24h-payday

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Home Birth’

Finding Common Ground: The Home Birth Consensus Summit

April 15th, 2014 by avatar
© HBCS

© HBCS

While home birth has a proven safety record in countries outside the U.S., some attribute that to the fact that, in other countries, home birth takes place in the context of an integrated health care system. It is critical that all of the stakeholders in the maternal health care system are working together to ensure safe birth options in the U.S. as well.

The Home Birth Consensus Summit (HBCS) is a unique collaboration of all of the stakeholders currently involved in home birth in the United States. First held in 2011, the Home Birth Consensus Summit offers physicians, midwives, consumers, administrators and policy makers; (a varied group of representatives who do not often share common ground,) a chance to take a 360 degree look at the current maternal health care system and tease out the areas of conflict and common ground in order to increase safety in all birth settings.

Today on Science & Sensibility, our readers learn about the Home Birth Consensus Summit; its participants, purpose and process. Thursday, we will have the opportunity to review one of the groundbreaking products from the past two summits, when the HBCS releases the “Best Practice Guidelines: Transfer from Home Birth to Hospital” for consideration and adoption by maternal health organizations. Learn more about the HBCS from Summit Delegate Jeanette McCulloch as she interviews Saraswathi Vedam, RM FACNM MSN Sci D(hc), Home Birth Consensus Summit convener and chair. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

Jeanette McCulloch: What was the motivation behind launching the Home Birth Consensus Summit?

Saraswathi Vedam: Women want – and deserve – respectful, high quality maternity care regardless of their planned place of birth. Women and their families are not served by the interprofessional conflict and confusion that occurs in many regions in the US around place of birth.

While there may be points of disagreement, I know from numerous conversations with consumers, midwives, physicians, administrators, and policy makers that there are many more areas in maternity care where we all share a common set of principles and goals. Everyone is committed to working towards improved quality and safety for women and infants.

In 2011, a very intentionally selected group of stakeholders came together for the first Summit at the Airlie Center, in Warrenton, VA. These individuals represented all key leaders of the maternity care team, researchers, policy makers, payors, consumers, and consumer advocates. They came to the Summit with a wide variety of perspectives – including those for and against planned home birth. At the Summit, these delegates engaged in a unique process designed to help those with opposing viewpoints untangle complex issues. This process, called Future Search, guided the group through a complete exploration of every aspect of the maternal health care system. There were frank, challenging, and productive conversations, often among stakeholders who rarely, if ever, had been at the same table before. Once we were able to discover common ground, we were able to create a realistic and achievable strategic action plan together.

JM: Tell us about what common ground the Home Birth Consensus Summit has found so far.

SV:  As the delegates discussed their shared responsibilities and vision for providing the best possible care, we realized that the vision applied to all birth settings. The nine common ground statements describe a maternity care environment that respects the woman’s autonomy, ensuring she has safe access to qualified providers in all settings, and that the whole team that may care for her are well prepared with the clinical skills and knowledge that best applies to her specific situation. This will require attention to equity, cross-professional education, and research that includes the woman in defining the elements of “safety” and accurately describes the effects of birth place, or different models of care, on outcomes. The delegates shared a goal of increasing knowledge and access to physiologic birth, access to professional education and systems for quality monitoring for all types of midwives, from all communities; and reduction in barriers like cost and liability. Coming to this place of understanding and agreement, though, was only the beginning. Each of those action statements had to be turned into a concrete action plan that all of the stakeholders collaborated on developing.

© HBCS

© HBCS

JM: What is happening with the common ground statements now?

SV: Multi-disciplinary work groups have formed around each common ground statement. In 2013, the work groups came together for the second summit, again at the Airlie Center, to discuss progress made so far and tackle challenges.

Coming to this place of understanding and agreement, though, was only the beginning. The common ground statements are also encouraging a dialogue outside of our action groups that we could have never predicted. For example, the statements were read into the congressional record by Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, who said that the publication of the Home Birth Consensus document was “of critical importance to all current and future childbearing families in this country.” In the following year, several of the Summit delegates were invited panelists and presenters at an Institute of Medicine Workshop on Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings.

JM: What are some of the top outcomes of the work groups?

SV: One exciting outcome – a set of Best Practice Guidelines to provide optimal care for mothers and families transferring from home to hospital – will be released by the Home Birth Consensus Summit later this week. This project represents what the Summits are all about: bringing together stakeholders to look at every facet of an issue, and work together on concrete initiatives to improve outcomes. These guidelines are based on the best available research on effective interprofessional collaboration. Delegates who are leading midwives, physicians, nurses, policy makers and consumers from across the U.S. formed the Collaboration Task Force. They met regularly over eight months on weekends and after hours to research and carefully design a concrete evidence-based tool to improve quality and safety for women and increase respectful communication among providers. Easing the friction that can sometimes occur when families arrive at the hospital can not only increase safety for families, but also build trust and collaboration between providers.

© HBCS

© HBCS

Another group is collaborating to develop a Best Practice Regulation and Licensure Toolkit – a resource for state policy makers that will provide a best practice model of midwifery regulation to be used as a template to enact or improve licensure in a particular state.

Another important outcome is a study of midwives and mothers of color to better understand social and health care inequities that lead to higher incidence of prematurity and low birth weight.

JM: What comes next for the Summit?

SV: The action groups are continuing their work on initiatives in each of the common ground areas. At Summit III, scheduled for Fall 2014 in Seattle, WA, each action work group will share the products of their collaborations, and address some remaining priorities. These include research and data collection, ethics, and access to equitable care during pregnancy. We plan to expand the participants to include more leaders from policy and practice to disseminate the documents and engage more in this exciting work.

I have been working towards ensuring equitable birth options for women and their families for nearly 30 years. My goal for the Summits is to increase the probability that my four daughters – and everyone’s daughters, wives, and sisters – will experience high quality, respectful maternity care.

