Science & Sensibility

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 Incorporating the findings of the cesarean best evidence review in teaching and advocacy, and sharing the information widely on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, listservs, and other social media. Getting the booklet, What Every Pregnant Women Needs to Know About Cesarean Section into the hands of expectant parents. Becoming familiar with the 10 Maternity Care and Liability fact sheets, and sharing them whenever a teachable moment arises. Learning more about shared decision making, and incorporating support for high-quality shared decision making into education efforts (a future blog post will focus on this.) Advocating for the use of quality improvement toolkits to improve care in hospitals and health systems. Talking about health care value – care that improves quality while reducing costs, including physiologic care to reduce the chance of c-sections. Helping women understand their likely maternity-related out-of-pocket costs when they enroll in a new health plan. Helping women to understand that, until we reform our payment systems, clinicians and hospitals are rewarded financially and logistically for cesareans and inductions, and to carefully explore whether these forms of care, when recommended, are right for them.

 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

Amy Romano Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthcare Reform, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Patient Advocacy, Research, Research for Advocacy, Transforming Maternity Care Amy Romano, cesarean, cesarean section, Childbirth Connection, Childbirth Education, guest post, interventions, maternity care quality, maternity care systems, research, Transforming Maternity Care

As I wrote about in my January 3rd, 2012 post on the top 10 reasons to join Lamaze International, one of the great benefits of being a Lamaze member is complete access to the Cochrane Collaboration.  The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organization whose purpose is to make available information on the effects of healthcare interventions.  Reports in the form of Cochrane Reviews are current, accurate and made available electronically on the internet and by DVD, and updated monthly.  Systematic reviews are conducted and published on a wide variety of healthcare interventions so that people can make informed decisions. This is stored in the Cochrane Library.

The Cochrane Collaboration was founded by Archie Cochrane, who was a British medical researcher.  Mr. Cochrane is best known for his article Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services written in 1972.  

The creation of a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) of care during pregnancy and childbirth is “a real milestone in the history of randomised trials and in the evaluation of care.” Professor Archibald Leman Cochrane, CBE FRCP FFCM, (1909 – 1988)

The Cochrane Collaboration is celebrating their 20th anniversary this year, 2013 and will be sharing a series of 24 short videos over the course of the anniversary year, focusing on the ideas, achievements and people that have been part of the history of this international and well-respected organization.  I am sharing the first in this series, so you can learn a bit more about how this organization came to be recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care.

The United States Cochrane Center has created and made available free of charge, an online tutorial, “Understanding Evidence-based Healthcare: A Foundation for Action, that can help you to learn how to best navigate and understand the resources contained in the Cochrane Library.

Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practice Tools is completely based on evidence based information and was created so that consumers could understand and advocate for the best care for themselves and their babies.  Lamaze recognizes the importance of educators and others having access to up to date information and therefore is pleased to offer access to the Cochrane Library as a member benefit.   To access the Cochrane Library as a Lamaze member, first login to Lamaze International’s Member Center and then follow the drop down box to the Cochrane Library. You will be redirected to the library, with full access.

I rely on and use this member benefit constantly, and appreciate it being made available to me by Lamaze.  Won’t you share in the comments section how you use the Cochrane Library?  How has it helped you?  Do you find what you need?  Do you share information and studies with your students, clients and patients?  Let us know, please.

References 

Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency. Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972. (Reprinted in 1989 in association with the BMJ, Reprinted in 1999 for Nuffield Trust by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, London (ISBN 1-85315-394-X)

Sharon Muza Childbirth Education, Continuing Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Lamaze International, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Practice Guidelines, Research, Systematic Review Childbirth Education, Cochrane Collaboration, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, interventions, Lamaze International, maternity care systems, research, Sharon Muza, Systematic Review

Today, S&S contributor Jackie Levine discusses the potential risks of routine cervical checks near term and how to help your clients and students be prepared to have a discussion with their health care provider about the necessity of such exams. – SM

There are some studies that show a link between routine weekly pelvic exams in the last month or so of pregnancy and an increase in rupture of membranes (ROM) that occur well before labor was meant begin, meaning the membranes have ruptured prematurely, (adding a P to ROM, for premature rupture).   The natural onset of labor may be a week or perhaps only days away, but everything is not quite ready, and if effective labor does not begin induction frequently follows.  And when induction fails, as often it will, since the rupture was premature, and the body and the baby are not ready, cesarean is often the outcome.

