24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Pregnancy Complications’ Category

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.

References

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) , , , , , , ,

ACOG & SMFM Standardize Levels of Maternal Care to Improve Maternal Morbidity & Mortality

February 5th, 2015 by avatar

obThe American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine released their second joint consensus statement on January 22nd, 2015. This consensus statement, Levels of Maternal Care is published in the February 2015 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Green Journal).

What are the objectives of this statement?

The objectives of the statement, Levels of Maternal Care, is fourfold:

  1. To introduce uniform designations for levels of maternal care that are complementary but distinct from levels of neonatal care and that address maternal health needs, thereby reducing maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States
  2. To develop standardized definitions and nomenclature for facilities that provide each level of maternal care
  3. To provide consistent guidelines according to level of maternal care for use in quality improvement and health promotion
  4. To foster the development and equitable geographic distribution of full-service maternal care facilities and systems that promote proactive integration of risk-appropriate antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum services

With a system in place that defines the levels of care, it will be clear when a transfer of care is deemed necessary to a facility that is better able to provide risk appropriate care to those women who need a higher level of maternity care.  This will improve maternal outcomes and reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Our goal for these consensus recommendations is to create a system for maternal care that complements and supplements the current neonatal framework in order to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality across the country. – Sarah J. Kilpatrick, MD/PhD, Lead Author

The USA ranks 60th in maternal mortality worldwide (Kassebaum NJ, 2014) and while some states  have established programs for a striated system of maternity care separate from the needs of the newborn, designations of what level of maternal care center will best serve the mother is not consistent and and creates confusion with a lack of uniform terms and definitions. Data supports better outcomes for mothers when certain maternal complications are handled in a facility deemed most appropriate for that condition.

Many years ago, thanks to the efforts of the March of Dimes, a similar system of levels of neonatal care was designated for the newborn, with each level having clear definitions of the type of services they were best able to provide, how they should be staffed and when a baby was to be transferred to a higher level facility based on newborn health conditions.  This newborn level of care system improved outcomes for babies in the USA, as they were assigned to a location that could best meet their medical needs. The levels of maternal care compliment the levels of care for the neonate, but should be viewed independently from the neonatal designations.

What are the levels of maternal care?

The statement defines five levels of care – Birth Center, Level I (Basic Care), Level II (Specialty Care), Level III (Subspecialty Care) and Level IV (Regional Perinatal Health Care Centers).

For each level, there is a definition, a list of capabilities that each facility should have, the types of health care providers that are assumed to be competent to work there and examples of appropriate patients.

Each level requires meeting the capabilities of the previous level(s) plus the ability to serve even more complicated situations until you reach Level IV, suitable for the most complicated, high populations.

The risk appropriate patient deemed suitable for each level takes into account the skills and training of the midwives or doctors who staff that facility and the ability of those individuals to initiate appropriate emergency skills and response times for the patient.  As a woman becomes less and less “low risk”, she will need to have her care transferred to the appropriate level.  This transfer may occur prenatally, intrapartum or during the postpartum period.

Recognition of the out of hospital midwife and the birth center

The consensus statement recognizes the credentials of the Certified Midwife (CM), the Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) and the Licensed Midwife (LM) as appropriate health care providers, along with Certified Nurse Midwives, OBs and Family Practice doctors, for low risk women in out of hospital facilities where those individuals are legally recognized as able to practice.  The low risk woman is defined as low-risk women one with an uncomplicated singleton term pregnancy with a vertex presentation who is expected to have an uncomplicated birth.

The statement also officially recognizes the freestanding birth center as an appropriate place to give birth for low risk women, along with supporting the collaboration of birth center midwives with the health care providers at higher level maternal care facilities.

Clear capabilities and requirements

The statement also outlines the type of staffing requirements to be available for services, consultation, or emergency procedures at each type of facility.

The consensus statement acknowledges that the appropriate level of  care for the baby may not align with the appropriate level of care for the mother.  Care guidelines that have been long established and well determined for the newborn should also be followed.

Consensus statement receives strong support

The consensus statement has been reviewed and endorsed by:

American Association of Birth Centers

American College of Nurse-Midwives

Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses

Commission for the Accreditation of Birth Centers

The American Academy of Pediatrics leadership, the American Society of Anesthesiologists leadership, and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology leadership have reviewed the opinion and have given their support as well.

