, Transforming Maternity Care AAP, ACNM, ACOG, CNM, CPM, Geraldine Simkins, Home Birth, MANA, Midwifery Care, Midwives Alliance of North America, newborn

by Wendy Gordon, CPM, LM, MPH, MANA Division of Research, Assistant Professor, Bastyr University Dept of Midwifery

Today, occasional contributor, midwife and researcher Wendy Gordon, LM, CPM, MPH, Midwives Alliance Division of Research, shares some insights into some of the fascinating discussions that took place at last week’s Institute of Medicine’s workshop focusing on birth place settings.  From all reports from the many people in attendance, this workshop will hopefully help move the research and discussion on the topic of birth place settings forward and create opportunities for more families to chose to birth where they feel most comfortable and safe. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

___________________________

 

Last week marked an historic opportunity for maternity care providers to regroup and become inspired to move our professions forward together in all birth settings.  The two-day event, hosted by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) and sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, focused on “Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings” and brought together the greatest minds in research and practice in all three birth settings: home, birth center and hospital.  Issues of tremendous importance to consumers, providers and researchers in the birth community were discussed in a collegial and inspiring manner… marred only by one presentation that stirred a bit of controversy.

Historic Workshop Can Positively Impact Future Research 

Similar to the first IOM conference on this topic over 30 years ago, the intent of last week’s gathering was to discuss the research regarding the effect of place of birth on maternal and infant outcomes. Invited speakers included researchers, public health professionals, midwives, nurses, pediatricians and obstetricians.  In structured mini-sessions, panelists shared their expertise on the following topics:

• the historical and current picture of who is giving birth in the different settings;
• definitions of “low-risk” versus “high-risk”;
•  what the best research says about safety in various settings; 
• education, regulation and management of different types of providers;
•  methods of collection and use of data regarding maternity care and birth in various settings; 
•  cost and value differences between settings and reimbursement issues; and 
• the rich and varied perspectives of providers in the three childbirth settings.

Members of the audience were just as impressive as the panelists themselves when, at the end of each panel, the microphone was opened and significant content was added through their questions and comments.  

A lot of ground was covered over the course of the two days, and there were several takeaways that had particular impact for the midwifery community. The home birth rate in the U.S. was predicted to continue its rise with the next release of CDC data, reaching about 31,500 births nationwide in 2010. The MANA Stats web-based system was touted by attendees as the best data collection system for home birth outcomes.  Birth certificate data was shown to still have major problems in its ability to accurately capture intended place of birth and other reliability issues, despite improvements in recent years.  A Medicaid study from Washington State demonstrated vast cost savings with midwifery care and birth at home and in birth centers.  The workshop report will have tremendous potential to impact contemporary birth policy and research agendas.

Lack of Consumer Representation and Little Discussion of Health Disparities

There was no consumer representation on workshop panels, nor was there a panel addressing disparities in maternal and infant outcomes, which seems to have been a grave oversight of the organizers.  In the 30 years since the last IOM workshop on birth settings, overall infant mortality has been reduced from 11.5/1000 to 6.7/1000, but the black-white gap has actually increased. In 1982, nearly twice as many babies born to black mothers than white mothers died before their first birthday (19.6 infant deaths per 1000 births vs 10.1/1000; National Center for Health Statistics, 1986). Recent mortality figures show that disparity to be even wider (12.67/1000 vs 5.52/1000; Mathews & MacDorman, 2012).

With childbirth in home and birth center settings gaining momentum nationally and at the state level, research to support policy in this direction is more important than ever. The best research has shown for decades, and continues to show, that for women with low-risk pregnancies, birth that is planned to occur in the home and birth center settings with a skilled midwife is no more risky than birth in the hospital and results in far fewer interventions, lower cost and higher satisfaction (Vedam et al, 2012).  Hopefully, the breadth of this research can finally start to expand beyond proving that it is safe.

