24h-payday

Archive

Archive for January, 2013

Consider the Source: An Interview with Cara Osborne, SD, MSN, CNM, co-author of The National Birth Center Study II

January 31st, 2013 by avatar

http://flic.kr/p/v7Wse

The Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health has just published the results of the National Birth Center Study II. As the name suggests, this is the second time researchers have undertaken a multi-site study of U.S. birth centers to understand the process and outcomes of care in these settings. The first appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and concluded that “birth centers offer a safe and acceptable alternative to hospital confinement for selected pregnant women, particularly those who have previously had children, and that such care leads to relatively few cesarean sections.”

The current study describes birth centers as a “durable model” of care because, again, outcomes were excellent. 

Here are the key findings of the National Birth Center Study II:

  • Of more than 15,000 women eligible for birth center care when labor started, 93% had spontaneous vaginal births, and 6% had cesareans.
  • 16% of women transferred during labor, and approximately 2.5% of mothers or newborns required transfer to the hospital after birth. Emergent transfer before or after birth was required for 1.9% of women in labor or for their newborns. Most women who transferred in labor had vaginal births.
  • There were no maternal deaths. The intrapartum stillbirth rate was 0.47/1000, and the neonatal mortality rate was 0.40/1000 excluding anomalies.

I had an opportunity to interview one of the study authors, Cara Osborne, SD, MSN, CNM. Dr. Osborne is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Nursing, a perinatal epidemiologist, and co-founder of Maternity Centers of America. I asked her what the study findings mean for women and families and what it will take to scale up the birth center model and expand access.

AR: Thanks for participating in this interview. First and foremost, what should expectant parents know about this study?

CO: The take away messages from this study for expectant parents are that birth center care is safe and minimizes the likelihood that their baby will need to be born by cesarean, and that if hospital care becomes necessary, that transfer is very unlikely (1.9%) to be an emergency.

(Rebecca Dekker, PhD, RN, APRN of Evidence Based Birth has prepared an excellent summary that appears at the American Association of Birth Centers web site with more about the study findings and their implications for women and families.)

The study is based on the AABC Uniform Data Set. What are the strengths and limitations of the UDS? 

CO: The UDS data were collected prospectively, which means women were enrolled in the study before the outcome of the pregnancy was known. This is an important strength because it means that the ultimate outcome could not bias the data that were collected during the pregnancy. Also, the UDS is used across dozens of birth centers, so it also enables us to get much more data than would be possible from a single birth center site.

Cara Osborne, SD, MSN, CNM

A primary limitation is that the UDS does not capture information that describes the family’s experience of birth center care, which makes correlating the clinical findings with experiential information impossible. Also, the UDS isn’t used by physicians practicing in hospitals, so we could not compare our findings to typical hospital-based care.

AR: The first National Birth Center Study reported outcomes of births from 1985 to 1987. Even though this study took place two decades later, the results are strikingly similar. If we’ve known for decades that birth centers are safe and effective, and they provide high quality care without costly hospital overhead, why isn’t there one in every community?

CO: You’re right, the results were very similar. For example the c-section rate in birth centers remained stable, going from 4% in the first study to 6% in the current study, while the national c-section rate during the same period has increased dramatically from 18% to 33%. We’ve known all along that greater use of birth centers could curb or reverse this trend, but there are several obstacles that have prevented a broad expansion of the model. They fall into three categories: systems obstacles, business obstacles, and professional obstacles.

Systems obstacles:

  • Hospitals have been predominant place of birth in the U.S. for so long that associated processes such as payment by commercial insurers and state Medicaid, the filing of birth certificates, and administration of state required newborn screening tests have all been developed based on hospital timelines and protocols. Therefore, changing the place of birth requires changes in all the associated systems as well, which can be difficult.

Business obstacles:

  • The skill set that it takes to be a good care provider and the skill set that it takes to start and run an efficient business have very little overlap, and it’s the rare provider that has both.
  • It takes a considerable capital investment to get a birth center up and running, and that’s not something most providers can access.
  • Equitable reimbursement for provider fees to midwives and facility fees to birth centers from commercial insurers and state Medicaid plans has not been available in most areas of the U.S., so the return on investment has been low.