Additionally, the Midwives Alliance of North America was pleased to see this consensus statement and read how the role of out of hospital midwives was addressed.

MANA applauds ACOG’s identification of the need for birthing women to have a wide range of birthing options, from out of hospital settings for low-risk women to regional perinatal centers for families experiencing the most complicated pregnancies. As ACOG states, a wide variety of providers can meet the needs of low-risk women, including Certified Professional Midwives, Certified Nurse Midwives, Certified Midwives, and Licensed Midwives. We strongly concur with the need for collaborative relationships between midwives and obstetricians. Treesa McLean, LM, CPM, MANA Director of Public Affairs

What does this mean for the childbirth educator?

I encourage all birth professionals to read the consensus statement (it is easy to read) to understand the specifics of each level of maternal care.  As we teach classes, we can discuss with our families that there may be circumstances during their pregnancy or labor that require their care to be changed or transferred to a facility that offers the level of maternal care appropriate for their condition. Some of us already work in hospitals that are Level IV while others of us might teach elsewhere. We can help families to understand why a transfer might be necessary, and how to ask for and receive the information they need to fully understand the reason for a transfer of care and what all their options might be.  Families that are prepared, even for the events that they hoped to avoid, can feel better about how their labor and birth unfold.

Thank you ACOG and SMFM for working hard to clarify and bring about uniform standards that can be applied across the country that will improve the outcomes for mothers giving birth in the USA.

Photo source: creative commons licensed (BY-NC-SA) flickr photo by Paul Gillin

References

Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, Shackelford KA, Steiner C, Heuton KR, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 [published erratum appears in Lancet 2014;384:956]. Lancet 2014;384:980–1004. [PubMed]

Levels of maternal care. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:502–15.

American Academy of Pediatrics, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, New Research, Practice Guidelines, Pregnancy Complications , , , , ,

You Are Invited to Participate in an Online Learning Opportunity: Patient, Staff, and Family Support Following a Severe Maternal Event

October 10th, 2014 by avatar

council women safety

Past posts on Science & Sensibility – CDC & ACOG Convene Meeting on Maternal Mortality & Maternal Safety in Chicago and U.S. Maternal Mortality Ratio is Dismal, But Changes Underway, and You are Invited to Participate have shared information on the National Partnership for Maternal Safety, a multidisciplinary initiative focused on reducing the rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States.  This partnership falls under the umbrella of The Council on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care. This unique consortium of organizations across the spectrum of women’s health has come together to promote safe health care for every woman, at every birthing facility in the U.S. through implementation of safety bundles for common obstetric emergencies (hemorrhage, preeclampsia/hypertension and venous thromboembolism) as well as supplemental bundles on Maternal Early Warning Criteria, Facility Review after a Severe Maternal Event, and Patient/Family and Staff Support after a Severe Maternal Event.

The public Safety Action Series has introduced topics including an overview of the Partnership, efforts underway to define and measure Severe Maternal Morbidity, identify and implement Maternal Early Warning Criteria, Quantification of Blood Loss, and the outlines of the OB Hemorrhage Patient Safety Bundle. These slide sets and audio recordings have been archived and are available to the public.

christine morton headshotThe next event will be Tuesday, October 14 at 12:30 pm EST, with presenters Cynthia Chazotte, MD, FACOG, and Christine Morton, PhD, on Patient, Staff, and Family Support Following a Severe Maternal Event, and you can register for the event here. Registering for any event puts you on a list to be informed of upcoming events and future activities of the Partnership. Childbirth educators and other birth professionals may have students and clients who experience a serious medical event during labor and birth.  Having resources for families and for yourself is absolutely critical.  This information will be covered during the online event.

Christine Morton is a board member on the Lamaze international Board of Directors.   We are lucky to have such an active and knowledgeable professional to serve and support the Lamaze mission and values. Please share this information and get involved.

Childbirth Education, Lamaze International, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Pregnancy Complications , , , ,

CDC & ACOG Convene Meeting on Maternal Mortality & Maternal Safety in Chicago

May 23rd, 2014 by avatar
creative commons licensed (BY-NC-SA) flickr photo by Insight Imaging: John A Ryan Photography: http://flickr.com/photos/insightimaging/3709268648

creative commons licensed (BY-NC-SA) flickr photo by Insight Imaging: John A Ryan Photography: http://flickr.com/photos/insightimaging/3709268648

Earlier this week, I shared information on the Safety Action Series kickoff that all were invited to participate in, by the National Partnership for Maternal Safety – focused on reducing the maternal mortality ratio and morbidity ratio for mothers birthing in the U.S.  This partnership is part of the Council on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care.  Last month Christine Morton, PhD and Robin Weiss, MPH attended a meeting as board members of Lamaze International.  Christine shares meeting notes and topics that were discussed and what maternity professionals, including childbirth educators,  can do to help. – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager.