‘Recrudescence’ Revisited

Despite this body of literature, there are still some physicians who persist in torturing the data in an attempt to frame their personal opinions as “science.”  It was disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, to see Dr. Frank Chervenak use his time on the provider panel to do just that. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently published an article authored by Dr. Chervenak regarding the “recrudescence of homebirth” (Chervenak et al, 2013), and perhaps it was the controversy stirred by that article that prompted the conference organizers to invite him to speak on this panel. The panel members included Dr. Chervenak as a hospital-based provider, Karen Pelote, CNM with the birth center provider perspective, and Brynne Potter, CPM as a homebirth provider.  Both Pelote and Potter appeared to have taken seriously the purpose of their panel representation and showcased the data on our client-centered models of care, with photos and quotes from women regarding the care they received and their experiences in the birth center and home settings.   

In stark contrast, Chervenak used his 12 minutes (out of 10) that were to be devoted to the hospital provider perspective for, instead, a rapid-fire display of “back-of-the-envelope” bar graphs attempting to show home/hospital differences in 5-minute Apgar scores using raw data drawn from birth certificates.  Since it appears that some doctors are having a hard time getting their “research” on this topic published in peer-reviewed journals, they are presenting their data in settings that do not require peer-review, such as last year’s annual conference of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (the study still hasn’t been published) and this IOM workshop.  Meanwhile, there are several well-designed studies published in peer-reviewed journals that show that there is no difference in 5-minute Apgar scores between home and hospital settings (Hutton et al, 2009; Janssen et al, 2009; van der Kooy et al, 2011).

That a professional invited to contribute to a high-level workshop about research would present an un-peer-reviewed thesis based on unreliable data, lacking any statistical analysis, is… well, let’s just say “puzzling.”  Exploiting the concept of “relative risk,” Chervenak sliced and diced the data in more ways than were thought possible to suggest that babies born at home were more likely to have a low 5-minute Apgar score than babies born in the hospital.

“Home Births Should Not Happen”

Chervenak’s non-reviewed data did find a higher rate of Apgar scores of “10” in the home setting versus “9” in the hospital setting. His point? Not that, clinically speaking, there is no difference between a score of 9 vs. 10 (they’re both good). Not that babies might possibly be doing better due to normal physiologic labor and undisturbed birth and that we should explore this further. Instead, he suggested – at this historic setting – that midwives lie about Apgar scores because “no one is watching.”  After a day and a half of earnest, interprofessional collegiality, Chervenak wrapped up his extended presentation with his unabashed opinion: “Home births should not happen.”

Epidemiologists in the room were quick to step to the microphone for the open discussion part of the panel, pointing out the many flaws in Chervenak’s presentation.  Marian MacDorman, Ph.D., senior statistician and researcher for the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, reminded everyone that birth certificate data is notoriously unreliable for neonatal seizures and low Apgar scores; this has been shown time and again for decades and had indeed been discussed earlier in this very workshop.  More importantly, McDorman stated that data from birth certificates cannot be used to make comparisons between settings or providers.  Her point, which deserves some elaboration here, is that there is a very important distinction between “absolute risk” and “relative risk,” and different types of data are better than others depending on what you are trying to describe. 

“When we limit access to certain birth settings because of risk, are we examining the risks of the alternative?” – Brynne Potter, CPM

Absolute vs. Relative Risk

Let’s say that a person’s odds of getting struck by lightning in a heavily populated city are one in a million, and those same odds in a rural area are five in a million. These odds are called your “absolute risk” of being struck by lightning. Another way to look at this is to say that a person’s odds of being struck by lightning are five times higher in a rural area than in a densely-populated area; this is the “relative risk” of a lightning strike in one area over another.

A common approach of anti-homebirth activists is to use the “relative risk” approach and ignore the absolute risk, because it’s much more dramatic and sensationalistic to suggest that the risk of something is “double!” or “triple!” that of something else, even though the absolute risk of those things are very low and may not even be statistically significantly different from each other.  Of course, any infant or maternal mortality is a tragedy.  But one of the key points raised at the IOM workshop was the idea that, in our efforts to identify “safety” with one indicator (mortality) or “truly low-risk” pregnancies by their absence of a particular factor (breech position, for example), we often fail to quantify all of the impacts of the various settings in ways that are meaningful to the women who experience the outcomes, such as the fact that in many areas, the only option for breech delivery is cesarean or the only way a VBAC can happen is at home, attended or not.  As Brynne Potter asked last week: when we limit access to certain birth settings because of risk, are we examining the risks of the alternative?

