Archive for the ‘Maternal Mortality’ Category

Meet Jennie Joseph, LM, CPM – Lamaze/ICEA 2015 Conference Plenary Speaker

September 10th, 2015 by avatar
© Jennie Joseph

© Jennie Joseph

Today on Science & Sensibility, we have the opportunity to meet our final Lamaze/ICEA 2015 plenary speaker- Jennie Joseph, LM, CPM.  This British born midwife is the founder and executive director of Florida’s Commonsense Childbirth Inc. whose vision states “We believe that all women deserve a healthy pregnancy, birth and baby!” Jennie is also the creator of the The JJ Way® which has been remarkably effective at reducing disparities and improving outcomes for both women and babies. Jennie owns a birth center in West Orlando, FL. She also operates a midwifery school as well as certifications for a variety of birth professionals  Jennie will be closing the conference with her plenary session: The Perinatal Revolution: Reducing Disparities & Saving Lives Through Perinatal Education. What role do childbirth educators like you play in improving outcomes for families of color?  Today, Jennie speaks a bit about this topic in advance of her presentation at the conference.  I have had the pleasure of hearing Jennie speak several times in recent years, and I know that conference attendees are in for a treat.  For more information about this year’s conference, head to the 2015 Lamaze/ICEA Conference website.

Sharon Muza: What role do childbirth educators play in helping to reduce the disparities that exist in pregnancy, birth and newborn/infant outcomes for women of color?

Jennie Joseph: Today’s educators can play an essential role in reducing disparities simply by educating themselves about what those statistics are, what they represent, who they represent and why. Once an educator understands the extent and the cause of the problem he/she is able to really embrace the need to reach women and families in meaningful and practical ways – ways that will ultimately make an impact on the outcome.

SM: What changes have you observed over time in the perception of the value of childbirth education in the communities you work with?

JJ: I think that in every community in this country there is and has been a movement away from the traditional childbirth classes of the past. Women and their partners are busy and overwhelmed, with a false sense of security engendered by internet searches and with the hope that someone else, or some other entity will take care of everything when the time comes.

SM: Why do you think that many families are not attending childbirth classes in their communities? Is it lack of offerings? Cost? Accessibility? Do new families feel it is irrelevant to their experience?

JJ: When families are disenfranchised in so many other ways there is little value seen, or interest in an additional expense, or reaching for non-existent support, given that time is at a premium and resources are low. The institutionalization of birth inherently leaves one believing that the system is already set in stone, that the options and opportunities for autonomy and independence are not going to be available, and the benefit of doing the required hours of class are not likely to avail much as far as having any say at all. Cost and accessibility may be a factor for low socio-economic communities but more importantly the fact that few independent educators are open to the outreach and innovative thinking that is needed to engage new families, leaves a void which does not appear likely to be filled anytime soon.

SM: What can Lamaze International do to support and encourage people of color to become childbirth educators and be prepared to offer evidence based programs in their communities?

JJ: Childbirth education organizations that recognize and acknowledge the inequities in perinatal health and outcomes, and that are committed to that change, will lead the way in recruiting, training and retaining a diversity of educators. Cultural humility and practical support, not only for the communities themselves, but the providers and the educators that service them typically is what is needed. Supporting from a grass-roots perspective and embracing the dedicated entry-level or non-credentialed perinatal workers and volunteers who are on the ground already will provide a pipeline to further grow the ranks of educators and practitioners able to make a difference.

SM: You have been actively involved in birth work and supporting families for many years. What keeps you from getting discouraged about the slow progress we are making in reducing preterm births, low birth weight babies, maternal complications amongst families of color.

Jennie Joseph with clientJJ: I often feel overwhelmed with the glacial changes that occur and wondered how you continue to make progress and change lives in the face of often discouraging news. I get very discouraged working with families that are disenfranchised in one way or another. I find myself sometimes at my wits end because the agreement that we have in the United States is that we just don’t know the reason why we have such a high prematurity rate and in working in my field and doing the things that I do, the way that I do them, I have been able, as have many others, to not only reduce but all but eradicate prematurity in a population of women who are considered to be at highest risk for prematurity. Low birth weight babies, complications for the mothers, maternal morbidity and mortality is rampant inside African-American communities in particular. So, how I keep from getting totally discouraged is the fact that in seeing the change brought about by applying some very simple and essentially easily applied tenents to how I provide the maternity care that we offer, we have been able to turn the tide. I know that other people are willing and are doing the work the same way. I know that they are seeing the results the same way, so I continue to hope that there will be a turning of the tide that more and more practices and practitioners will embrace these few simple steps and show that they too believe we can stop the scrounge of prematurity and low birth weight in the United States.