Many women find that their health care providers may start doing pelvic exams at about 37 weeks gestation.  Women should consider asking their doctor or midwife whether these exams are necessary to insure the health and safety of herself and her baby, before providing consent for this invasive procedure.  When I discuss these near term cervical exams with my childbirth class students and look at the studies, mothers-to-be have to ask themselves whether the benefits of weekly exams outweigh the other risks; potential PROM, induction and the increased possibility of cesarean section.

“How do I tell my health care provider that I don’t want an exam, and not have those uncomfortable moments when my doctor or midwife thinks I’m defying him or her and not letting them do what they always do?”  That’s the common and sensible worry, that our students may have, but if we provide an opportunity to role-play with our students and clients and also provide the studies, they will feel confident about having this discussion. They will know the facts and are informed health consumers who could consider saying “Oh, I just don’t want that exam today, so can we do it next week?” They might also share that they’ve researched this topic, mention the studies and ask how routine exams week after week will help insure good health.

An older study examining the relationship between late term pelvic exams and the incidence of PROM stated:

 In the 174 patients on whom pelvic examinations were done weekly starting at 37 weeks gestation, the incidence of PROM was 18%,   which was a significant increase (P=.001).  The primary cesarean section rate was comparable in both groups with PROM; however, the overall primary cesarean rate when PROM occurred was found to be twice that of the remaining population. The study suggests that routine pelvic examinations may be (sic) a significant contributing factor to the incidence of PROM. Women with uncomplicated pregnancies were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The author theorizes that the probing finger carries up and deposits on the cervix bacteria and acidic vaginal secretions capable of penetrating the mucous plug and causing sufficient low-grade inflammation or sub-clinical infection to rupture membranes.“  “It would therefore seem prudent to recommend that no pelvic examinations be done routinely in the third trimester unless a valid medical indication [sic] exists to examine the cervix … especially since the information gained from these routine examinations is often of little or no benefit to either the physician or the patient.” (Lenahan, 1984.)

We have all been subtly bullied at one time or another by those in positions of authority, and it’s easy to understand the courage and confidence needed to question a caregiver. It’s a mother’s right and responsibility first to know and then to question, but confidence is the key.  We must make an effort to give real meaning to a women’s right to choose, and to the principle of informed refusal.  The American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) has addressed informed refusal several times with its membership since at least 1992¹, speaking powerfully  about the autonomy of the individual.  Although these writings and bulletins are aimed mainly at assuring legal protection for caregivers, they are a resounding affirmation of the legal and moral right of the patient to decide for herself.

Since the studies assert that routine exams are neither predictive nor probative, the doctor or midwife must be able to say something medically strong to counter the available studies.  When mothers have asked their providers for the reasons to do an exam, they bring a myriad of interesting answers back to class for discussion, but rarely any facts or science.  Remember, ACOG  itself published a study last year examining the basis for its care guidelines and found that “One third of the recommendations put forth by the Congress in its practice bulletins are based on good and consistent scientific evidence” ACOG, 2011) meaning Level A, and that gives us pause to consider the 70% of practices represented by Levels B and C . Care providers will often reconsider when an informed mother-to-be can ask politely and tactfully, about the science that recommends a weekly routine cervical assessment.

Again, women should be able to weigh the risks of routine exams against the possibility of that cascade of interventions that follow on with PROM, interventions that will, at the least, lead to an uncomfortable and harder-to-manage induction, and at worst, put our students and clients on that gurney ride into the operating room.

When a mother is motivated to discuss routine pelvic exams with her caregiver, it may be the first test of the mutual trust and respect she hopes for in that relationship.  Until that point in her pregnancy, she may not have had the opportunity, or the necessity to assert her rights as a maternity patient.  She may have refused to have a routine sonogram or two because her insurance policy would not cover extra routine assessments, but refusing pelvic exams unless there is a valid medical reason will tell her how little or much her HCP is willing to act on best evidence, give her individuated care and show respect for her informed refusal.

The first time she refuses the exam may not be an accurate opportunity for her to judge; many caregivers will let refusal ride that once, but as pregnancy nears term, most docs begin to be insistent about cervical assessment, even without medical indication. A mother-to-be can begin to learn her caregiver’s view of best-evidence care and his or her willingness to listen to her so that she will have an idea, going forward, of how best to assert her rights, with knowledge and confidence in herself, and can get support she may need in our classes.