What are your thoughts on the Home Birth Consensus Summits and this collaborative model?  How do you see this further maternal infant health and safety.  What would you like to see discussed by the stakeholders at Summit III in Seattle this fall?  Let us know in the comments and join us on Thursday to learn more about the details of the soon to be released “Best Practice Guidelines: Transfer from Home Birth to Hospital.”

Bios:

© Saraswathi Vedam

© Saraswathi Vedam

Saraswathi Vedam, RM FACNM MSN Sci D(hc), is the convener and chair of the Home Birth Consensus Summit. She has been active in setting national and international policy on home birth and midwifery education and regulation, providing expert consultations in Mexico, Hungary, Chile, China, Canada, and the United States. She serves as Senior Advisor to the MANA Division of Research, Chair of the ACNM Transfer Task Force, and Executive Board Member, Canadian Association of Midwifery Educators. Over the past 28 years she has cared for families in all birth settings. Professor Vedam’s scholarly work includes critical appraisal of the literature on planned home birth, and development of the first US registry of home birth perinatal data. Contact Saraswathi Vedam.

© Jeanette McCulloch

© Jeanette McCulloch

Jeanette McCulloch, IBCLC, is the co-founder of BirthSwell an organization improving infant and maternal health by changing the way we talk about birth and breastfeeding. She has been using strategic communications and messaging to change policy, spread new ideas, and build thriving businesses for more than 20 years. Jeanette is honored to be working with local, national, and international birth and breastfeeding organizations (including the Home Birth Consensus Summit) and advocates ensuring that women have access to high-quality care and information.

Babies, Healthcare Reform, Home Birth, Legal Issues, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Newborns, Practice Guidelines, Uncategorized , , , , ,

Home Birth After Hospital Birth: Women’s Choices and Reflections – A Research Review by Jessica English

April 3rd, 2014 by avatar

By Jessica English, LCCE, FACCE, CD(DONA), BDT(DONA)

Today’s research examines the factors that influenced women who chose home birth for the subsequent child, after their previous child was born in a hospital.  Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educator Jessica English, along with midwifery colleagues just published “Home Birth After Hospital Birth: Women’s Choices and Reflections” in the Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health.  Jessica shares about the research, some of the findings and wraps up speaking about the role that childbirth educators can play in helping women to find satisfaction in their chosen birth location. Are you an LCCE and have published research?  Consider writing a review for S&S.  I would love to highlight our LCCEs.  - Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager.

As a childbirth educator and doula, I have been listening to women’s birth stories for many years. I’m honored that they trust me again and again with the details of their triumphs, frustrations, joys and sometimes outright trauma. When my agency, Birth Kalamazoo, organized a meeting in 2011 to discuss the midwifery model of care, I didn’t think much of it when the attendees introduced themselves and shared a few details about their births. After all, I knew most of them very well (having taught them or in some cases even attended their births), and I knew their stories.

But one of the midwives we’d invited to speak that day took special note of those stories. Ruth Zielinski, PhD, is a hospital-based nurse-midwife, university professor and researcher in my community. She noticed that a handful of the women who spoke mentioned that they had given birth to their first baby in the hospital, then chose home birth for later babies. She approached me after the meeting, curious about why the women might have chosen home birth after their hospital experiences. I shared my perceptions based on my experience listening to women. Intrigued, Ruth wondered if this was something we could research? Neither of us had ever seen academic research on the topic of women who chose home birth after a hospital experience. Soon enough, we had a four-woman research team in place: Ruth; myself; Kelly Ackerson, an academic colleague from Ruth’s department of nursing; and one of Ruth’s undergraduate students, an honors nursing student who was planning a career in midwifery.

Our first task was to identify the structure of the research process. How would we get the information we needed? We settled quickly on focus groups, and wrote a series of open-ended questions that we expected to elicit the participating women’s honest assessments of both their home and hospital experiences, as well as the reasons behind their decision to choose home birth. The next step was to recruit the participants. Through Birth Kalamazoo’s Facebook page, our e-newsletter and via local midwives, we invited women who fit our criteria to participate in a focus group. The primary requirement was that they needed to have had at least one hospital birth followed by at least one home birth within the past 10 years.

Five focus groups followed, each with four participants and two researchers (one who asked the questions and one who took field notes). The focus groups were transcribed verbatim by members of the research team. After each focus group, team members conferred to make sure that we were in agreement about the themes that were starting to emerge. After the fifth focus group, we agreed that no new themes were emerging and we had reached “saturation of the data.” Led by Ruth and her student Casey Bernhard, the research team identified five themes that summarized what the mothers had shared. A sixth focus group of women (one from each prior focus group) provided “member checking” – we shared the themes we’d identified and asked them to verify whether or not they were in keeping with what they had heard during the focus groups.

The resulting research, “Home Birth After Hospital Birth: Women’s Choices and Reflections,” is published in the current issue of the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health.

Some Key Findings: Women’s Choices and Reflections

To summarize, five recurring themes were identified from the women’s reflections on both their hospital and home births: choices and empowerment; intervention and interruptions; disrespect and dismissal; birth space; and connection.

Choices and empowerment. The women in our groups reported that with their hospital births they felt they did not actually have much choice in the direction of their care. Although a few women in the study had generally positive hospital experiences, most reported feelings of disempowerment and limited choices associated with their hospital birth and more meaningful choices and feelings of empowerment with their home births.

Interventions and interruptions. During their hospital births, women experienced significantly more interventions compared to their home births. Many of the women in our study perceived these interventions as unnecessary. They commented on timetables, hospital “agendas” and interruptions both during the birth and postpartum period for their hospital births.