SM: What are you looking forward to most about being a plenary speaker and presenting to the Lamaze/ICEA 2015 conference attendees?

JJ: I am very excited about being able to present at Lamaze/ICEA 2015. I am more than thrilled. This is something that has been on my heart for a long time and I am really clear that until we embrace and involve all the perinatal team in the work at hand we will not be successful. I think that childbirth educators have a pivotal role to play in bringing about change and I know there is an openness and a willingness to hear about new and innovative ideas as far as providing that education across the board. This is an awesome opportunity for me and I am very much looking forward to it.


2015 Conference, 2015 Lamaze & ICEA Joint Conference, Babies, Childbirth Education, Home Birth, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Midwifery , , , , , , , ,

Report Finds Widespread Global Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth

July 2nd, 2015 by avatar
© Pawan Kumar

© Pawan Kumar

The journal PLOS Medicine published a research review yesterday, “The Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth in Health Facilities Globally: A Mixed-Method Systematic Review” (Bohren, et al, 2015).  Reading this report was both disturbing and extremely sad to me. Respectful care is a part of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal Target 5A: Improve Maternal Health. – which set a goal of reducing the maternal mortality ratio (the number of deaths among women caused by pregnancy- or childbirth-related complications (maternal deaths) per 100,000 live births) by 75% from 1990 to 2015.  The target rate had been 95 pregnancy or childbirth related deaths per 100,000 women but the current rate is sitting at 210/100,000, which is just a 45% drop.  99% of all maternal deaths occur in low-income and middle-income countries, where resources are limited and access to safe, acceptable, good quality sexual and reproductive health care, including maternity care, is not available to many women during their childbearing year. The most common cause of these maternal deaths are postpartum hemorrhage, postpartum infection, obstructed labors and blood pressure issues – all conditions considered very preventable or treatable with access to quality care and trained birth attendants.

Analysis of reports examined in this paper indicate that “many women globally experience poor treatment during childbirth, including abusive, neglectful, or disrespectful care.” This treatment can further complicate the situation downstream, by creating a disincentive for women to seek care from these facilities and providers in future pregnancies.

The reports and studies that were reviewed to create this report obtained their information from direct observation, interviews with women under care,  and were self-reported by the mothers.  Follow-up surveys were also conducted.

From the qualitative research, investigators were able to classify the mistreatment  into seven categories:

  1. physical abuse
  2. sexual abuse
  3. verbal abuse
  4. stigma and discrimination
  5. failure to meet professional standards of care
  6. poor rapport between women and providers
  7. health system conditions and constraints

The quantitative research revealed two themes: sexual abuse and the performance of unconsented surgical operations.

World Bank Photo Collection http://flickr.com/photos/worldbank/7556637184 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

It is no surprise that women’s experiences were negatively impacted by the mistreatment they received during their maternity care treatment period.  Some of the treatment was one on one – from the care provider to the mother, while other inappropriate treatment was on a facility level.

Investigation of the treatment of women during pregnancy and childbirth was conducted because it is known that care by a qualified attendant can significantly impact maternal mortality, but if women are disinclined to seek out appropriate care due to a fear of mistreatment, help is not available or utilized and mortality rates rise.  Removing this obstacle is key to reducing maternal deaths.

Prior experiences and perceptions of mistreatment, low expectations of the care provided at facilities, and poor reputations of facilities in the community have eroded many women’s trust in the health system and have impacted their decision to deliver in health facilities in the future, particularly in low- and middle-income countries Some women may consider childbirth in facilities as a last resort, prioritizing the culturally appropriate and supportive care received from traditional providers in their homes over medical intervention. These women may desire home births where they can deliver in a preferred position, are able to cry out without fear of punishment, receive no surgical intervention, and are not physically restrained. – Bohren, et al.

Women who are mistreated during childbirth obviously reflects a quality of care issue, but also a larger scale- a fundamental human rights issue.  International standards are clear that this is not acceptable.  The researchers encourage the use of their finding to assist in the development of measurement tools that can be used to inform policies, standards and improvement programs.

We must seek to find a process by which women and health care providers engage to promote and protect women’s participation in safe and positive childbirth experiences. A woman’s autonomy and dignity during childbirth must be respected, and her health care providers should promote positive birth experiences through respectful, dignified, supportive care, as well as by ensuring high-quality clinical care. – Bohren, et al.

I encourage you to read the study for a thorough review of the research findings.  The information is difficult to fully take in. Additionally, a companion paper  – “Mistreatment of Women in Childbith: Time for Action on this Important Dimension of Violence against Women” provides further information.  The New York Times covered this topic in their June 30th Health Section. The World Health Organization also covered this report and has a statement on this issue, endorsed by over 80 organizations, including Lamaze International.  The WHO also has a list of videos on the topic of abuse and mistreatment of women during pregnancy and childbirth that can be found here.