Professional obstacles: 

  • Many physicians have opposed the independent practice of midwives while also refusing to enter in to collaborative practice agreements, which are required for midwives to provide intrapartum care in many states.
  • Birth center regulations in many states require that a physician be the medical director of the center, and recruiting physicians to fill this role can be difficult.
  • Hospitals have seen birth centers as competition and thus have not offered access to referral and transport.

AR: You are part of an effort to change things so that we do one day have a birth center in every community. Can you tell us about that effort, and why you think you will succeed?

CO: My co-founder Shannon Bedore and I formed Maternity Centers of America (MCA) in order to create a vehicle for addressing the barriers described above. As you pointed out, birth centers are a good thing and there should be more, so we built MCA to bring together professionals from a variety of backgrounds including business, real estate, construction, and health policy to look at the big picture of how maternity care works and find new ways to make birth centers a part of the healthcare system. If our efforts are successful, I believe that this broad range of perspectives will be the reason.

Credit: Center for Birth http://centerforbirth.com

As our first step, we established a demonstration site in northwest Arkansas which will allow us to try new management strategies and find ways to leverage technology while staying true to the birth center model of care. From this flagship site, we hope to develop a replicable, scalable model for the development of birth centers around the U.S. This is not a new idea, nor one that only we are working to implement. Our colleagues at New Birth Company in Kansas City and at the Minnesota Birth Center in Minneapolis are also building replicable birth center models. Each of us has a slightly different approach, and all of us need to succeed in order to or build enough scale to have measureable impact on national outcomes.

AR: The American Association of Birth Centers and the American College of Nurse-Midwives are hosting a congressional briefing next month in Washington to share the study results. Why does this study matter to policy makers?

CO: This study is of particular interest to policy makers because of both its content and its timing. Maternity care makes up the largest proportion of the national hospital bill from a single condition, and a large proportion (45%) of that is paid by government programs. A recent report from the consumer advocacy organization Childbirth Connection entitled The Cost of Having a Baby in the United States highlights the striking cost of U.S. maternity care and its inverse relationship with clinical outcomes. The report showed that almost two-thirds (59-66% depending on payer and type of birth) of the total costs of maternity care went to cover facility fees charged by hospitals. Birth centers charge facility fees too, but they are a fraction of the typical hospital fee. In addition, c-sections cost commercial payers $19,000 more than vaginal births, and they cost Medicaid programs $9,500 more than vaginal births. Multiplied by the estimated number of excess cesareans in the United States, this means about $5 billion dollars could be saved each year by improving our ability to safely get babies born vaginally.

The low value of maternity care is coming into sharper focus for policy makers at the moment due to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which adds maternity care to the list of essential health benefits and increases the number of pregnancies that will be covered by the government through the expansion of state Medicaid programs. As policymakers attempt to realign costs and outcomes, they are looking for strategies that address the “triple aim” of healthcare championed by Don Berwick and his colleagues: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care. Birth centers are a viable, evidenced-based option for meeting all three aims, which is rare, particularly in maternity care. 

Are you surprised by the results of this new study?  Will  you share this information with your clients and students?  Do you think this study will have an impact on the choices that women make about their birth location? Do you believe that more birth centers can help solve many of the problems facing birthing women and maternity care today? Share your thoughts in our comment section. I’d like to hear from you.- Sharon Muza, Community Manager.

Cesarean Birth, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthcare Reform, Home Birth, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Can We Prevent Persistent Occiput Posterior Babies?

January 29th, 2013 by avatar

Today, regular contributor Henci Goer, co-author of the recent book, Optimal Care in Childbirth; The Case for a Physiologic Approach, discusses a just published study on resolving the OP baby during labor through maternal positioning.  Does it matter what position the mother is in?  Can we do anything to help get that baby to turn?  Henci lets us know what the research says in today’s post. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager

_________________________

In OP position, the back (occiput) of the fetal head is towards the woman’s back (posterior). Sometimes called “sunny side up,” there is nothing sunny about it. Because the deflexed head presents a wider diameter to the cervix and pelvic opening, progress in dilation and descent tends to be slow with an OP baby, and if OP persists, it greatly increases the likelihood of cesarean or vaginal instrumental delivery and therefore all the ills that follow in their wake.

Does maternal positioning in labor prevent persistent OP?