To return to the lightning analogy, it would be deeply disingenuous for a person to say that you shouldn’t move to a rural area simply because your risk of being struck by lightning is five times higher, without mentioning that at worst, that risk is five in a million. The ethics of this are further called into question when the person suggesting this is a trusted care provider, and is even worse when that person withholds all information about your option to move to a rural area — disregarding all of your other reasons for wanting to doing so — because they have decided that the risk of being hit by lightning there is too high for you.

Clarifying the Validity of Birth Certificate Data

Dr. MacDorman clarified how to interpret the data for anyone who might have been misled by Dr. Chervenak’s slides. She pointed out that regarding low Apgar scores, “the absolute risk is low; that’s all you can say with vital data.”  It doesn’t happen very often in any setting; most studies on homebirth around the world report the occurrence of low Apgar scores (<7) in the range of 1%, and very low scores (<4) are even rarer.  Studies have shown that the more rare an occurrence is, the less likely it is to be captured accurately on the birth certificate (Northam & Knapp, 2006).

Overall, the Midwives Alliance Division of Research (DOR) and other organizations working to improve maternity care are pleased with the near-consensus viewpoint by the majority of the disciplines represented at this workshop: that normal physiologic birth is best for mother and baby and should be the goal of all settings and practitioners.  We are looking forward to the future research inspired by this event.  We believe that there is potential for there to be more movement in the next 30 years than there was since the last IOM workshop on this topic 30 years ago, particularly because of the availability of high-quality datasets such as MANA Stats (primarily planned home births) and the American Association of Birth Centers’ Uniform Data Set (primarily planned birth center births).  As the stewards of the largest database on midwifery care and outcomes of normal physiologic birth in the home setting, the DOR encourages researchers to apply for the MANA Stats data to conduct this important research (application information at mana.org/DOR). 

References:

Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Brent RL, Levene MI, Arabin B. 2013. Planned home birth: The professional responsibility response. AJOG 208(1):31-38.

Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. 2009. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2006: A retrospective cohort study. BIRTH 36(3):180-189.

Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK. 2009. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ, doi:10.1503/cmaj.081869.

Mathews, TJ & MacDorman, M. 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports: Infant mortality statistics from the 2008 period linked birth/ infant death data set. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_05.pdf. 

National Center for Health Statistics. 1986. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1982, Vol II: Mortality, Part A. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 86-1122. Public Health Service: Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Northam S, Knapp TR. 2006. The reliability and validity of birth certificates. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 35(1):3-12.

van der Kooy J, Poeran J, de Graaf JP, Birnie E, Denktas S, Steegers EAP, Bonsel GJ. 2011. Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: Intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 118:1037-46.

Vedam S, Schummers L, Stoll K, Fulton C. 2012. Home Birth: An Annotated Guide to the Literature.  Available online at http://mana.org/DOR/research-resources/.

About Wendy Gordon

 

 

Sharon Muza Guest Posts, Healthcare Reform, Home Birth, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery, Newborns, Transforming Maternity Care Apgar, birth centers, birth setting, Brynne Potter, Chervenak, Frank Chervenak, guest post, homebirth, Institute of Medicine, Karen Pelote, MANA, Marian MacDorman, midwives, Wendy Gordon

“Our goal is not to have every mother birth at home—our goal is to encourage parents to gather quality information, to gain exposure to a philosophy that screams trust in mothers and trust in babies, and to provide parents who do plan a homebirth to be well equipped with an understanding of how to thrive in that decision.” – Jane E. Drichta, CPM and Jodilyn Owen, CPM, authors of The Essential Homebirth Guide: For Families Planning or Considering Birthing at Home.

___________________

The Essential Homebirth Guide: For Families Planning or Considering Birthing at Home by midwives Jane E. Drichta, CPM and Jodilyn Owen, CPM  is a new book on the birth scene, being released today both in print and as an e-book.  I had an opportunity to read an advanced copy and and will share my thoughts with Science & Sensibility readers in this review.