Bohren MA, Vogel JP, Hunter EC, Lutsiv O, Makh SK, Souza JP, et al. (2015) The Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth in Health Facilities Globally: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. PLoS Med 12(6): e1001847. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001847

Jewkes R, Penn-Kekana L (2015) Mistreatment of Women in Childbirth: Time for Action on This Important Dimension of Violence against Women. PLoS Med 12(6): e1001849. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001849

Do No Harm, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, New Research, News about Pregnancy, Research , , , , , ,

World Health Organization: Provide Cesareans for Women in Need, Don’t Focus on Specific Rate

April 21st, 2015 by avatar
© Patti Ramos Photography

© Patti Ramos Photography

As we have mentioned earlier this month, when Jen Kamel discussed placenta accreta as a downstream risk factor of the increasing cesarean rate, April is Cesarean Awareness Month and the World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with a new statement (WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates) that discourages identifying a “cesarean target rate” but rather encourages the use of cesarean surgery worldwide only when appropriate to protect the health of mother and baby. The goal should be that every cesarean performed is done out of true medical necessity and the decision to do so should be based on individual circumstances evaluated at the time for each mother/baby dyad.

Since 1985,  it has been stated that a safe and appropriate cesarean target rate was between 10-15%.  It was believed that if the cesarean rate exceeded that target rate, the mortality and morbidity for both mothers and babies would rise as a result of potentially unnecessary surgeries being performed.  Everyone recognizes that a cesarean birth can save the life of a mother and/or a baby.  But it needs to be acknowledged that there are no benefits to mothers and babies when a cesarean is done when it is not required.  WHO has decided to revisit the decades old suggested target rate as the number of cesarean surgeries being performed are increasing all around the world.  In the USA, in 2013, 1,284,339 cesarean surgeries were performed.  32.7% of all babies born in the USA that year were delivered by surgery.

There are both short term and long term risks to mothers, babies and future pregnancies every time a cesarean is performed.  These risks are even more elevated in areas where women have limited access to appropriate obstetrical care.

The WHO strived to identify an ideal cesarean rate for each country or population as well as a worldwide country level analysis.  The cesarean rate at the population level is determined by two items – 1) the level of access to cesareans and 2) the use of the intervention, both appropriate and inappropriately. Governments and agencies can use this information to allocate funding and resources.  Cesareans are costly to perform and doing more than necessary puts undue financial hardship on resources that may already be stretched too thin in many places around the world.

After conducting a systematic review – the team tasked with determining the population based cesarean rate determined that indeed, when cesareans are performed up to a rate of approximately 10-15%, maternal, neonatal and infant mortality and morbidity is reduced.  When the cesarean rate starts to increase above this level, mortality rates are not improved. When socioeconomic factors were included in the analysis, the relationship between lower mortality rates and an increasing cesarean rate disappeared.  In locations where cesarean rates were below 10%, as the rate increased, there was a decrease in mortality in both mothers and babies.  When the rate was between 10-30%, they did not see a continued decrease in mother or newborn mortality rates. The team also acknowledged that once the cesarean rate increased to 30% or above, the link between newborn and maternal mortality becomes difficult to assess.

In countries that struggle with resources, staffing and access to care, the common complications of surgery, such as infection, make cesarean surgery even more complicated and even dangerous for those women who give birth this way.

The team also struggled with analyzing the morbidity rate due to the lack of available data.  They did acknowledge that while the social and psychological impact of cesarean sections were not analyzed, potential impacts could be found in the maternal–infant relationship, women’s psychological health, women’s ability to successfully initiate breastfeeding and pediatric outcomes.  More research is needed.

WHO Cesarean Rate Conclusions



The WHO team also felt it is important to establish, recognize and apply a universal classification system for cesareans that can be applied at the hospital level and allow comparisons to take place between different facilities and the unique populations that they serve. Once established, rates and systems could be compared between geographic regions, countries, different facilities and on a global level and the data analyzed effectively to help identify where change can be effective at reducing poor outcomes.

robson high res 2

© WHO – click image for full size version

After reviewing the different classification systems currently available, they determined that universal use of the Robson classification would best meet the needs of both international and local analysis.  The Robson classification system is named after Dr. Michael Robson, who in 2001 developed this system to classify women based on their obstetric characteristics for the purpose of research analysis.  This allows for comparisons to be made regarding cesarean section rates with few confounding factors.  Every woman will be clearly classified into one of the ten known groups when admitted for delivery. The WHO team states that the Robson classification system “is simple, robust, reproducible, clinically relevant, and prospective.”