Disrespect and dismissal. Many of the women in our study said they felt that their hospital-based providers tended to focus more on anatomical parts and the medical process of birth, rather than on them as whole people. With their home births, they reported a much more holistic model with great respect for their decisions.

Some women who wanted to continue care with both a home birth provider and a hospital-based provider (known as “dual” or “concurrent” care) were dismissed from their hospital-based practice when they revealed that they were planning a home birth.

Birth space. Universally, women reported feeling more comfortable laboring in their own homes, surrounded by only the people they chose to invite into that space. Several women mentioned the appeal of having their older children with them for the birth, or at least having that option.

Connection. When women in our study reported positive hospital births, they also spoke of their positive connections to their providers. For both home and hospital settings, women said that feeling a sense of trust and connection to their doctor or midwife was important and even helped them to feel more comfortable with the process of birth. That theme of connection extended to women’s reflections that during their home births they also generally felt more connected to their bodies, to their babies and to other family members.

Reflections and Implications for Childbirth Educators

As an experienced Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educator and doula, I wasn’t surprised by the findings of our research. The reflections of the women participating were very much in keeping with the stories I have heard for almost a decade from my students, clients and even random women (and men!) who want to share their experiences. It does help me, however, to see the themes identified so clearly. I can envision sharing this research with women who are choosing a home birth for a second, third or fourth baby after a prior hospital birth. It may be validating to them to see many of their own feelings and reflections mirrored in other women’s experiences.

When I think about limitations of this study, I think about the natural differences between first and subsequent births. First births are often longer and more complex, with second and later births often shorter and more straightforward. Could that have influenced women’s feelings of empowerment? As an educator and doula, I also have observed that, after their first baby, many women in general feel more assertive and empowered to take control of their choices for their later birth experiences, whatever the birth setting.

In fairness to the hospital environment, it’s also important to remember that our study was limited to women who felt compelled to make a change for subsequent births. Women who have had very positive, respectful, low-intervention hospital births often choose that same setting for future babies, and their voices were not represented in our focus groups.

Our research may also have been influenced by the specific birth culture in Southwest Michigan. For example, women in our area sometimes want to receive care from both a hospital-based provider and a home birth midwife, but they are typically discharged from their hospital-based practice if they reveal they are planning a home birth. I know this isn’t the case in all areas of the country, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s due in part to the lack of licensing for Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) in our state. Fellow LCCEs and doulas in states where CPMs are licensed have shared that women in their communities may have easier access to this kind of dual care. I think this issue merits further exploration, with research comparing the home birth experiences of women in various states where CPMs are licensed, unlicensed and specifically outlawed.

As I analyze our results with my childbirth educator hat on, I keep mulling the impact of feelings of safety and comfort on oxytocin. When women feel safe, nurtured, supported and comfortable, we know that the hormones of labor work more efficiently. Did the women in our study have more straightforward births at home in part because the environment allows their bodies to work optimally? I have given talks to labor and delivery nurses on ways they can boost oxytocin in the hospital environment, and as a doula trainer I also address this issue with new doulas. For many women, the home birth setting is inherently designed to maximize oxytocin.

The connection theme that arose in our study is also closely tied to oxytocin. In attending hospital births as a doula, I try to facilitate moments of connection between a woman and her care providers. Penny Simkin’s landmark research on women’s lasting birth memories also points to the importance of such relationships. (Simkin, 1991) Connection comes very naturally between a doula and her client, and often between a home birth midwife and a laboring woman as well. Those connections can be more difficult in a busy hospital environment where a woman is working with a nurse she has likely never met, and often with a provider who is one of many in a busy practice, and who may have several other patients in labor. Can we make more space within our medical system for nurture, if not for the emotional benefits then for the biological effect on the chemical balance in women’s bodies?

In addition to the connection challenges, the themes identified in our research also point to other weaknesses inherent in the medical model of birth. As an educator, I’m already thinking about how I can use these findings to help prepare families for more positive hospital-based experiences. How can they navigate the system to help prevent some of the pitfalls many of these women experienced during their hospital births? I believe so strongly that meaningful change in our system begins with families who speak up for what they need and want for their births. Childbirth educators are on the front lines to help educate families about what a positive, healthy birth experience can look like, and to prepare our students to advocate within the system they’ve chosen to support them.

As leaders in our birth communities, educators can also directly work for change by talking with nurses, midwives and physicians about what women are looking for in their births. Respectfully discussing both the points of dissatisfaction and satisfaction mentioned in this study can help reinforce positive behaviors and change those that may be detrimental to women and to birth. Many of the things women say they want for their births are strongly supported by quality scientific evidence. Take kangaroo care as an example. Ten years ago, a woman in our community might have said in this focus group that she wanted a home birth in part because her hospital providers refused to allow uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact for a few hours after the birth. Today, we have a hospital in our community that is a national leader in kangaroo care for all families and another that is trying to reach that benchmark.

Change is slow, but childbirth educators can help make it happen! Better birth is not just an issue of physical health and emotional well being, it is also financially beneficial to hospitals to flex to provide the compassionate, evidence-based care that will keep families within their system, coming back for subsequent births.

However, the intention of our research was not to dissuade women from home birth. For those who continue to choose that setting for later babies, it may be helpful for educators, doulas, midwives, physicians and others within the maternity care system to understand the factors that motivate them to make that informed choice for their families.

Would you share this research with your childbirth education students and expecting families?  How would you use it?  Do you think that the conclusions are valid?  Do you see things differently? Discuss with us in the comments section. – SM

References

Bernhard, C., Zielinski, R., Ackerson, K. and English, J. (2014), Home Birth After Hospital Birth: Women’s Choices and Reflections. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12113

Simkin, P. (1991). Just Another Day in a Woman’s Life? Women’s Long‐Term Perceptions of Their First Birth Experience. Part I. Birth, 18(4), 203-210.