This month, a study titled “Is maternal posturing during labor efficient in preventing persistent occiput posterior position? A randomized control trial” reported on the use of maternal positioning in labor to rotate OP babies to occiput anterior (OA). Investigators randomly allocated 220 laboring women with OP babies either to assume positions designed to facilitate rotation or to recline on their backs. The positions were devised based on computer modeling of the mechanics of the woman’s pelvis and fetal head according to degree of fetal descent. The position prescribed for station -5 to -3, i.e., 3-5 cm above the ischial spines, a pelvic landmark, had the woman on her knees supporting her head and chest on a yoga ball. At station -2 to 0, i.e., 2 cm above to the level of the ischial spines, she lay on her side on the same side as the fetal spine with the underneath leg bent, and at station > 0, i.e., below the ischial spines, she lay on her side on the same side as the fetal spine with the upper leg bent at a 90 degree angle and supported in an elevated position.

http://flic.kr/p/9Rs7mL

 

The good news is that regardless of group assignment, and despite virtually all women having an epidural (94-96%), 76-78% of the babies eventually rotated to OA. The bad news is that regardless of group assignment, 22-24% of the babies didn’t. As one would predict, 94-97% of women whose babies rotated to OA had spontaneous vaginal births compared with 3-6% of women with persistent OP babies. Because positioning failed to help, investigators concluded: “We believe that no posture should be imposed on women with OP position during labor” (p. e8). 

Leaving aside the connotations of “imposed,” does this disappointing result mean that maternal positioning in labor to correct OP should be abandoned? Maybe not.

Of the 15 women with the fetal head high enough to begin with position 1, no woman used all 3 positions because 100% of them rotated to OA before fetal descent dictated use of position 3. I calculated what percentage of women who began with position 2 or 3, in other words fetal head at -2 station or lower, achieved an OA baby and found it to be 75%—the same percentage as when nothing was done. What could explain this? One explanation is that a position with belly suspended is more efficacious regardless of fetal station, another is that positioning is more likely to succeed before the head engages in the pelvis, and, of course, it may be a combination of both.

Common sense suggests that the baby is better able to maneuver before the head engages in the pelvis. If so, it seem likely that rupturing membranes would contribute to persistent OP by depriving the fetus of the cushion of forewaters and dropping the head into the pelvis prematurely. Research backs this up. A literature search revealed a study, “Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: A retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001“ finding that artificially ruptured membranes was an independent risk factor for persistent OP. Returning to the trial, all women had ruptured membranes because it was an inclusion factor. One wonders how much better maternal positioning might have worked had this not been the case, and an earlier trial offers a possible answer.

In the earlier trial, “Randomized control trial of hands-and-knees position for occipitoposterior position in labor,” half the women had intact membranes. Women in the intervention group assumed hands-and-knees for at least 30 minutes during an hour-long period while the control group could labor in any position other than one with a dependent belly. Twelve more women per 100 had an OA baby at delivery, a much bigger difference than the later trial. Before we get too excited, though, the difference did not achieve statistical significance, meaning results could have been due to chance. Still, this may have been because the population was too small (70 intervention-group women vs. 77 control-group women) to reliably detect a difference, but the trial has a bigger problem: fetal head position at delivery wasn’t recorded in 14% of the intervention group and 19% of the control group, which means we don’t know the real proportions of OA to OP between groups.

Take home: It looks like rupturing membranes may predispose to persistent OP and should be avoided for that reason. The jury is still out on whether a posture that suspends the belly is effective, but it is worth trying in any labor that is progressing slowly because it may help and doesn’t hurt.

Does maternal positioning in pregnancy prevent OP labors?

Some have proposed that by avoiding certain postures in late pregnancy, doing certain exercises, or both, women can shift the baby into an OA position and thereby avoid the difficulties of labor with an OP baby. A “randomized controlled trial of effect of hands and knees posturing on incidence of occiput posterior position at birth (2547 women) has tested that theory. Beginning in week 37, women in the intervention group were asked to assume hands-and-knees and do slow pelvic rocking for 10 minutes twice daily while women in the control group were asked to walk daily. Compliance was assessed through keeping a log. Identical percentages (8%) of the groups had an OP baby at delivery.