Disclosure:  Christine is a member of the Patient/Family Support Workgroup of the National Partnership for Maternal Safety, and a current board member of Lamaze International. 

Since 1986, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened interested persons in public health, obstetrics and maternity care to discuss and share information about maternal mortality, including methodologies for pregnancy mortality surveillance at state and national levels, and opportunities to reduce preventable maternal deaths.   Recently, under leadership of Dr. Elliott Main, medical director of California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC), and drawing from the recent experience of California in maternal quality improvement and work by other organizations and collaboratives, the focus of the interest group has shifted from surveillance to quality improvement.  The meeting has evolved from the early years when 12-20 persons sat around tables to discuss the issue, to this year’s meeting which had over 180 persons registered.  Clearly the time has come for a coalition around improving maternity outcomes in the U.S.

The National Partnership for Maternal Safety was proposed in 2013 in New Orleans, and the goal of the April 27, 2014 meeting in Chicago was to formally launch the initiative and report on the progress of each work group. The goal of the National Partnership for Maternal Safety is for every birthing facility in the United States to have the three designated core Patient Safety Bundles (Hemorrhage; Venous Thromboembolus Prevention; and Preeclampsia) implemented within their facility within three years. The bundles will be rolled out consecutively, beginning with obstetric hemorrhage and advancing to the other areas. To support this national effort, publications are underway in peer-reviewed journals. The first article, as an editorial call to action, appears in the October 2013 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Highlights from this year’s meeting included two presentations from CDC researchers William Callaghan, MD, MPH and Andreea Creanga, MD, PhD, on work being done to better identify cases of severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and drivers of racial/ethnic disparities.  One of the goals of creating a working definition of SMM is to help facilities track and review cases in order to identify systems issues and address them through quality improvement efforts.

Next, representatives from selected work groups (Hemorrhage; Venous Thromboembolus Prevention; Patient/Family Support) shared their updates.    It has become very clear from ongoing work within large hospital systems, state-based quality collaboratives and other countries such as the UK, that standardized protocols for recognition and response to preventable causes of mortality and morbidity are effective.  Unfortunately, there is no national requirement for all birthing facilities (hospitals and birth centers) to have updated policies and protocols on these preventable causes of maternal complications.

The good news is that there is a groundswell of support for a coordinated effort to realize the goals of the Initiative.  From state quality collaboratives in California, New York, Ohio and Florida to Hospital Engagement Networks, there are many hospitals already implementing some maternal quality improvement toolkits.  The Joint Commission plays a key role in helping hospitals work on patient safety issues and identified maternal mortality as a sentinel event in 2010 and is now proposing that any intrapartum (related to the birth process) maternal death or severe maternal morbidity should be reviewed.  As the nation’s largest accreditation body for hospitals, the Joint Commission is in a position to provide oversight as well as guidance to hospitals as they develop system-level reviews of these outcomes.

More states are being supported by federal and nonprofit agencies to develop and conduct maternal mortality reviews, and the role of Title V, the only federal program that focuses solely on improving the health of mothers and children, is critical.  Title V is administered by each state to support programs enhancing the well being of mothers and their children.

The last topics of the day were how to address the most common cause of maternal mortality – cardiovascular disease in pregnancy – but not as preventable as the three causes featured in the Initiative.

Suggested topics for future meetings including looking at maternal mortalities due to suicide, helping states with small populations aggregate their data, and addressing the issue of prescription (and other) drug abuse among pregnant women.  Eleni Tsigas from the Preeclampsia Foundation stressed the importance of including women’s perspectives and the emotional, social and ongoing physical sequelae of living after a severely complicated childbirth experience.

How is this information relevant for childbirth educators, doulas and other maternity professionals?  First, the rising rates of maternal mortality and morbidity are in the news.  While deaths are rare, severe complications are more common.  CBEs and doulas can reassure pregnant women in their classes that the likelihood of a severe morbidity is low, and can provide resources to share with women and help them learn which hospitals in their communities have begun the work of maternal quality improvement.  CBEs can share this information with key nursing and medical leaders at hospitals where they teach, and offer to help with the Quality Improvment (QI) efforts.