About Jessica English

jessica english-bw head shotJessica English, LCCE, FACCE, CD(DONA), BDT(DONA) is a Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educator, birth doula and DONA-approved birth doula trainer. She is the owner of Birth Kalamazoo, which offers birth and postpartum doula services, natural childbirth and breastfeeding classes, birth photography, in-home lactation consulting and renewal groups for mothers. She is currently producing a short film about birth, due out in the fall.

Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Home Birth, Maternity Care, Midwifery, New Research, Research, Transforming Maternity Care , , , , , ,

Why Pediatricians Fear Waterbirth – Barbara Harper Reviews the Research on Waterbirth Safety

March 27th, 2014 by avatar

By Barbara Harper, RN, CLD, CCE, DEM, CKC, CCCE

On March 20th, 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice released a joint clinical report entitled Immersion in Water During Labor and Delivery in the journal Pediatrics.  While not substantially different than previous statements released by the AAP, quite a stir was created.  Today, Barbara Harper, RN, CLD, CCE, DEM, CKC, CCCE, of Waterbirth International provides a research summary that supports waterbirth as a safe and reasonable option for mothers and babies.  Barbara Harper has been researching and teaching about safe waterbirth protocols for several decades and is considered an expert on the practice.  I am glad Barbara was able to share her knowledge with Science & Sensibility readers all the way from China, where she just finished another waterbirth workshop for Chinese hospital programs. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

In a candle lit room in Santa Barbara, California, in October of 1984, my second baby came swimming out of me in a homemade tub at the foot of my bed.  As soon as he was on my chest, I turned to my midwife and exclaimed, “We have got to tell women how easy this is!”

Earlier that month I sat in my obstetrician’s office with my husband discussing our plans, which had changed from an unmedicated hospital birth to a home waterbirth.  The OB shook with anger and accused me of potential child abuse, stating that if I did anything so selfish, stupid and reprehensible he would have no choice but to report me to the Department of Child Welfare.  I never stepped foot in his office again, but I did call his office and share the news of my successful home waterbirth.

Before setting up my homemade 300 gallon tub, I had researched through medical libraries for any published data on waterbirth, but could not find a single article, until a librarian called me and said she was mailing an article that came in from a French medical journal.  The only problem was that it was quite old. It had been published in 1803!  The next article would not come out until 1983, the very year that I was searching.[i]

The objections to waterbirth have always come from pediatricians, some with vehement opinions similar to those expressed by my former obstetrician.  The current opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn is nothing new.  It was issued in 2005, restated in November 2012 and it is showing up again now.  There are many obstetricians and pediatricians who are perplexed and angered over the issuing of this statement.  Especially, doctors like Duncan Neilson of the Legacy Health Systems in Portland, Oregon. [ii]  Dr. Neilson is chair of the Perinatology Department and VP of both Women’s Services and Surgical Services at the Legacy Emanuel Hospital in downtown Portland.

In 2006, Dr. Neilson did an independent review of all the literature on waterbirth, including in obstetric, nursing, midwifery and pediatric journals. He concluded, “there is no credible evidence that waterbirth is a potential harm for either mothers or babies.” He reported that the majority of the waterbirth studies have been done and published in Europe with large numbers in retrospective analyses.[iii], [iv], [v], [vi] What has been published in the US is largely anecdotal and has involved very small numbers of case reports from home birth or birth center transfers into NICU. [vii], [viii], [ix] Dr. Neilson even pointed out that Jerold Lucy, M.D., the editor of the American Journal of Pediatrics put the following commentary in a sidebar in a 2002 issue of this respected research journal, “I’ve always considered underwater birth a bad joke, useless and a fad, which was so idiotic that it would go away. It hasn’t! It should!” [x]

The publication of such prejudicial statements makes it difficult for pediatricians to look at the European research without skepticism. Dr. Neilson concluded that American doctors were not getting the complete picture.  After this comprehensive review of waterbirth literature, Dr. Neilson believed that waterbirth is a safe birth option that provides other positive obstetric outcomes. He helped set up a Legacy research committee and the parameters for waterbirth selection were created, using current recommended selection criteria followed by other Portland hospitals offering waterbirth.

Upon Dr. Neilson’s recommendations, the entire Legacy system has adopted waterbirth. The most recent hospital to begin waterbirth was Good Samaritan in Portland, which conducted their first waterbirth in February of 2014.

Women seeking waterbirth and undisturbed birth have usually considered the consequences of interference with the birth process on the development, neurology and epigenetics of the baby.  The goal of the pediatrician and the goal of mothers who choose undisturbed birth is really exactly the same.  The use of warm water immersion aids and assists the mother in feeling calm, relaxed, nurtured, protected, and in control, with the ability to easily move as her body and her baby dictate.  From the mother’s perspective, using water becomes the best way to enhance the natural process without any evidence of increased risk.  A joint statement of the Royal College of Obstetricians, the Royal College of Midwives and the National Childbirth Trust in 2006 agreed.  They sat down together to explore what would increase the normalcy of birth without increasing risk and the very first agreement was that access to water for labor and birth would accomplish that task.[xi]

Framework for Maternity Services Protocol

The UK National Health Service and the National Childbirth Trusts formed a Framework for Maternity Services that includes the following statements:

  • Women have a choice of methods of pain relief during labour, including non pharmacological options.
  • All staff must have up-to-date skills and knowledge to support women who choose to labour without pharmacological intervention, including the use of birthing pools.
  • Wherever possible women should be allowed access to a birthing pool in all facilities, with staff competent in facilitating waterbirths.

There is a concerted effort to educate midwives and physicians in all hospitals in the UK on the proper uses of birthing pools and safe waterbirth practices. [xii]

The baby benefits equally from an unmedicated mother who labors in water and has a full complement of natural brain oxytocin, endorphins and catecholamines flowing through her blood supply. The mother’s relaxed state aids his physiologic imperative to be born.  The descent and birth of the baby is easier when the mother can move into any upright position where she can control her own perineum, ease the baby out and allow the baby to express its primitive reflexes without anyone actually touching the baby’s head.  The birth process is restored to its essential mammalian nature.