In a Science & Sensibility post in May 2011, I talked about the importance of giving mothers the same studies that caregivers have access to.  What I said then about giving our classes the actual studies, along with discussion, still applies:

“…perhaps we need to give women a different kind of “evidence”, by giving them a look into the medical community.  If women can know more of what goes on inside the profession, if they know a bit of what the docs know, they feel a different level of empowerment.  They feel a gravitas….Not only do they know that the evidence exists somewhere out there…they see it; they own copies of the studies. They feel trusted with special information that they would never otherwise have access to. In addition to learning to trust their bodies, in addition to knowing how birth works, in addition to practicing comfort measures, they learn about what goes on behind the scenes.  It expands their sense of control and choice. “  

Refusing to have routine pelvic exams in those last weeks of pregnancy is a real opportunity for our students and clients to learn how to ask for, even insist on, best-evidence care for themselves and their babies.  It’s certainly worth a try, and we can support them in the last weeks in a positive way with lots of opportunity for role-play and discussion as they report back to class and share their experiences with informed refusal.

How do you bring up the topic of regular cervical exams for women who are not in labor?  Do you talk about this with your clients and students?  What are your favorite resources for presenting this and facilitating discussions?  Have your students shared stories about their experiences.?  Are you a health care provider?  What are your feelings on routine pelvic exams at the end of pregnancy?  Share your thoughts in our comment section. – SM

References:

ACOG: Ethical dimensions of informed consent: a compendium of selected publications, ACOG Committee Opinion 108. Washington DC, 1992.

ACOG Committee opinion. Informed refusal. Number 166, December 1995. Committee on Professional Liability. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. (1996).

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 306. Informed refusal. ACOG Committee on Professional Liability, Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Dec;104(6):1465-6.

Lenahan, JP Jr., Relationship of antepartum pelvic examinations to premature rupture of the membranes. Journal Obstetrics Gynecology 1984, Jan:63(1):33-37.

Levine, J. (May 31, 2011) A Lamaze Story. Retrieved from http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=2954

Vayssière, C. Contre le toucher vaginal systématique en obstétrique Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité, 2005, Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 69-74.

Wright JD, Pawar N, Gonzalez JS, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Simpson LL, Charles AS, D’Alton ME, Herzog TJ, Scientific Evidence Underlying the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Practice Bulletins, Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;118(3):505-12.

photo credit: www.flickr.com/photos/nathansnostalgia/498100786/

Jackie Levine Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Push for Your Baby, Uncategorized ACOG, cervical exams, Childbirth Education, guest post, interventions, Jackie Levine, labor induction, maternity care systems, prenatal care, rupture of membranes

The  Canadian Medical Association Journal, published in their September 12, 2012 issue a very interesting study examining how a team approach to maternity care might improve maternal and neonat aloutcomes.  The study, Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes  is reviewed here.

The Challenge

The number of physicians in Canada who provide obstetric care has declined in past years for reasons that include increasing physician retirement, closure of rural hospitals, liability concerns, dissatisfaction with the lifestyle and a difficulty in accessing maternity care in a variety of settings.  While registered midwife attended births may be on the rise, midwives in Canada attend less than 10% of all births nationwide.   At the same time as the number of doctors willing or able to attend births decline, cesarean rates are on the rise,  causing pressure on the maternity care system, including longer hospital stays both intrapartum and postpartum, which brings with it the associated costs and resources needed to accommodate this increase.

The diversity of the population having babies in many provinces is increasing, presenting additional challenges in meeting the non-French/English speaking population, who are more at risk for increased obstetrical interventions and are less likely to breastfeed.

The Study

In response to these challenges, the South Community Birth Program was established to provide care from a consortium of providers, including family practice physicians, community health nurses, doulas, midwives and others, who would work together to serve the multiethnic, low income communities that may be most at risk for interventions and surgery.

The retrospective cohort study examined outcomes between two matched groups of healthy women receiving maternity care in an ethically diverse region of South Vancouver, BC, Canada that has upwards of 45% immigrant families, 18% of them arriving in Canada in the past 5 years.  One group participated in the South Community Birth Program and the other received standard care in community based practices.