The Essential Homebirth Guide is a book that is long overdue and will be welcomed by consumers and healthcare providers alike. With the recent National Birth Center Study II  released last month, many women and their families may now be considering an out of hospital (OOH) birth.  Some areas of the US offer the opportunity to birth in a birth center, while other parts of the country have no birth centers available at all and homebirth is the only OOH option.  Even where birth centers are available, women in greater numbers are now considering birthing in their own homes, with midwives, for many reasons, including comfort, cost and choosing a location where they feel they have the best chance to achieve a low intervention birth.

Sitting down to read Drichta and Owen’s guide is like spending a long weekend with your very best friend.  A best friend who just happens to be a midwife.  Whether you are just starting to explore the idea of a homebirth or have already decided that homebirth is for you, you will find that all your questions get answered in an easy to understand, factual way, with all the details and inside information that only your best friend can provide.  Drichta and Owen even provide answers to the questions you hadn’t thought of yet, but would want to know if you choose to homebirth, such as the section on communicating your homebirth choices with friends and family.

The book is arranged into chapters, and then subtopics.  Each subtopic has a nice Q&A format, with all the major questions covered in easy to understand language.  Peppered amongst the topics are real life stories and musing submitted by homebirthing women and their families, as well as special “The Midwife Says:” sections that provide additional information.  The personal stories offer a peek into the thoughts and experiences of homebirthing women, and readers will feel comforted by their stories. References are included for each chapter, and there are several hearty appendices at the back for more information. Lovely black and white pictures are scattered throughout.

One of the things that I loved best in The Essential Homebirth Guide is how the authors use every opportunity to speak to the mother, helping to develop her self-determination.  Throughout the book, they reinforce that every mother knows both her body and her baby best.  Women who read this book will feel confident that they are (or should be) equal partners in their care with their healthcare provider and are capable of asking questions, gathering information and making decisions that feel right to them.

“…A lot happens between the time of conception and diapers, and it all matters.  It will affect you.  It will change you.  It will propel you into motherhood in a profound way and can leave you with feelings of power, health, and peace, or it may leave you with feelings of anxiety, fear, and even trauma.  What kind of emotional context do you want as you become a new mother? What kind of new mother do you aim to be?  Think about these questions first, and then start building your prenatal care to lead yourself down the road that ends with you – the kind of new mother you intend to become in the kind of health you strive to have…” The Essential Homebirth Guide

Chapters on interviewing and choosing a midwife, what to expect during your prenatal care, prenatal testing options, information on the top ten pregnancy issues, preparing to birth at home, and what to expect after the birth all provide details on what normally occurs and include topics that can be discussed with your midwife along with things you can do to keep yourself healthy and low risk. In fact, this book is useful for any pregnant woman, as it will help facilitate conversations with hospital based healthcare providers, to help the woman who has chosen to birth in the hospital avoid unnecessary interventions. 

Drichta and Owen tackle some controversial subjects such as homebirth after a cesarean, home breech birth and homebirth of twins. No doubt, everyone’s comfort level is different and women (and their healthcare providers) process and understand risk in very individual ways.  These situations may not be for everyone, but the authors don’t ignore that these birth situations are occurring at home all around the country.  Information is power, mothers, when given accurate information in a respectful manner, will be able to determine what feels like the right decision for them.

I would have appreciated more information in the book on how low income families and women of color might find their way to homebirth in today’s maternity care climate, as the increase in homebirths has not been observed amongst those populations. Where I live, in the state of Washington, almost half of our births are paid for by the state, and we are fortunate that homebirth is an option for those families receiving state aid.  That is not the case for most of the rest of the country.

_____________________

I had the opportunity to ask Jane Drichta and Jodilyn Owen some questions about their book, and wanted to share my interview with Science & Sensibility readers.

SM: Why did you want to write this book, and why now? 

JO: This book has been running around in circles inside of our heads for years.  We make it a habit to check in with each other after most births, and so there are at least a decade of late night conversations here.  As we talked, we realized that we were running into the same problem; there was not one definitive source of information for homebirthing families.  We had websites and articles and handouts, but not one place where we could send parents for unbiased, evidence based information, served up with sides of common sense and love. Homebirth is becoming more and more popular, and the time just seemed to be right. 

SM:  What was the most challenging topic for you to cover in the book? How did you handle it? 