The true belief in the safety of waterbirth is a complete understanding of the mechanisms which prevent the baby from initiating respirations while it is still submerged in the water as the head is born and then after the full body has been expelled.  When Paul Johnson, M.D., of Oxford University, explained these mechanisms at the First World Congress on Waterbirth at Wimbledon Hall, in 1995, there was a collective nod of understanding from more than 1100 participants.  With this information, more waterbirth practices were established all over the UK and Europe.  Dr. Johnson went on to publish his explanations in the British Medical Journal in 1996.[xiii]

Johnson’s 1996 review of respiratory physiology suggests that, in a non-stressed fetus, it is unlikely that breathing will commence in the short time that the baby’s head is underwater. Johnson sees no reason to prevent this option being offered to women.

A Cochrane Review[xiv] of women laboring in water or having a waterbirth gives no evidence of increased adverse affects to the fetus, neonate, or woman.

American Academy of Pediatrics’ Misleading Committee Commentary

Despite this review, the 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics committee on Fetus and Newborn commentary raised concerns regarding the safety of hospital waterbirth. The committee commentary was not a study itself, but rather an opinion generated upon the review of research.

A review of the commentary and the sources cited, revealed irregularities. The commentary often paraphrased text from the references, redacted crucial words and sentences from the texts, and sometimes re-interpreted the authors’ conclusions.  Anecdotal case studies were referenced without being part of an empirical study.

Example:

Committee text: “All mothers used water immersion during labor, but only a limited and unspecified number of births occurred under water.” 2 infants required positive pressure support, but little additional data were provided.

From cited reference: 100 births occurred under water. Only 2 infants out of 100 needed suction of the upper respiratory tract and a short period of manual ventilatory support. [xv]

Committee text: “Alderdice et al performed a retrospective survey of 4494 underwater deliveries by midwives in England and Wales. They reported 12 stillbirths or neonatal deaths”

From cited reference: “Twelve babies who died after their mothers laboured or gave birth in water, or both, in 1992 and 1993 were reported. None of these cases was reported to be directly related to labour or birth in water.”[xvi]

Committee text: “In a subsequent survey of 4032 underwater births in England and Wales, the perinatal mortality rate was 1.2 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval: 0.4–2.9) and the rate of admission to a special care nursery was 8.4 per 1000 live births (95% CI: 5.8–11.8) The author of this survey suggested that these rates may be higher than expected for a term, low-risk, vaginally delivered population.”

From cited reference: “4032 deliveries (0.6% of all deliveries) in England and Wales occurred in water. Perinatal mortality was 1.2/1000 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.9) live births; 8.4/1000 (THEY LEFT OUT THE 2ND CI 5.8 to 11.8) live births were admitted for special care. No deaths were directly attributable to delivery in water….”

The reference also provides that the UK perinatal mortality and special care admission rates for conventional birth ranged from 0.8 to 4.6/1000 for perinatal mortality, and 9.2 to 64/1000 for special care admission—significantly higher than those utilizing waterbirth.

Nowhere in the cited reference can the statement be found that “these rates may be higher than expected for a term, low-risk, vaginally delivered population.” In fact, the study results reflect no effect on fetal outcomes and certainly not an increase in fetal mortality and special-care admissions.[xvii]

Finally, the committee commentary acknowledges the findings of the Geissbühler study[xviii]:

“A prospective observational study compared underwater birth with births using Maia-birthing stools and beds. Although underwater birth was associated with a decreased need for episiotomies and pain medication as well as higher APGAR scores and less cord blood acidosis in newborns, the birthing method was determined by maternal preference, and potential confounding variables were not analyzed.”

The committee does not elaborate on which confounding variables they feel are of concern. It appears this supportive study was automatically discredited without a reason.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics is committed to patient safety and evidence-based medicine, this commentary’s conclusions that hospital waterbirths are of greater risk than other hospital birth options for low risk and carefully screened patients are completely unfounded.

Waterbirth Studies

In 1998, I copied all the medical journal articles about waterbirth that had been published to date and sent the labeled and categorized studies to the Practice Committee of ACOG.  In the cover letter accompanying the rather weighty binders, I asked the Committee if they would review the literature and issue an opinion about actual birth in water.  The letter that arrived a few months later from Stanley Zinberg, MD, then head of the Practice Committee, stated, “until there are randomized controlled trials of large numbers of women undergoing birth in water, published in peer reviewed journals in the US, the committee is not able to issue an opinion.”

Randomized studies of waterbirth are difficult to design and implement for one major reason: women want to choose their own method of delivery and should be able to change their mind at any point of labor. Because of this, it is difficult to design a randomized controlled study without crossover between control and study group. A 2005 randomized trial which was set up in a Shanghai, China hospital was abandoned because the hospital director realized after only 45 births that the study was unethical.  The original goal was to study 500 births, but the results of those first 45 were so good they abandoned the research project, yet continued their commitment to offering waterbirth to any woman who wanted one.  The latest communication from the Changning Hospital in Shanghai indicates that they have facilitated well over 5000 waterbirths since then.

Randomized controlled trials may be few, however, many retrospective and prospective case-controlled studies have been performed, primarily in European countries with a long history of waterbirth. In reviewing published studies, a comparison of the safety of waterbirth to conventional births among low-risk patients can be made. The evidence reveals the option of waterbirth is safe and, looking at certain parameters, has superior outcomes.