The South Community Birth Program offers maternity care in a team-based shared-care model, with the family practice doctors, midwives, nurses and doulas working together .  Women could be referred to the program by the health care provider or self refer.  After a few initial standard obstetrical appointments with a family practice doctor or midwife occur to determine medical history, physical examination, genetic history, necessary labs and other prenatal testing, the women and their partners are invited to join group prenatal care, based on the Centering Pregnancy Model.  Approximately 20% of the first time mothers choose to remain in the traditional obstetric care model.  10-12  families are grouped by their expected due date, and meet for 10 scheduled sessions, facilitated by either a family physician or midwife and a community nurse.  Each session has a carefully designed curriculum that covers nutrition, exercise, labor, birth and newborn care, among other topics.  Monthly meetings to discuss individual situations and access to comprehensive electronic medical records enhanced the collaboration between the team. Trained doulas, who speak 25 different languages, also meet with the family once prenatally and provide one on one continuous labor support during labor and birth. The admitting midwife or physician remains in the hospital during the patient’s labor and attends the birth.

After a hospital stay of 24-48 hours, the family receives a home visit from a family practice physician or midwife the day after discharge. Clinic breastfeeding and postpartum support is provided by a Master’s level clinical nurse specialist who is also a board certified lactation consultant.  At six weeks, the mother is discharged back to her physician, and a weekly drop in clinic is offered through 6 months postpartum.

The outcomes of the women in the South Community Birth Program were compared to women who received standard care from their midwives or family practice physicians.  Similar cohorts were established of women carrying a single baby of like ages, parity, and geographic region, and all the mothers were considered low risk and of normal body mass index.

The primary outcome measured was the proportion of women who underwent cesarean delivery.  The secondary outcomes measured were obstetrical interventions and maternal outcomes (method of fetal assessment during labor, use of analgesia during labor, augmentation or induction of labor, length of labor, perineal tramau, blood transfusion and length of stay) and neonatal outcomes (stillbirth, death before discharge, Apgar score less than 7, preterm delivery, small or large for gestational age, length of hospital stay, readmission, admission to neonatal intensive care unit for more than 24 hours and method of feeding at discharge).

Results

There was more incidence of diabetes and previous cesareans in the comparison group but the level of alcohol and substance use was the same in both groups.  Midwives delivered 41.9% of the babies in the birth program and 7.4% of babies in the comparison group.

When the rate of cesarean delivery was examined for both nullips and multips, the birth group women were at significantly reduced risk of cesarean delivery and were not at increased risk of assisted vaginal delivery with forceps or vacuum.

Interestingly, the birth program women who received care from an obstetrician were significantly more likely to have a cesarean than those receiving in the standard program who also received care from an obstetrician.  More women in the birth program with a prior cesarean delivery planned a vaginal birth in this pregnancy, though the proportion of successful vaginal births after cesareans dd not differ between the two groups.

The women in the community birth program experienced more intermittent auscultation vs electronic fetal monitoring and were more likely to use nitrous oxide and oxygen alone for pain relief and less likely to use epidural analgesia (Table 3).  Though indications for inductions did not differ, the birth program women were less likely to be induced.  More third degree perineal tears were observed in the birth program group but less episiotomies were performed.  Hospital stays were shorter for both mothers and newborns in the community program.

When you look at the newborns in the birth program, they were at marginally increased risk of being large for gestational age and were readmitted to the hospital in the first 28 days after birth at a higher rate, the majority of readmissions in the community and standard care group were due to jaundice. Exclusive breastfeeding in the birth program group was higher than in the standard group.

Discussion

The mothers and the babies in the community birth program were offered collaborative, multidisciplinary, community based care and this resulted in a lower cesarean rate, shorter hospital stays, experienced less interventions and they left the hospital more likely to be exclusively breastfeeding. Many of the outcomes observed in this study, especially for the families participating in the South Birth Community Program are in line with Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practices.  There are many questions that can be raised, and some of them are are discussed by the authors.

Was it the collaborative care from an interdisciplinary team result in better outcomes?  Was there a self-selection by the women themselves for the low intervention route that resulted in the observed differences?  Are the care providers themselves who are more likely to support normal birth self-selecting to work in the community birth program? Did the fact that the geographic area of the study had been underserved by maternity providers before the study play a role in the outcomes? Did the emotional and social support provided by the prenatal and postpartum group meetings facilitate a more informed or engaged group of families?

I also wonder how childbirth educators, added to such a model program, might also offer opportunity to reduce interventions and improve outcomes  Could childbirth educators in your community partner with other maternity care providers to work collaboratively to meet the perinatal needs of expectant families?  Would bringing health care providers interested in supporting physiologic birth in to share their knowledge in YOUR classrooms help to create an environment where families felt supported by an entire skilled team of people helping them to achieve better outcomes.