JD: The chapter on The Big Ten, which details ten common complications in pregnancy, was difficult to write.  We are used to speaking around these topics in very technical terms, and it was difficult to distill the information down to what mothers needed to know.  We were more interested in providing a model for how we approach these issues that any woman can adapt to her situation than being prescriptive about what one must absolutely do in a given situation.  When we started that chapter, it sounded like we were writing a term paper.  We completely lost the friendly, accessible tone that we were going for.  So that was a challenge.   

SM: What is the main piece of information that you hope that women will know/take away after finishing your book?

JD:  That they can do this.  That birthing at home is a viable option in 21st century America. That the desire to do this doesn’t mean you are crazy or hate the patriarchy, or that any of the other homebirthing stereotypes apply.  Women can birth at home more safely than ever before, and it is a real alternative for most women.

SM: What challenges do you see facing the potential growth of homebirths in the US?

JO:  The integration of homebirth midwives into our current health care system.  The politics around midwifery and its place in the system are myriad, and not something that we wanted to get into in the book.  However, we do support the right of women to birth in the place of their choice, with the provider of their choice, and that is sometimes difficult and can be limiting.

SM: If midwives and doctors read this book, what do you hope they take away from it?

JO: We hope they take away a few key points:  That mothers and partners should be held responsible to seek information and share decision making in their care, that a pregnant and birthing woman is in partnership with her baby and this dyad perspective should be promoted at all times with the language and behavior providers use, and that a woman is never just her numbers—she is a whole human being with a context worthy of their curiosity and respect.  

SM: How can childbirth educators use this book with their students?

JD: Simply presenting this paradigm of woman-centered, individualized, continuous care is a great way to open the door for discussions about creating intention for pregnancy and birth.   What is it that parents really mean to establish for themselves when it comes to their care and birth?  Understanding risk, breaking apart decision-making models, and tuning in to their inner-wisdom are just some of the great tools that educators can work through.

__________________

I wanted to see what the authors had to say about childbirth classes for women considering homebirth and was delighted to find that they encourage all women to take classes and hold Lamaze International and our Healthy Birth Practices in high esteem.  ”We can’t find anything not to love here” is found in the childbirth class section under the Lamaze heading..

Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book and found it to be an easy read and full of information that I would find useful if I was still deciding where to birth or had already made up my mind to birth at home.  I could also see myself referring back to this as my birth got closer.  This book acknowledges that I am the best person to make this very personal decision about where to birth my baby. I think that healthcare providers who offer OOH birth services might want a few copies on their bookshelves to lend to potential and current clients, and childbirth educators might very well recommend this resource to parents in their classes who want to know more about what a home birth might be like.

Please consider coming back to the blog and sharing your thoughts after reading the book.  I would love to know what you think and if you would recommend this to clients and students.  If you would like to contact the authors, they can be reached through their website Essential Midwifery.

Disclosure: The authors of this book and I are all members of the professional birth community in Seattle, WA.  I have known them on a professional and personal level long before this book was even conceived.

Sharon Muza Book Reviews, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Home Birth, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery book review, Childbirth Education, Essential Homebirth Guide, Healthy Birth Practices, Home Birth, homebirth, Jane E. Drichta, Jodilyn Owen, Lamaze International, Midwifery Care, midwives, Sharon Muza

In the occasional series on Welcoming All Families, we have explored how to make our classes and practices welcoming for women of size and lesbians.  Today on Science & Sensibility, Certified Nurse Midwife Simon Adriane Ellis shares how to offer care and classes that are sensitive to gender variant families. Recently the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) released a position statement on Transgender/Transexual/Gender Variant Health Care. The ACNM stated that they “support efforts to provide transgender, transsexual, and gender variant individuals with access to safe, comprehensive, culturally competent health care and therefore endorses the 2011 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care.”  Simon Ellis served on the task force and played a significant role in writing and advocating for this recently released position paper and worked with ACNM to see it through Board of Director approval in December 2012. – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager

_______________________ 

Note: The term “gender variant” is used throughout this post to describe individuals whose gender identity is in some way different than the sex they were assigned at birth. Other related words you may have heard before include transgender, gender non-conforming, and gender non-binary. In this post, I specifically address the needs of gender variant people who undertake pregnancy. The needs of gender variant partners and family members also warrant deep consideration, but will not be the focus of this piece. 