The WHO team believes that using the Robson classification will aid in data analysis on many levels and the information obtained from these analyses be public information.  This information can be used to help facilities to optimize the use of cesarean section in the specific groups that will benefit from intervention.  It will also help determine the effectiveness of different strategies that are currently being used to reduce this intervention when not necessary.

Cesarean sections can be a life-saving tool under certain circumstances.  When cesareans are performed when not medically necessary, there are both long term and short term risks to both mothers and babies, including increased mortality and morbidity and risks to future pregnancies.  This becomes especially significant in areas of low resources and scare obstetric care.  Better data is needed to help reduce the cesarean rate in locations where it is unnecessarily high and to be able to direct resources where they are needed and can improve outcomes.  The World Health Organization hopes that this data becomes available so that more accurate research can be conducted and the reduction in mortality and morbidity for mothers and babies can be reduced.

Are you sharing with your classes, clients and families the importance of having a cesarean only when medically necessary?  While April may be Cesarean Awareness Month, we need to be diligent all year long to prevent cesareans that are not needed.

Lamaze International has created and made available three infographics that can help families learn more about cesareans and VBACs.

Screenshot 2015-04-20 19.52.53

What’s the Deal with Cesareans?

Avoiding the First Cesarean

VBAC, Yes, It’s an Option! (NEW!)

You can download and print these and other Lamaze International infographics from this page here.

Share what you are doing to honor Cesarean Awareness Month in your professional practice in our comments section below.




Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Newborns, Research, Systematic Review , , , , , ,

Too Bad We Can’t Just “Ban” Accreta – The Downstream Consequences of VBAC Bans

April 2nd, 2015 by avatar

By Jen Kamel

April is Cesarean Awareness Month (CAM), and throughout the month, Science & Sensibility will be covering issues that are directly related to the number of cesareans (1,284,339 in 2013) performed every year in the United States.  To start our CAM series off, Jen Kamel, founder of VBACFacts.com, shares important information about placenta accreta.  Tomorrow, April 3rd, is the Hope for Accreta Awareness National Blood Drive, as part of the 30 Day Hope for Accreta Challenge sponsored by the Hope for Accreta nonprofit that provides consumer information and offers support to families affected by placenta accreta. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

cam lamaze 2015Even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have described vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) as a safe, reasonable, and appropriate option for most women, VBAC bans (hospital or practice wide mandates that requires repeat cesareans for all women with a prior cesarean) remain in force in almost half of American hospitals. It’s true that scheduled repeat cesareans almost always successfully circumvent the most publicized risk of VBAC (uterine rupture) by virtually eliminating its incidence and for this reason, many people celebrate and credit the repeat cesarean section for resulting in a good outcome for mother and baby. But what most people do not consider is that VBAC bans translate into mandatory repeat cesareans, and those surgeries expose women and babies to a condition far more life-threatening and difficult to treat than uterine rupture: placenta accreta.

Photo Credit: http://fetalsono.com/teachfiles/PlacAcc.lasso

Photo Credit: http://fetalsono.com/teachfiles/PlacAcc.lasso

Placenta accreta occurs when a placenta abnormally attaches to (accreta), in (increta), or through (percreta) the uterine wall. No one knows exactly why some women develop accreta other than there is some abnormality in the area where the fertilized egg implants (Heller, 2013). Anyone who has had a prior surgery on her uterus is at a substantially increased risk of accreta and, as it happens, cesarean section is the most common surgery in the United States (Guise, 2010). In fact, the rate of accreta has grown along with the rate of cesarean surgery: from 1 in 4,027 pregnancies in the 1970s, to 1 in 2,510 pregnancies in the 1980s, to 1 in 533 from 1982-2002 (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], 2012). That rate escalates to 1 in 323 among women with a prior uterine surgery and the risk rises at a statistically significant rate with each additional cesarean section (Silver, Landon, Rouse, & Leveno, 2006).

Up to seven percent of women with accreta will die from it (ACOG, 2012). After the baby is born, the placenta does not detach normally, causing bleeding, which can’t be stopped before the doctors are able to either surgically remove the placenta or perform an emergency cesarean hysterectomy. Babies die from accreta due to the very high rate of preterm delivery associated with accreta. In fact, 43% of accreta babies weigh less than 5.5 lbs (2,500 gm.) upon delivery (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013). Accreta is not a routine complication. Accreta is serious.

As Silver (2006) points out, the risk of accreta after two cesareans (0.57%) is greater than the risk of uterine rupture after one prior low transverse cesarean during a non-induced/augmented planned VBAC (0.4%) (Landon, Hauth, & Leveno, 2004). In other words, women are literally exchanging the risk of uterine rupture in a current pregnancy for the more serious risk of accreta in future pregnancies. This poses a striking public health issue when you combine what the CDC (2012) has reported for numbers of unintended pregnancies–49%–and the lack of access to vaginal birth after cesarean: over half a million repeat cesareans every year, resulting in higher rates of accreta.