Would this model be financially and logistically replicable in other underserved communities and help to alleviate some of the concerns of a reduction in obstetrical providers and increased cesareans and interventions without improved maternal and newborn outcomes? And how can you, the childbirth educator, play a role?

References

Azad MB, Korzyrkyj AL. Perinatal programming of asthma: the role of the gut microbiota. Clin Dev Immunol 2012 Nov. 3 [Epub ahead of print].

Canadian Association of Midwives. Annual report 2011. Montréal (QC): The Association; 2011. Available: www .canadianmidwives.org /data/document /agm %202011 %20inal .pdf

Farine D, Gagnon R; Maternal Fetal Medicine Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Are we facing a crisis in maternal fetal medicine in Canada? J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008;30:598-9.

Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Hamisu M, et al. Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption.Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:771-8.

Giving birth in Canada: the costs. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Institute of Health Information; 2006.

Godwin M, Hodgetts G, Seguin R, et al. The Ontario Family Medicine Residents Cohort Study: factors affecting residents’ decisions to practise obstetrics. CMAJ 2002;166:179-84.

Hannah ME. Planned elective cesarean section: A reasonable choice for some women? CMAJ 2004;170:813-4.

Harris, S., Janssen, P., Saxell, L., Carty, E., MacRae, G., & Petersen, K. (2012). Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes. Canadian Medical Association Journal, doi: DOI:10.1503 /cmaj.111753

Ontario Maternity Care Expert Panel. Maternity care in Ontario 2006: emerging crisis, emerging solutions: Ottawa (ON): Ontario Women’s Health Council, Ministry of Health and LongTerm Care; 2006.

Reid AJ, Carroll JC. Choosing to practise obstetrics. What factors influence family practice residents? Can Fam Physician 1991; 37:1859-67.

 

Sharon Muza Babies, Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Fetal Monitoring, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, New Research, Research, Uncategorized breastfeeding, Canada, cesarean, Childbirth Education, epidurals, Healthy Birth Practices, hospitals, induction, interventions, maternity care quality, maternity care systems, MD, midwives, newborns, Sharon Muza, South Community Birth Program

In May of this year, three leading midwifery organizations, American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM), Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) and National Association of Certified Professional Midwives (NACPM) jointly released a statement titled “Supporting Healthy and Normal Physiologic Childbirth; A Consensus Statement by ACNM, MANA and NACPM,“ intended for health care professionals and policymakers.  This strongly worded statement supports healthy and normal physiologic childbirth for for U.S. women. It is logical that the three main U.S. midwifery organizations coordinated in preparing this statement, as midwives are the gatekeepers of normal birth for low risk women.   The purpose of the consensus statement, which was developed by a joint task force appointed from members of the three midwifery organizations was to:

• Provide a succinct definition of normal physiologic birth;
• Identify measurable benchmarks to describe optimal processes and outcomes reflective of normal physiologic birth;
• Identify factors that facilitate or disrupt normal physiologic birth based on the best available evidence;
• Create a template for system changes through clinical practice, education, research, and health policy; and
• Ultimately improve the health of mothers and infants, while avoiding unnecessary and costly interventions.

A normal physiologic labor and birth is one that is powered by the innate human capacity of the woman and fetus. This birth is more likely to be safe and healthy because there is no unnecessary intervention that disrupts normal physiologic processes.  Some women and/or fetuses will develop complications that warrante medical attention to assure safe and healthy outcomes.  However, supporting the normal physiologic processes of labor and birth, even in the presence of such complications, has the potential to enhance best outcomes for mother and infant.

These three organizations recognize the current state of U.S. maternity care and acknowledge how technology and interventions are being commonly used despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting routine applications. (Sakala, 2008.)  Some of the interventions cited including pitocin being used to induce or augment more than half of all pregnant women’s labors. (Declercq, Sakala, 2006.)  The cesarean rate in the United States is more than 33%. (Martin,Hamilton, Ventura 2011.) This cesarean rate is not without risks for both mothers and babies with the original cesarean birth but also recognizes the complications to subsequent pregnancies and birth.  The organizations also commented that women who have perceived their birth or the care they received as traumatic or disrespectful are more likely to develop postpartum mood disorders and potentially difficulty in establishing healthy mother-infant attachment. (Beck, 2004), (Beck, Watson, 2008), (Beck, 2006).