When asked, many birth professionals will tell you that they’ve never cared for a gender variant patient. Many of us claim that we don’t have the skills or the knowledge to do so. Turns out we’re usually wrong, on two fronts. First, chances are many of us have served gender variant people, without knowing it. And second, we are competent, compassionate, and well-trained professionals who already have what we need to provide excellent care and services to our gender variant patients. This post will provide a basic framework for approaching care, as well as some specific resources and suggestions to make your practice more inviting. I write it from both my perspective as a practicing Certified Nurse Midwife, and my perspective as a gender variant person (female-to-male).

Focus on What You Bring to the Table

We all bring ourselves – rich in beauty and flaws and experience – to each client encounter. We are our own building blocks of clinical or professional practice. Accordingly, when striving to provide care or services across difference, the first place to start is within ourselves. What do we bring? Among other things, we bring skills and biases.

Skills

As professionals who serve families in pregnancy and birth, the core of what we provide is compassion; we are incredibly dexterous at meeting people where they are at. We offer a strong and loving presence even in the intense terrain of labor, which takes a whole lot of humanity and skill. This is your number one asset for providing culturally responsive care to gender variant patients and clients. So keep doing what you do best! 

Biases

If someone asks you why you choose to do birth work, what do you say? Many of us would say that we are passionate about serving women, that we value women’s bodies and autonomy and we honor the journey to motherhood. Which is fantastic! We should! But what if your pregnant client doesn’t happen to identify as a woman? Does that change anything about the importance of their journey to parenthood? Does it make their birth experience less authentic and worthy of support? Of course not. Birth is birth, regardless of gender identity. And birth is our specialty. But many of us have a very hard time imagining pregnancy outside the concept of “woman,” which casts doubt on gender variant people who choose to carry a pregnancy. Being aware of and challenging your own biases and personal attachments to the concept of gender will help you prepare yourself for working with a more diverse client base. 

Don’t Pass the Buck

It is convenient to fall back on the idea that we, as birth professionals, are only trained to work with women and therefore are simply not qualified to work with gender variant people. In saying this, we falsely join two separate concepts – sex and gender – and we falsely absolve ourselves from responsibility. The urge to refer clients/patients to “someone who has more experience” is strong; often, it is grounded in sincere concern for the client’s wellbeing. But the truth is: with very few exceptions, there is no one with more experience.

In my work with gender variant parents, every single one of their doulas, childbirth educators, midwives, and OBs stated they had never before worked with a gender variant patient. There was no research these providers could review on the physical and emotional health needs of this population, no information on best practices. Each provider had to rely on the skills and knowledge base they already had, and do the best they could. And with compassion and clinical/professional acumen as their guide, it turns out they usually did an awesome job. The lesson to take from this is that 1) you are capable of doing a good job, and 2) a suggestion that the patient see “someone who has more experience” is usually little more than a referral to nowhere. 

Make Your Practice More Inviting

While there is no simple list of do’s and don’ts that you can follow (and the golden rule is, as always, to cater your approach to the needs of the specific client), I do think there are some basic principles that can be helpful in adapting your practice to meet the needs of gender variant patients and clients.

1. Build trust and offer accommodations

Fear of discrimination by providers and fellow patients or class participants presents a huge barrier to care for gender variant people. It is a source of great emotional and physiological stress. I can tell you that it is truly a terrible feeling. Take time to build trust, and to assess your client’s need for accommodations. Some clients will desire as much anonymity as possible, in which case you can offer one-on-one class sessions or facility tours, appointments at the beginning or end of the clinic day, assurances of privacy, and continuity of care. Other clients will desire facilitated integration, in which case you can offer assurance that you will address problems proactively, be available to address questions raised by other clients, and make a point to check in regularly on how things are going. If you need to refer the client to another provider, be sure to offer to call ahead and provide the patient’s background. Taking over the burden of explanation can be an enormous weight off your client’s shoulders.

2. Plan to offer additional emotional support

We all know that pregnancy is an intense and vulnerable time. Gender variant parents-to-be often have the additional struggle of profound isolation, coupled with the likelihood of heightened gender dysphoria during the course of pregnancy. With these things in mind, make yourself available to provide additional emotional support as necessary. Research LGBTQ friendly mental health providers in your area so you are able to make appropriate referrals if needed.