Yet due to the nonmedical factors that inhibit access to VBAC and influence how the risks and benefits of post-cesarean birth options are communicated to the public, women are rarely informed of these risks in a transparent and straightforward way. Additionally, it can be very difficult for the woman to obtain social support when confusion and fear about giving birth after cesarean remains the norm.

Given all this, providers are ethically obligated to inform patients of the future implications of their current mode of delivery. However, it can be especially difficult for providers working within the political climate of a hospital where VBAC is banned to frankly inform their patients of this reality. How can providers clearly explain to women the risks and benefits of their options, with VBAC as a viable option, when they do not offer that option at the facility? Such a situation could even result in professional ramifications for the provider, like revocation of hospital privileges. Additionally, some providers do not offer VBAC, “not because of an explicit hospital policy against it, but because [they] were unwilling to stay in the hospital with a woman attempting [a planned VBAC]” (Barger, Dunn, Bearman, DeLain, & Gates, 2013).

It is for this reason that some argue that VBAC bans create a conflict of interest among providers (ACOG, 2011; Charles, 2012). On one hand, they are bound by ethical obligations to the patient’s well-being, respect for patient autonomy, and support of an informed decision-making process. But these obligations are threatened by financial and professional ties to the hospital.

ACOG stresses throughout their guidelines and committee opinions that informed consent and patient autonomy are paramount (ACOG, 2011). They share how obstetrics should be moving from a paternalistic system to a more collaborative model (ACOG, 2013). They acknowledge that women should be allowed to accept increased levels of risk (ACOG, 2010). They assert how there is no “right” or “wrong” answer, only what is right or wrong for a specific woman (ACOG, 2010). And they are clear that restrictive VBAC policies cannot be used to force women to have a repeat cesarean or to deny a woman care during active labor (ACOG, 2010).

Yet, with 48% of women interested in the option of VBAC, 46% of them cannot find a provider or facility to attend their VBAC (Declercq, Sakala, Corry, Applebaum, & Herrlick, 2013). Only 10% of U.S. women have a vaginal birth after cesarean, as opposed to another cesarean (National Center for Health Statistics, 2013). Barriers to VBAC remain firm.

Those barriers often include one-sided counseling to women of the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC. Rarely are they told of the complication rates of accreta, which are higher across several measures. This is true when we look at maternal mortality (7% vs. 0%) (ACOG, 2012; Guise, et al., 2010), blood transfusion (54% vs. 12%) (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013; Barger, et al., 2012), cesarean hysterectomy (20-70% vs. 6%) (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013; Barger, et al., 2012), and maternal ventilation (14% vs. 3%) (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013; Barger, et al., 2012). Further, 5.8% of accreta babies will die within the first week of life (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013) in comparison to 2.8 – 6.2% of uterine rupture babies (Guise, et al., 2010).

Accreta results in higher rates of mortality and morbidity because it requires a complex response which most hospitals are not equipped to provide. A 2012 study advises, “Treatment of placenta accreta is best accomplished in centers that have the expertise to handle the management, which involves multiple disciplines, including blood bank, interventional radiology, anesthesia, and surgical expertise, gynecologic oncology, urology, or obstetric subspecialty expertise” (Heller, 2013).

It ís worth noting that uterine rupture does not require this level of response in order to generate a good outcome. As Aaron Caughey, OB-GYN and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland explains, “From an obstetrician standpoint, there are no particular special skills to managing a VBAC. Even in an emergency situation, we all have the surgical skills to deal with it” (Reddy, 2014).

Because some hospitals are not equipped to manage an accreta, some women who are diagnosed prenatally find themselves traveling hundreds of miles away from their family in order to deliver with accreta specialists.

At 19 weeks pregnant, Dawn was diagnosed with percreta, the most severe form of accreta where the placenta goes through the uterine wall and attaches to other structures in the abdominal cavity. She had nine prior pregnancies. Dawn was among the 93% of women who were never informed of the risks of accreta when she was pregnant after her first, second, or third cesarean (Kamel, 2014). All she heard were the dangers of VBAC. Thus, she had three cesareans.

Mother after cesarean hysterectomy in ICU. © Dawn Johnson-Baranski

When she got pregnant again, she heard the word accreta for the first time upon her diagnosis as is the case in 59% of women diagnosed with accreta (Kamel, 2014). Dawn ultimately traveled from her home in rural Virginia to Houston, Texas, at 27 weeks pregnant, to the Fox-Texas Children’s Pavilion for Women, an accreta specialty center. Due to complications related to her precreta, her son was delivered by cesarean hysterectomy at 33 weeks. Her son spent 19 days in the NICU before they could return back home to Virginia (personal communication, March 30, 2014).