The consensus statement goes on to state the characteristics of normal physiologic birth;

• is characterized by spontaneous onset and progression of labor;
• includes biological and psychological conditions that promote effective labor;
• results in the vaginal birth of of the infant and placenta;
• results in physiological blood loss,
• facilitates optimal newborn transition through skin-to-skin contact and keeping the mother and infant together during the postpartum period; and
• supports early initiation of breastfeeding. (World Health Organization 1996).

When I was reading the above list, as outlined by the World Health Organization and cited in the consensus statement,  I was stuck by how these statements are in sync with Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practices.  I was also a bit discouraged that these statements, published by WHO in 1996 sometimes still seem a distant goal.

There are factors that interfere with the normal physiologic process, including many that you may be very familiar with; induction or augmentation of labor, lack of a supportive environment, time limits on labor, denial of food and drink, pain medications, episiotomies, vacuum or forceps assisted deliveries, cesareans, immediate cord clamping, separation of the new mother from her newborn and finally, a situation that may feel threatening or unsupportive to the mother.

The consensus statement recognizes the numerous short-term and long-term health implications of normal birth to the mother-baby dyad.  Allowing labor and birth to unfold without interference permits labor and birth hormones to work effectively, thereby reducing the need for the familiar “cascade of interventions.”

For most women, the short-term benefits of normal physiologic birth include emerging from childbirth feeling physically and emotionally healthy and powerful as mothers…A focus on these aspects of normal physiologic birth will help to change the current discourse on childbirth as an illness state where authority resides external to the woman to one of wellness in which women and clinicians share decisions and accountability. (Kennedy, Nardini, McLeod-Waldo, 2009).

When women enter motherhood from a position of strength and confidence, babies benefit, families benefit and society benefits.  Multiple factors for the woman, the clinician and the birthing environment help to promote women birthing without intervention.  All three sides of an important triad need to share equal responsibility in meeting this goal.

The consensus statement indicates that education plays a role in helping women obtain a normal physiologic birth.  The role of the childbirth educator cannot be underestimated.  Sharing the values of Lamaze and the Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices is right in line with the midwifery statement.

ACNM, MANA and NACPM go on to encourage hospital policies to be set that support normal birth, the recognition that care practices need to be evidenced based.  Midwifery care is a “key strategy” in that direction.  Education of clinicians on care practices that promote physiologic birth and furthering research on the effects of normal birth, among other things.

This consensus statement is clear and powerful in demonstrating that our mothers and babies deserve, depend on and require the opportunity to birth without interventions and that everyone will benefit as a result, in the absence of medical complications or medical need.  I look forward to policy changes, increased accessibility of mothers to midwives and the midwifery model of care and collaboration of all health care providers, both doctors and midwives, to promote practices that result in an increase in normal physiologic birth.

Take a moment to read the entire consensus statement and let me know what you think?  A step in the right direction?  What comes next?  Do you think it is exciting that these three organizations have worked together to come out with this bold challenge to make change? What do you do in your childbirth classes or with the women you work with to promote these values represented by the consensus statement.  Would you add anything else?   I welcome your discussion in our comments section. – SM

 Sources

Beck CT. Birth trauma: in the eye of the beholder. Nurs Res. 2004; 53(1):28-35.

Beck CT, Watson S. The impact of birth trauma on breastfeeding: a tale of two pathways. Nurs Res. 2008; 57(4):228-236.

Beck CT. The anniversary of birth trauma: failure to rescue. Nurs Res. 2006; 55(6): 381-390.

Beck CT.Post-traumatic stress disorder due to childbirth:the aftermath.NursRes, 2004; 53(4):216-224.

Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, et al. Listening to mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection; 2006.

Kennedy HP, Nardini K, McLeod-Waldo R, et al. Top-selling childbirth advice books: a discourse analysis. Birth. 2009;36(4):318-324.

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: preliminary data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011; 60(2):1-25.

Sakala C, Corry MP. Evidence-based maternity care: what it is and what it can achieve. New York, NY: Milbank Memorial Fund; 2008.

World Health Organization. Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization; 1996.

Sharon Muza Babies, Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Epidural Analgesia, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Home Birth, Infant Attachment, informed Consent, Maternal Mental Health, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, Newborns, Pain Management, Push for Your Baby, Transforming Maternity Care ACNM, birth trauma, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, infants, interventions, Lamaze International, MANA, Midwifery Care, midwives, NACPM, newborns, Sharon Muza, traumatic birth, WHO, World Health Organization