European Research

Highlights of the literature:

  • APGAR scores were found to be unaffected by water birth.[xix] One study found a decrease in 1-minute APGAR scores exclusively in a subgroup of women who were in water after membranes were ruptured longer than 24 hours.[xx]
  • A consensus of researchers found that waterbirth had either no effect or reduced cesarean section and operative delivery rates.[xxi]
  • No studies have found an effect on rates of maternal or fetal infection.[xxii]
  • Statistically, waterbirth leads to increased relaxation and maternal satisfaction, decreased perineal trauma, decreased pain and use of pharmaceuticals, and decreased labor time.[xxiii]

Cochrane Collaboration Findings

A Cochrane Collaboration review of waterbirth in three randomized controlled studies (RCTs) show no research that demonstrates adverse effects to the fetus or neonate.[xxiv] Other studies that were not RCTs were included in the conclusion:

“There is no evidence of increased adverse affects to the fetus or neonate or woman from laboring in water or waterbirth. However, the studies are variable and considerable heterogeneity was detected for some outcomes. Further research is needed.”

Conclusion

Waterbirth is an option for birth all over the world. World-renowned hospitals, as well as small hospitals and birthing centers, offer waterbirth as an option to low risk patients. Though some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists feel otherwise, the Cochrane Review and many other studies find no data that supports safety concerns over waterbirth.

Women increasingly are seeking settings for birth and providers that honor their ability to birth without intervention. Waterbirth increases their chances of attaining the goal of a calm intervention free birth.

Physicians and midwives are skilled providers who are being trained in waterbirth techniques, safety concerns, the ability to handle complications and infection control procedures.

Carefully managed, waterbirth is both an attractive and low-risk birth option that can provide healthy patients with non-pharmacological options in hospital facilities while not compromising their safety.

In contrast to Dr. Lucy’s statement, waterbirth is not a fad and it is not going away, especially when it is mandated as an available option for all women in the UK and practiced worldwide in over ninety countries. The first hospital that began a waterbirth practice in 1991, Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, New Hampshire, is still offering this service to low risk women 23 years later.  They have been joined since then by just under 10% of all US hospitals including large teaching universities and the majority of all free standing birth centers.  Hospitals have invested in equipment, staff training and are collating data to present to the medical community.  Dr. Duncan Neilson in Portland, Oregon is working on a summary of the data on over 800 waterbirths at only one hospital in the Legacy Health System.

I have dedicated my entire life to changing the way we welcome babies into the world since that October night in 1984, when I told my midwife that we have to tell women about the wonders of waterbirth. Since that night, I have traversed the planet to 55 countries and helped hundreds of hospitals start waterbirth practices.  Birth in water is safe, economical, effective and is here to stay, despite the AAP’s recent statement.

References


[i] Odent, M.,1983. The Lancet, December 24/31, p 1476

[ii] Medical Plaza Bldg. 300 N. Graham St., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97227, (503) 413-3622 dneilson@lhs.org

[iii] Alderdice, F., R., Mary, Marchant, S., Ashiurst, H., Hughes, P., Gerridge, G., and Garcia, J. (April 1995). Labour and birth in water in England and Wales. British Journal of Medicine, 310: 837.

[iv] Geissbuehler, V., Stein, S., & Eberhard, J. (2004). Waterbirths compared with landbirths: An observational study of nine years. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 32, 308-314

[v] Gilbert, Ruth E., Tookey, Pat A. (1999) Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal survey. British Medical Journal ;319:483-487 (21 August)

[vi] Zanetti-Dallenback, R., Lapaire, O., Maertens, A., Frei, F., Holzgreve, W., & Hoslit, I. (2006). Waterbirth:, more than a trendy alternative: A prospective, observational study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 274, 355-365

[vii] Bowden, K., Kessler, D., Pinette, M., Wilson, D Underwater Birth: Missing the Evidence or Missing the Point? Pediatrics, Oct 2003; 112: 972 – 973.

[viii] Nguyen S, Kuschel C, Reele R, Spooner C. Water birth—a near –drowning experience. Pediatrics. 2002; 110:411-413

[ix] Schroeter, K., (2004). Waterbirths: A naked emperor (commentary) American Journal of Pediatrics, 114 (3) Sept, 855-858

[x] Neilson, Duncan  Presentation at the Gentle Birth World Congress, Portland, Oregon, Setpember 27, 2007

[xi] RCOG/The Royal College of Midwives (2006) Joint Statement no 1: Immersion in Water During Labour and Birth. London: RCOG

[xii] Johnson P (1996) Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 103(3): 202-8

[xiii] ibid

[xiv] Cluett, E.R., Burns, E. Water in Labor and Birth(review) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2 Art. No.: CD000111.DOI: 10:1002/14651858.CD000111.pub3

[xv] Odent, M.,1983. The Lancet, December 24/31, p 1476

[xvi] Alderdice, F. et.al.1995. British Journal of Midwifery 3(7), 375-382

[xvii] ibid

[xviii] Geissbühler V, Eberhard J, 2000

[xix] Aird, et al, 1997; Cammu, et al, 1994; Eriksson, et al, 1996; Lenstrup et al, 1987; Ohlsson et al, 2001, Otigbah et al, 2000; Rush, et al, 1996, Waldenstrom & Nilsson, 1992.

[xx] Waldenstrom & Nillson, 1992

[xxi] Aird, Luckas, Buckett, & Bousfield, 1997; Cammu et al, 1994; Cluett, Pickering, Getliffe, & St. George, 2004; Eckert, Turnbull, & MacLennon, 2001; Lenstrup, et al, 1987, Ohlsson, et al, 2001, Rush, et al, 1996)

[xxii] Cammu, Clasen, Wettere, & Derde, 1994; Eriksson, Lafors, Mattson, & Fall, 1996; Eldering, 2005; Lenstrup, Schantz, Feder, Rosene, & Hertel, 1987; Geissbuhler & Eberhard, 2000; Rush, et al, 1996; Schorn, McAllister, & Blanco, 1993, Thöni A, Mussner K, Ploner F, 2010; Waldenstrom & Nilsson, 1992.