Why didn’t this work? The efficacy of positioning and exercise in pregnancy is predicated on the assumption that if the baby is OA at labor onset, it will stay that way. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. A  study, “Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural anesthesia,” examined the effect of epidural analgesia on persistent OP by performing sonograms on 1562 women at hospital admission, within an hour after epidural administration (or four hours after admission if no epidural had been administered), and after 8 cm dilation. A byproduct was the discovery that babies who were OA at admission rotated to OP as well as vice versa.

Take home: Prenatal positioning and exercises aimed at preventing OP in labor don’t work. Women should not be advised to do them because they may wrongly blame themselves for not practicing or not practicing enough should they end up with a difficult labor or an operative delivery due to persistent OP.

Do we have anything else?

Larry P Howell aafp.org/afp/2007/0601/p1671.html

We do have one ray of sunshine in the midst of this gloom. Three studies of manual rotation (near or after full dilation, the midwife or doctor uses fingers or a hand to turn the fetus to anterior) report high success rates and concomitant major reductions in cesarean rates, if not much effect on instrumental vaginal delivery rates. One study, “Manual rotation in occiput posterior or transverse positions: risk factors and consequences on the cesarean delivery rate,” comparing successful conversion to OA with failures reported an overall institutional success rate of 90% among 796 women. A “before and after” study, “Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section,” reported that before introducing the technique, among 30 women with an OP baby in second stage, 85% of the babies were still OP at delivery compared with 6% of 31 women treated with manual rotation. The cesarean rate was 23% in the “before” group versus 0% in the “after” group. The third study, “Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position,” compared 731 women having manual rotation of an OP baby in second stage with 2527 women having expectant management. The success rate of manual rotation was 74% and the overall cesarean rate in treated women was 9% versus 42% in the expectantly managed group.

Manual rotation is confirmed as effective, but is it safe? This last study reported similar rates of acidemia and delivery injury in newborns. As for their mothers, investigators calculated that four manual rotations would prevent one cesarean. The study also found fewer anal sphincter injuries and cases of chorioamnionitis. The only disadvantage was that one more woman per hundred having manual rotation would have a cervical laceration.Take home: Birth attendants should be trained in performing manual rotation, and it should be routine practice in women reaching full dilation with an OP baby.

What has been your experience with the OP baby?  Is what you are teaching and telling mothers in line with the current research?  Will you change what you say now that you have this update?  Share your thoughts in the comment section. – SM

References and resources

Cheng, Y. W., Cheng, Y. W., Shaffer, B. L., & Caughey, A. B. (2006). Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: a retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine19(9), 563-568.

Desbriere R, Blanc J, Le Dû R, et al. Is maternal posturing during labor efficient in preventing persistent occiput posterior position? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:60.e1-8. PII: S0002-9378(12)02029-7 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.882

Kariminia, A., Chamberlain, M. E., Keogh, J., & Shea, A. (2004). Randomised controlled trial of effect of hands and knees posturing on incidence of occiput posterior position at birth. bmj328(7438), 490.

Le Ray, C., Serres, P., Schmitz, T., Cabrol, D., & Goffinet, F. (2007). Manual rotation in occiput posterior or transverse positions: risk factors and consequences on the cesarean delivery rate. Obstetrics & Gynecology110(4), 873-879.

Lieberman, E., Davidson, K., Lee-Parritz, A., & Shearer, E. (2005). Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia.Obstetrics & Gynecology105(5, Part 1), 974-982.

Reichman, O., Gdansky, E., Latinsky, B., Labi, S., & Samueloff, A. (2008). Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology136(1), 25-28.

Shaffer, B. L., Cheng, Y. W., Vargas, J. E., & Caughey, A. B. (2011). Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine24(1), 65-72.

Simkin, P. (2010). The fetal occiput posterior position: state of the science and a new perspective. Birth37(1), 61-71.

Stremler, R., Hodnett, E., Petryshen, P., Stevens, B., Weston, J., & Willan, A. R. (2005). Randomized Controlled Trial of Hands‐and‐Knees Positioning for Occipitoposterior Position in Labor. Birth32(4), 243-251.

Recommended resource: The fetal occiput posterior position: state of the science and a new perspective http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=simkin%202010%20posterior by Penny Simkin.


 

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Epidural Analgesia, Guest Posts, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Research , , , , , , , ,

Series: Welcoming All Families; Working with Gender Variant (Transgendered) Families

January 24th, 2013 by avatar

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. 

http://flic.kr/p/5vHahr

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.

Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Legal Issues, Midwifery, Series: Welcoming All Families , , , , , , , , , ,

Maternity Support Survey – Critical Research on Under-Studied Maternity Roles

January 22nd, 2013 by avatar

 

photo:Dawn Thompson, improvingbirth.org

I’d like to draw your attention to a very important study that is currently looking for participants – The Maternity Support Survey. This comprehensive study is the first to compare doulas, childbirth educators, and labor and delivery nurses, working in the United States and Canada, in terms of their approach to maternal support and care. The survey explores these individuals’ knowledge and attitudes toward current childbirth practices, technologies and support.  Now is your opportunity to share how you view your responsibilities.  This research team wants to hear from you!

The team behind the research has been working for over two years via conference calls to develop the survey and methodology.   The research team consists of Louise M. Roth, PhD, (Principal Investigator), Christine Morton, PhD (Co-PI and regular contributor to this blog), Marla Marek, RNC, BSN, MSN, PhD(c), Megan Henley, Nicole Heidbreder BSN, MA, Miriam Sessions, Jennifer Torres, and Katie Pine, PhD.  They are sociologists and nurses, working in California, Arizona, Washington DC, Michigan, and Wyoming.  To raise funds for the project, they launched an Indiegogo campaign and have been featured on the Every Mother Counts blog.  The Maternity Support Survey has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Arizona, and Louise M. Roth, PhD, is the Principal Investigator of the study.

I’m sure the readers of this blog are aware that research has shown that support during labor and delivery has a significant impact on method of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and rates of postpartum depression. Yet existing research in maternity care has largely focused on how mothers and families view their care or on the perspectives of midwives and obstetricians, with less attention to the views of individuals who provide support to women during pregnancy and birth. The Maternity Support Survey is addressing this need.

Topics that the survey investigates include: whether doulas and childbirth educators view their maternity support work as a career, how doulas and childbirth educators establish their expertise, how technology affects workload among labor and delivery nurses, how maternity support workers are affected by managed care and litigation concerns, and emotional burnout among maternity support workers.

The Maternity Support Survey has partnered with Lamaze International and the following organizations in the recruitment of participants: Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN); Birthing from Within; International Childbirth Education Association (ICEA); BirthWorks; DONA International; toLABOR (formerly ALACE); and CAPPACanada.  These organizations felt that this research was important enough to reach out to their collective members with a request for participation.

The survey launched in November 2012 – the organizations above sent emails to their members, along with monthly reminders.  By early mid January 2013, the survey had logged 1500 responses, with relatively equal numbers of each group responding.  Then, the research team decided to extend the reach of the survey to those doulas, CBEs and L&D nurses BEYOND the membership organizations.  A viral social media blitz ensued, with positive results.  Within a week, the survey logged an additional 600 responses.  As of January 21, 2013, the survey has been completed by just over 2100 respondents.  Doulas now comprise about 44%, with L&D nurses at 35% and CBEs at 33% of the total respondents.  The survey will be open through mid-March, so there is still time to share widely among your networks.  Data cleaning will happen in April, and analysis will begin in May 2013.  The researchers plan to disseminate their findings at conferences and publish in journals of interest to these occupational groups as well as in sociology and other fields.

Those of you who are members of these organizations may have already received an email with a link to the survey (and hopefully have already completed it). However, if you are not a member of one of these national organizations OR have NOT received an email from your organization inviting you to take the survey, here’s how you can share your views:

The survey is available online for US residents here.

The survey is available online for Canadian residents here.

The survey takes approximately 30 minutes to complete, and participation is entirely voluntary. The research team will NOT have any way of personally identifying you or your responses, and will not contact you for any purposes unrelated to this survey or give your information to any commercial organizations. For questions or feedback, please contact Louise M. Roth, PhD.

 

Childbirth Education, Lamaze International, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Patient Advocacy, Research, Research Opportunities , , , , , , ,

Maternity Care On the National Agenda – New Opportunities for Educators and Advocates

January 17th, 2013 by avatar

Today, Amy Romano, CNM, MSN, Associate Director of Programs for Childbirth Connection (and former Community Manager for this blog) follows up last Thursday’s post, Have You Made the Connection with Childbirth Connection? Three Reports You Don’t Want to Miss with her professional suggestions for educators and advocates to consider using the data and information contained in these reports and offering your students, clients and patients the consumer materials that accompany them.- Sharon Muza, Community Manager.