It’s because accreta is so dangerous, complex to treat, and unknown to the general public, that professionals and researchers are sounding the alarm about the risk exchange that happens when repeat cesarean is chosen (or forced) over VBAC. As Dr. Elliot Main, Medical Director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, cautions, “In California, we are seeing a lot of hysterectomies, accretas, and significant blood loss due to multiple prior cesareans. Probably the biggest risk of the first cesarean is the repeat cesarean” (Main, 2013). (The state of California has a 9% VBAC rate, just a point below the national rate) (State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2013). A 2009 study from the Netherlands advises, “Ultimately, the best prevention [of uterine rupture] is primary prevention, i.e. reducing the primary caesarean delivery rate. The obstetrician who decides to perform a caesarean has a joint responsibility for the late consequences of that decision, including uterine rupture” (Zwart, et al., 2009). And a 2012 study warns, “Because cesarean delivery now accounts for about one-third of all deliveries in the United States, rates of abnormal placentation and subsequent hysterectomy will likely continue to rise” (Bateman, Mhyre, Callaghan, & Kuklina, 2012). By reducing the primary cesarean rate and increasing access to VBAC, we could also reduce the incidence of accreta, cesarean hysterectomy, and hemorrhage.

Following multiple uterine rupture lawsuits in the 1990s, some hospitals crafted their restrictive VBAC policies around litigation fears. However, the concern over lawsuits resulting from “VBAC gone wrong” may soon be overshadowed by the worry of being sued when women or babies die from accreta, after failing to adequately respond to this dangerous condition and/or denying access to VBAC (Associated Press, 2013; Children to sue hospital over death of mother, n.d.). This will certainly become the case as the public becomes more aware of the connection between VBAC bans, cesareans, and accreta.

It could also become a public relations nightmare as Americans begin to realize that litigation fears–not patient safety, drive hospital policy. This becomes more likely as more women are diagnosed with accreta.

As mothers are the ones who carry the risk of either uterine rupture or accreta, shouldn’t they be the ones deciding which set of risks are tolerable to them? As ACOG (2010) says, “the ultimate decision to undergo [planned VBAC] or a repeat cesarean delivery should be made by the patient in consultation with her health care provider” –  not by hospital administrators, malpractice insurance companies, or providers who simply don’t want to deal with VBAC.

As Dr. Howard Minkoff (2010) shared at the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference, “We should be starting with a sense of what’s the best interest of the mother. Unfortunately, the decision here is not always who are better equipped, it’s more like who are willing. There are a lot of hospitals that are quite capable of providing VBACs but exercise an option not to do it particularly if there’s someone nearby that will take that on for them.”

Hospitals around the country, and particularly those that are located in areas where VBAC bans mean that all women have repeat cesareans, are seeing and will continue to see increasing numbers of accreta. They have no choice but to manage it – which can be especially problematic for smaller facilities in rural areas that don’t offer the sophisticated response accreta requires.

But motivation remains the driving factor in hospital VBAC policy even in rural hospitals. Take the five small community hospitals in New Mexico that serve the Navajo Nation. As Dr. Jean Howe (2010), their Chief Clinical Consultant for Obstetrics, shared at the 2010 NIH Conference, these rural facilities collectively deliver 3,000 babies each year and maintain a 15% cesarean rate and a 38% VBAC rate. Numbers like that just don’t happen. They are the result of motivated administrators, providers, and patients who want VBAC to be an option at their facility.

The bottom line is, VBAC bans simply delay risk. The sooner hospital administrators and the American public realize this, the sooner we can mobilize–reducing future risks of accreta by making VBAC a viable option in more hospitals. It is one thing for a woman to knowingly plan a repeat cesarean understanding this risk. That is her choice as both VBAC and repeat cesarean come with risk. However, it is unconscionable when a woman is not presented with her options and she develops accreta in a subsequent pregnancy.

As the American public becomes more aware of the serious risks associated with repeat cesarean, will more providers and facilities be sued as a result of accreta-related complications and death? Will it have to come to fear of litigation, again, in order for hospitals to throw aside their current VBAC bans, listen to what the NIH, ACOG, and the medical research has to say; to create an environment that is supportive of VBAC, respect a mother’s right to make her own medical decisions, and prepare accreta-response protocols?