3. Keep your wording flexible

The language of birth work is extremely gendered. This can be isolating for gender variant clients. Work to make your language more inclusive by incorporating terms such as “pregnant parents,” “parents-to-be,” “new parents,” and “gestational parents.” Ask your clients what name, pronoun, and parenting term they would like to be addressed by, then respect their wishes in both individual and group settings. If you slip up and use the wrong name or pronoun, acknowledge it promptly and succinctly, then move on. If you work with a staff, make sure that all staff members are addressing the patient or client appropriately as well. Including fields asking for “preferred name” and “pronoun” on your intake or registration forms will send a clear (and very relieving!) signal to potential clients.

4. Don’t let curiosity get the best of you

I can tell you from personal experience that gender variant people are constantly asked about our gender identities. Regardless of the context or topic of discussion, we are expected to be willing and able to explain our innermost sense of self (or defend our right to exist!) at all times. This is stressful! While your curiosity may stem from a desire to better understand your client’s gender experience, and you should be open to hearing about their experience, focus on the pertinent issues at hand. Maintain your professional integrity and ask only what you need to know in order to provide excellent care.

5. Address issues proactively, especially in group settings

If you see clients in a group setting, consider a handout or brief talk at the beginning of each class (regardless of who is in attendance) affirming that there are many different types of families and that intolerance will not be allowed. Name behavior firmly but gracefully when someone acts inappropriately, and follow up with them individually outside of the class setting. Do not place the burden on your gender variant clients to defend themselves – instead, show them that you are a dependable professional who has their back and is willing to help other clients grow and become more accepting.

Thank you so much for your commitment to serving gender varient people!

Creating a class or practice that is welcoming to all families can involve sharing stories of all different families.  Choosing your media, handouts, posters and class material that includes all the different ways that families can look is important.  Please share your favorite resources for these types of supplies.  There is not a lot to choose from and we can all benefit from sharing information.  What do you do (or what have you done) to welcome gender variant families into your classes and practices?  Please share your experiences in the comments section.- Sharon Muza

Resources

Resources on this issue are few and far between, unfortunately, but here are some good places to start:

Basic vocabulary and introduction to the issue of gender variance: http://srlp.org/trans-101

2010 healthcare discriminatory survey: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/resources_and_tools/ntds_report_on_health.pdf

Blog by a transgender dad who breastfeeds his son – lots of good information as well as personal reflections: http://www.milkjunkies.net/

Resources for gender variant parents – includes legal resources and family support resources: http://www.transparentcy.org/Resources.htm

Gender and the Childbirth Professional Facebook group – connect with other providers who work with gender variant clients, ask questions, post resources, etc.: https://www.facebook.com/groups/265359336861854/?fref=ts

My personal blog – occasional updates on midwifery, sexual health, and what’s it’s like to be a gender variant midwife: www.boimidwife.wordpress.com

It’s My Body, My Baby. My Birth – DVD for use in class that shows 7 natural births and interviews the couples.  One couple is gender variant.  http://www.itsmybodymybabymybirth.com/Home.html

Additionally, the ACNM Position Statement contains additional resources on this topic.

Thank you so much for your commitment to serving gender varient people!

 About Simon Adriane Ellis

Simon Adriane Ellis is a Certified Nurse Midwife, trained doula, and queer and gender variant person. He has a long history of social justice organizing around issues of racial and economic justice and LGBTQ rights, and brings these values to his work as a midwife. His practice is focused on providing empowering sexual and reproductive health services across the lifespan for people of all gender identities. He is currently working to publish his original qualitative research on the conception, pregnancy, and birth experiences of gender variant gestational parents. He hopes that this work will provide a broad call to challenge conventional assumptions about what pregnancy looks and feels like for all of our clients, regardless of gender identity. Simon can be reached through his midwifery practice, Essential Healthcare + Midwifery Services.

Sharon Muza Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Legal Issues, Midwifery, Series: Welcoming All Families ACNM, ACNM Position Statement, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Childbirth Education, Gender Variant, Midwifery Care, midwives, Sharon Muza, Simon Adriane Ellis, Transgendered, welcoming all families