_________________

As we begin 2013, it is clear from my vantage point at the Transforming Maternity Care Partnership that the transformation is underway. In Childbirth Connection’s nearly century-long history, we’ve never seen so much political will from leaders, so much passion from grassroots advocates, and so much collaboration among clinicians and other stakeholders. This new landscape presents many new opportunities for educators and advocates.

One area of maternity care that has garnered increasing attention is the overuse of cesarean section, especially in low-risk women. Last year, the multi-stakeholder Maternity Action Team at the National Priorities Partnership set goals for the U.S. health care system and identified promising strategies to reach these goals. One of the goals was to reduce the cesarean section rate in low-risk women to 15% or less. This work served as the impetus for Childbirth Connection to revisit and update our Cesarean Alert Initiative. We undertook a best evidence review to compare outcomes of cesarean delivery with those of vaginal birth. Based on the results, we also updated and redesigned our consumer booklet, What Every Pregnant Woman Needs to Know About Cesarean Section. These are powerful new tools to help educators and advocates push for safer care, support shared decision making, and inform and empower women.

Two of the biggest obstacles to change have been persistent liability concerns and the current payment system that rewards care that is fragmented and procedure-intensive. Efforts to make maternity care more evidence-based or woman-centered often run up against policies and attitudes rooted in fear of lawsuits or increasing malpractice premiums, or against the reality that clinicians can not get easily reimbursed for doing the right thing. But these barriers are shifting, 

Recently the literature has provided example after example of programs that reduced harm and saw rapid and dramatic drops in liability costs as a result. That’s right – one of the best ways to decrease liability costs is to provide safer care. Rigorous quality and safety programs are the most effective prevention strategy among the ten substantive solutions identified in Childbirth Connections new report, Maternity Care and Liability. The report pulls together the best available evidence and holds potential liability solutions up to a framework that addresses the diverse aims of a high-functioning liability system that serves childbearing women and newborns, maternity care clinicians, and payers.  

The evidence and analysis show that some of the most widely advocated reforms do not stand up to the framework, while quality improvement programs, shared decision making, and medication safety programs, among other interventions, all have potential to be win-win-win solutions for women and newborns, clinicians, and payers. If we are to find our way out of the intractable situation where liability concerns block progress, we must learn to effectively advocate for such win-win-win solutions.  Advocates and educators can better understand these solutions by accessing the 10 fact sheets and other related resources on our Maternity Care and Liability page.

Evidence also shows that improving the quality of care reduces costs to payers. As payment reforms roll out, there will be many more opportunities to realize these cost savings. To predict potential cost savings, however, it is necessary to know how much payers are currently paying for maternity care. Surprising, this information has been largely unavailable, and as a result we have had to settle for using facility charges as a proxy. This is a poor proxy because payers negotiate large discounts, and because charges data do not capture professional fees, lab and ultrasound costs, and other services. Childbirth Connection, along with our partners at Catalyst for Payment Reform and the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, recently commissioned the most comprehensive available analysis of maternity care costs. The report, The Cost of Having a Baby in the United States shows wide variation across states, high costs for cesarean deliveries, and rapid growth in costs in the last decade. It also shows the sky-high costs uninsured women must pay – costs that can easily bankrupt a growing family. Even insured women face significant out-of-pocket costs that have increased nearly four-fold over six years. Fortunately, health care reform legislation has made out-of-pocket costs for maternity care more transparent by requiring a simple cost sample to each person choosing an individual or employer-sponsored health plan.

Educators and advocates have to be able to help women be savvy consumers of health care. That means being informed about their options and also being able to identify and work around barriers to high quality, safe, affordable care. Childbirth Connection produced this trio of reports to provide a well of data and analysis to help all stakeholders work toward a high-quality, high-value maternity care system.

How Childbirth Educators and Consumer Advocates Can Help

 What is the first thing that you are going to do to join this maternity care transformation? Can you share your ideas for using this information in your classroom or with clients or patients.  Can you bring others on board to help with this much needed transformation?- SM

Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthcare Reform, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Patient Advocacy, Research, Research for Advocacy, Transforming Maternity Care , , , , , , , , , ,