[xxiii] Mackey,2001; Benfield et al, 2001

[xxiv] Cluett, E.R., Burns, E. 2012

About Barbara Harper

© Barbara Harper

© Barbara Harper

Barbara Harper, RN, CLD, CCE, DEM, CKC, CCCE,  loves babies and has been a childbirth reform activist since her first day at nursing school over 42 years ago. She is an internationally recognized expert on waterbirth, a published author and she founded Waterbirth International in 1988, with one goal in mind – to insure that waterbirth is an available option for all women. During the past four decades, Barbara has worked as a pediatric nurse, a childbirth educator, home birth midwife, midwifery and doula instructor and has used her vast experience to develop unique seminars which she teaches within hospitals, nursing schools, midwifery and medical schools and community groups worldwide. She was recognized in 2002 by Lamaze International for her contributions in promoting normal birth on an international level. Her best selling book and DVD, ‘Gentle Birth Choices’ book has been translated into 9 languages so far. Her next book ‘Birth, Bath & Beyond: A Practical Guide for Parents and Providers,’ will be ready for publication at the end of 2014. Barbara has dedicated her life to changing the way we welcome babies into the world. She considers her greatest achievement, though, her three adult children, two of whom were born at home in water. She lives in Boca Raton, Florida, where she is active in her Jewish community as a volunteer and as a local midwifery and doula mentor and teacher. Barbara can be reached through her website, Waterbirth International.

ACOG, American Academy of Pediatrics, Babies, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Home Birth, informed Consent, Midwifery, New Research, Newborns, Research, Second Stage, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Test Your Knowledge of Just Released 2012 Birth Data – A Fun Pop Quiz

January 28th, 2014 by avatar
Image: blog.camera.org
Image: blog.camera.org

As childbirth educators and birth professionals who work with expectant families, it is critical that we remain up to date on the newest data and research available on a wide variety of topics.  When we have current information, we are then able to share this information with the families that we work with in relevant ways.  Today, I would like to bring to your attention to the most fundamental, yet comprehensive data available about birth in the United States.  2012 date was released last month by the Center for Health Statistics.  The National Vital Statistics Report “Births: Final Data for 2012” is a gold mine of information for those of you who are interested in the state of births in the USA.

I thought it would be fun to try and present some of the data in the form of a quiz, for Science & Sensibility readers to take just for kicks.  Take the quiz and see how many of the ten questions you get right?  Then follow the link above to the complete report to find out more details and other interesting facts about birth in the USA in 2012. I invite you to share your score in our comments section along with any surprises you discovered when quizzing yourself.  If you want to see how you did compared to all the other folks who took the test, you can register on the quiz site, but it is totally not necessary.  Take it more than once if you like!  You might even use this technique with your students for a fun class activity.

References:

Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Osterman, M. J., & Mathews, T. J. (2013). Births: final data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Report62(1).

Disclaimer:

This quiz may not work on mobile devices.

Tips for using with the Safari Browser:

  1. Click on the settings menu and then Preferences… (or CTRL+,)
  2. Click on the Security tab at the top
  3. Check “Enable Javascript”
  4. For “Accept cookies” – select “Always”
  5. Close the preferences window
  6. Close your Safari browser and reopen and play the quiz again

The ads placed at the end of this free quiz application are at the discretion of the software developers

Image sources

Q1: Bonnie U. Gruenberg

Q2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/_nezemnaya_/3843726606/

Q3: http://www.flickr.com/people/kioko/

Q4: multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com

Q5: Krista Guenin/Krista Photography

Q6: en.wikipedia.org

Q7: eyeliam

Q8: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg

Q9: en.wikipedia.org

Q10: www.dailymail.co.uk 

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Home Birth, Maternity Care, New Research, Newborns , , , , , , , , ,

Safe at Home? New Home Vs. Hospital Birth Study Reviewed by Henci Goer

November 26th, 2013 by avatar

 Regular contributor Henci Goer examines the most recent study on the safety of home birth in the United States.  When taking a closer look at the data analysis done by the authors, there are concerns not addressed in the study, that raise issues that cause the study’s conclusions to be questioned. Henci shares some other studies that do not reach the same results about the safety of home birth. Have you read this study?  If you had read this study too, did you find more questions than answers when you were done? – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

“Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigation, we shall soon know nothing at all.” – Mark Twain

flickr.com/photos/vestfamily/2591899412/

The latest contender in the long list of studies attempting to compare the safety of home and hospital birth, “Selected perinatal outcomes associated with planned home births in the United States,” was published last month (Cheng 2013). Let’s start by summarizing the study:

Using data compiled from the U.S. birth certificate, Cheng and colleagues compared outcomes between 12,039 women “planning” home births with 2,081,753 women having hospital births. All women were at term (between 37 and 43 weeks) and carrying one head-down baby. Women with prior cesarean were not excluded. After adjustment for numerous factors including number of prior births, medical conditions (hypertension, diabetes), risk factors (smoking), and social and demographic factors (race/ethnicity, age, marital status), women having home births were much less likely to have an instrumental vaginal delivery (0.1% vs. 6.2%; odds ratio 0.1), induced labor (1.4% vs. 25.7%; odds ratio 0.2), or labor augmentation (2.1% vs. 22.2%; odds ratio 0.3). They were also, however, twice as likely to have a baby with a 5-minute Apgar less than 4 (0.24% vs. 0.37%; odds ratio 1.9), three times as likely to have a baby experience neonatal seizure (0.06% vs. 0.02%; odds ratio 3.1), and more than twice as likely to have a baby with 5-minute Apgar less than 7 (2.42% vs. 1.17%; odds ratio 2.4). On the other hand, similar percentages of babies needed more than 6 hours of ventilator support, and babies born at home were much less likely to be admitted to intensive care (0.57% vs. 3.03%; odds ratio 0.2). In the discussion, the investigators note that removing the 489 women with previous cesareans who had planned home birth and women with medical or obstetric conditions did not alter that infants of women with prior births who planned home birth were more likely to have a low Apgar score. They don’t specify whether this was 5-minute Apgar less than 4 or less than 7 nor do they report the occurrence rate in this higher-risk subgroup.