Women are entitled to understand what that first cesarean means in terms of their future birth options and their long term health. Consumers and providers should work with hospital administration to reverse VBAC bans, review current VBAC policies to insure they are aligned with national guidelines and evidence, and improve response times for obstetrical emergencies through team training and drills (Cornthwaite, Edwards, & Siassakos, 2013). Providers should have frank conversations with patients about the immediate and long-term risks and benefits of their options within the context of intended family size, acknowledging that sometimes the stork delivers when you’re not expecting it. This is about administrators, providers, professionals, and consumers working together for better processes and healthier outcomes. Let’s get to work.


American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010, August). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116(2), 450-463. Retrieved from http://dhmh.maryland.gov/midwives/Documents/ACOG%20VBAC.pdf

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2011). Code of Professional Ethics. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from ACOG: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/~/media/Departments/National%20Officer%20Nominations%20Process/ACOGcode.pdf

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2012, July). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 529: Placenta accreta. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 201-11. Retrieved from http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Obstetric%20Practice/Placenta%20Accreta.aspx

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2013). Elective surgery and patient choice. Committee Opinion No. 578. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 122, 1134-8. Retrieved from http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Ethics/Elective_Surgery_and_Patient_Choice

Associated Press. (2013, Nov 25). $15 million awarded in Illinois childbirth death lawsuit. Retrieved from Insurance Journal: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2013/11/25/312169.htm

Barger, M. K., Dunn, T. J., Bearman, S., DeLain, M., & Gates, E. (2013). A survey of access to trial of labor in California hospitals in 2012. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636061/pdf/1471-2393-13-83.pdf

Barger, M. K., Nannini, A., Weiss, J., Declercq, E. R., Stubblefield, P., Werler, M., & Ringer, S. (2012, November). Severe maternal and perinatal outcomes from uterine rupture among women at term with a trial of labor. Journal of Perinatology, 32, 837-843. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v32/n11/full/jp20122a.html

Bateman, M. T., Mhyre, J. M., Callaghan, W. M., & Kuklina, E. V. (2012). Peripartum hysterectomy in the United States: nationwide 14 year experience. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 206(63), e1-8. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21982025

Charles, S. (2012, Jul-Aug). The Ethics of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. The Hastings Center Report, 42(4), 24-27. Retrieved from Medscape: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.52/abstract

Cornthwaite, K., Edwards, S., & Siassakos, D. (2013). Reducing risk in maternity by optimising teamwork and leadership: an evidence-based approach to save mothers and babies. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27, 571-581. Retrieved from http://www.bestpracticeobgyn.com/article/S1521-6934(13)00051-5/abstract

Declercq, E. R., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., Applebaum, S., & Herrlick, A. (2013). Listening to Mothers III: Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection. Retrieved from http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10450

Eshkoli, T., Weintraub, A., Sergienko, R., & Sheiner, E. (2013). Placenta accreta: risk factors, perinatal outcomes, and consequences for subsequent births. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 208, 219.e1-7. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23313722

Guise, J.-M., Eden, K., Emeis, C., Denman, M., Marshall, N., Fu, R., . . . McDonagh, M. (2010). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44571/

Hale, B. (n.d.). Children to sue hospital over death of mother. Retrieved from Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-129801/Children-sue-hospital-death-mother.html

Heller, D. S. (2013). Placenta accreta and percreta. Surgical Pathology, 6, 181-197. Retrieved from http://www.surgpath.theclinics.com/article/S1875-9181(12)00183-3/abstract

Howe, J. (2010). National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference, Day 2, #04: Public Comments. 14:45-17:08. Retrieved from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/10898005

Kamel, J. (2014, Dec 14). Online poll of 227 women with prior cesareans.

Landon, M. B., Hauth, J. C., & Leveno, K. J. (2004). Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2581-2589. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040405

Main, E. (2013). HQI Regional Quality Leader Network December Meeting. San Diego.

Minkoff, H. (2010). National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference, Day 2, #04: Public Comments. 11:16. Retrieved from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/10898005

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health. (2012, Apr 4). Unintended Pregnancy Prevention. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/index.htm

National Center for Health Statistics. (2013). User Guide to the 2012 Natality Public Use File. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/DVS/natality/UserGuide2012.pdf

Reddy, S. (2014, Dec 8). A type of childbirth some women will fight for. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-type-of-childbirth-some-women-will-fight-for-1418081344

Silver, R. M., Landon, M. B., Rouse, D. J., & Leveno, K. J. (2006). Maternal Morbidity Associated With Multiple Repeat Cesarean Deliveries. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 107(6), pp. 1226-1232. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2006/06000/maternal_morbidity_associated_with_multiple_repeat.4.aspx

State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. (2013, December 17). Utilization Rates for Selected Medical Procedures in California Hospitals, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/PatDischargeData/ResearchReports/Hospipqualind/vol-util_indicatorsrpt/

Zwart, J. J., Richters, J. M., Ory, F., de Vries, J., Bloemenkamp, K., & van Roosmalen, J. (2009, July). Uterine rupture in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116(8), pp. 1069-1080. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x/full

About Jen Kamel

Jen kamel head shot 2015Jen Kamel is a consumer advocate and a leading national speaker on the medical facts and political, historical climate surrounding vaginal birth after cesarean.  She is the founder of VBACFacts.com and has brought her workshop “The Truth about VBAC: Politics, History and Stats” to over 900 people around the country, giving accurate, current information about post-cesarean birth options directly to families, practitioners, and professionals.

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Pregnancy Complications, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) , , , , , , ,

Care Model Innovations – Changing The Way Maternity Care Is Provided

February 17th, 2015 by avatar
© Serena O'Dwyer

© Serena O’Dwyer

Amy Romano was the original community manager, editor and writer of Science & Sensibility back when this blog was first established by Lamaze International in 2009.  After a healthy stint in that role, Amy has since moved on to other positions and most recently can be found in the position of Vice President of Health Ecosystems at Maternity Neighborhood, a technology company providing digital tools and apps to maternity health care providers around the world.  Additionally, Amy has been focused on finishing up her MBA at the same time.  (Talk about multitasking!)

While moving on to other things, Amy has not stopped blogging and I have been enjoying her most recent series on care model innovation in maternity care in particular and healthcare in general.  The series started in October of 2014, and Amy just published the seventh post in her ten post series. The entire series is part of Amy’s school work toward receiving her MBA.  That is a great blend of combining her degree program with her work, with her passion and interest.

Amy decided to look at four care models in particular: Nurse-Family Partnership, community-based doulas, midwife-led maternity services, and CenteringPregnancy. In talking with Amy, she shared that one of the things that really struck her is that these evidence-based care models are all very much relationship-based. She is more convinced than ever that trusting relationships are the “secret sauce” of good birth outcomes.

The posts available in the series so far include:

  1. What is care model innovation?
  2. The case for care model innovation in U.S. maternity care
  3. Care models that work: Nurse-Family Partnership
  4. Care models that work: Doulas as community health workers
  5. Care models that work: Midwife-led maternity services
  6. Care models that work: Group Prenatal Care
  7. Early examples of payment innovation in maternity care

And those posts yet to come:

8.  More mature payment reform models: An overview
9.  Driving community-based care through payment reform
10. The data infrastructure required for care model transformation

Particularly helpful are the references and learning resources that Amy includes in each of her posts, where the reader can go for more information and to dig deeper into the programs and research that Amy used to substantiate her research.

Changing the maternity care model currently in place is a critical piece for helping to improve the current status of both maternal morbidity and mortality as well as neonatal morbidity and mortality in the USA, which despite our abundance of resources, still has our world ranking in these categories shamefully at the bottom of the list.

According to Amy:

We’re in the midst of a “perfect storm” right now, with implementation of health care reform and lots of forces changing healthcare to be more patient-centered and integrated with community services. If ever there was a time when midwifery care, doulas, physiologic birth practices, etc., were going to take hold, that time is now.

As I have been reading Amy’s series, I have been struck by how some of her posts have reinforced the Lamaze Six Healthy Birth Practices themes, in particular #3 – Bring a friend, loved one or doula for continuous support, and #4 – Avoid interventions that are not medically necessary.

I asked Amy to share what her thoughts on what the role of the childbirth educator was in this time of transition.  Her response:

I think childbirth educators have lots of opportunities in the new healthcare landscape, but it will require a shift in thinking for some. New payment models will reward team-based care and CBEs have an important potential role as valued members of these teams, helping to implement shared decision making, help with care navigation/coordination, and extending educational offerings to postpartum/parenting, special conditions (e.g. gestational diabetes), etc. 

Amy Romano

Amy Romano

We need innovative ideas, forward thinking, and the ability to examine what we are currently doing with a critical eye, if we are to design and implement maternity care programs that improve outcomes and utilize resources more effectively to help mothers and babies.  As Amy highlights, there are existing programs that have shown great results and deserve the opportunity to be implemented on a wider scale.

Take some time to read the seven posts and come back to the Maternity Neighborhood blog to catch the final three when they become available.  Share your thoughts about what Amy is discussing as she rolls out the entire series.  And, consider what your role will be in the changing landscape of care that women receive during their childbearing year.

Babies, Childbirth Education, Doula Care, Healthcare Reform, Healthy Birth Practices, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery, New Research, Newborns, Research , , , , , , ,

cheap oakleys fake oakleys cheap jerseys cheap nfl jerseys wholesale jerseys wholesale nfl jerseys