There is more. To evaluate the effect of birth attendant qualifications, the investigators excluded births attended by doctors or unknown birth attendant and stratified the remaining home birth population into those attended by professional midwives and those attended by “other midwives.” (Confusingly, study authors state that Certified Professional Midwives [CPMs] were categorized as Certified Nurse-Midwives in the birth certificate data yet go on to refer solely to “CNMs” in the rest of the analysis.) In the subset attended by professional midwives, newborn outcomes were similar except that hospital-born infants were more likely to be admitted to intensive care (0.37% vs. 3.03%; odds ratio 0.1).

Cheng and colleagues conclude that while women planning home births are less likely to experience obstetric intervention, their babies are more likely to be born in poor condition. Do their data warrant that conclusion?

To begin with, the relevant question isn’t the tradeoffs between planned home birth per se and hospital birth. It is: “What are the excess risks for healthy women at low risk of urgent complications who plan home birth with qualified home birth attendants compared with similar women planning hospital birth?” This study can’t answer that question. Here’s why:

The study only includes women actually delivering at home, but you can’t make a meaningful comparison unless you have the outcomes of women transferred to hospital. “Planning” in this study meant only that birth at home wasn’t accidental, not the more usual meaning that birth may be planned at home but problems during labor may alter that plan. I discovered this when I wrote the lead author to request cesarean rates, which, oddly, to me, were not reported in the study. She responded that this was because cesareans aren’t performed at home. Puzzled by this explanation, I wrote back that neither are instrumental vaginal delivery, induction, nor labor augmentation, which were reported. She responded that birth certificate data don’t state how labor was induced or augmented but that perhaps at home births it was by rupturing membranes and that “apparently some midwives or birth attendants do perform vacuum extraction at home,” but it is rare since only 10 were reported.

Not all women planning home birth were low-risk. For one thing, women with prior cesareans were included. For another, the methods section states that the analysis adjusted for medical risk, and the discussion notes that women with prior children in the home birth group were more likely to have babies with low Apgar scores even after removing women with medical risk, which implies that some of them had medical problems.

Not all women in the home birth group had qualified home birth attendants. Outcome data on the overall population came from women recorded as being attended by MDs, DOs, “other midwife,” “others,” and “unknown/not stated” as well as by professional midwives.

Rates of neonatal seizure and 5-minute Apgar less than 4 were very low, and the study doesn’t report on perinatal death or permanent disability. As concerning as an excess in low Apgar scores and seizures may be, the real question is excess incidence of permanent harm. Even without limiting the population to low-risk women with qualified care providers, only 1 more baby per 1000 born at home experienced very low 5-minute Apgar, and only 4 more babies per 10,000 experienced neonatal seizure, and while babies born in poor condition are more likely to incur permanent neurologic damage or die, most will recover. Also, as we saw, differences in rates of these adverse outcomes disappeared with a qualified provider.

The proof of the pudding lies in studies free of these weaknesses. A study of 530,000 low-risk Dutch women found no difference in deaths during labor or newborn death rates between women planning, but not necessarily having, home birth and those planning hospital birth (de Jonge 2009). A Canadian study comparing outcomes of 2900 women eligible for home birth with women equally eligible but planning hospital birth reported worse newborn outcomes (more required resuscitation at birth or oxygen for more than 24 hrs and more birth injuries), worse maternal outcomes (more anal sphincter tears and postpartum hemorrhage), and more use of instrumental and cesarean delivery in the hospital population (Janssen 2009).

What can we take away from Cheng and colleagues analysis? First, care provider qualifications matter. Women desiring home birth should have access to professional midwifery care, which argues for making CPMs legal in all 50 states. Second, less than optimal candidates are birthing at home, and some women may be continuing labor at home who shouldn’t. Why might that be? Women may choose home birth because they want control over what happens to them, they have had a prior negative hospital experience, or they want to avoid unnecessary medical intervention (Boucher 2009), the last of which will include women denied hospital VBAC. Women may resist hospital transfer for the same reasons or because they know that at best, hospital transfer means losing the care and advice of the care provider they trust and at worst, they will be treated badly by disapproving hospital staff. If we want to reduce their numbers, hospital-based practitioners need to address the behaviors, practices, and policies that drive women away from hospital birth. This would have the added benefit of improving care for the 99% of American women who would never consider birthing at home.

References

Boucher, D., Bennett, C., McFarlin, B., & Freeze, R. (2009). Staying home to give birth: why women in the United States choose home birth. J Midwifery Womens Health, 54(2), 119-126. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=boucher+2009+home+birth

Cheng, Y. W., Snowden, J. M., King, T. L., & Caughey, A. B. (2013). Selected perinatal outcomes associated with planned home births in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 209(4), 325 e321-328. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.022 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23791564

de Jonge, A., van der Goes, B. Y., Ravelli, A. C., Amelink-Verburg, M. P., Mol, B. W., Nijhuis, J. G., . . . Buitendijk, S. E. (2009). Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG 116(9), 1177-1184. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=de+jonge+2009+planned+home

Janssen, P. A., Saxell, L., Page, L. A., Klein, M. C., Liston, R. M., & Lee, S. K. (2009). Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ, 181(6-7), 377-383. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19720688

 

Guest Posts, Home Birth, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Newborns, Research , , , , , , ,