Childbirth educators and others can help ensure the focus not become too one sided – while it is important for every hospital to be ready for typical obstetric emergencies, it is also important for every hospital to be prepared to support women through normal physiologic birth by trained staff and supportive physicians. AWHONN launched its campaign, “Go the full 40” in January 2012 to help everyone remember that while we don’t want to ELECTIVELY deliver babies prior to 39 completed weeks gestation, we also want to support labor starting on its own.  And most recently, ACNM unveiled its BirthTOOLs site, which includes resources, tools and improvement stories on supporting physiologic, vaginal births.  CBEs and doulas can be strong advocates in supporting facility and maternity clinician preparedness for the ‘worst case’ and ‘best case’ scenarios in childbirth.

For more info about National Partnership for Maternal Safety or the CDC/ACOG Maternal Mortality Interest Group, please contact:  Jeanne Mahoney, jmahoney@acog.org

Past and future webinars about the initiative are available to the public here: http://www.safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/safety-action-series.html

Archived presentations from past CDC/ACOG maternal mortality interest group meetings

2014:  http://bit.ly/1sXkaGw

2012: http://bit.ly/1pfay9S

 

Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Lamaze International, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Pregnancy Complications, Uncategorized , , , , ,

2014 Preeclampsia Awareness Survey Highlights Need for Education- Educators Play a Key Role

May 13th, 2014 by avatar

May is Preeclampsia Awareness Month and childbirth educators play a key role in informing families about the symptoms of this disease of pregnancy (or postpartum.) Eleni Tsigas, the Executive Director of The Preeclampsia Foundation shares the results of a recent survey quizzing women on their awareness of this potentially deadly disease.  CBEs and others have a responsibility to share information in a calm, factual way duing class so that women are informed but not scared, should this disease present itself during their childbearing year. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

Preeclampsia_Pledge

As Executive Director of the Preeclampsia Foundation®, the nation’s only patient advocacy organization for preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, I’m excited to announce the results of a recent nationwide Preeclampsia Awareness Survey of more than 1,500 expectant and new mothers. These survey findings are driving the Foundation’s strategies associated with National Preeclampsia Awareness Month this month.

The survey, which was conducted by BabyCenter®, shows a high overall awareness of preeclampsia and that it is serious and associated with high blood pressure. There was also near universal knowledge to call a healthcare provider if experiencing symptoms of preeclampsia.

We’re very encouraged by the awareness that’s been raised in recent years, in sharp contrast to our last study six years ago that found very low overall awareness of preeclampsia. But there’s more to do, because this year’s survey also shows low awareness when respondents were asked about specific symptoms associated with preeclampsia.

The more a pregnant woman knows about preeclampsia, the more likely she is to recognize and report symptoms to her doctor or midwife. That improves time to diagnosis and medical evaluation, which saves lives – for both mothers and babies. And that’s why we’re so focused on improving awareness of preeclampsia.

Preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy remain a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death. Globally, by conservative estimates, these disorders are responsible for 76,000 maternal and 500,000 infant deaths every year. In the United States, preeclampsia affects one in every 12 pregnancies, and its incidence has increased by 25 percent during the past two decades.

Key Survey Findings

The recent survey of 1,591 women shows high overall awareness of preeclampsia, its severity and link to high blood pressure, and to immediately report symptoms to their healthcare providers:

  • 83% of respondents had heard of preeclampsia and of those women, 99% knew that it is extremely serious, even life-threatening for mother and baby, very serious, or somewhat serious
  •  88% knew that high blood pressure is a sign of preeclampsia
  • 96% would call their doctor or midwife if they experienced symptoms

Results also show areas that the healthcare community needs to address:

  • Raise awareness of the specific symptoms associated with preeclampsia
    • 78% incorrectly linked preeclampsia to swelling of the feet
    • Only 70% correctly linked preeclampsia to headache and vision changes
    • 3 out of 5 women were not sure about several other symptoms
  • Educate women on when preeclampsia can occur and its long-term impact
    • 44% didn’t know that preeclampsia can occur even after the baby is delivered, up to six weeks postpartum
    • 46% didn’t know that women with preeclampsia are at risk for future health problems
  • Improve access to information, regardless of education or income level
    • Compared to the 83% of respondents in general who had heard of preeclampsia,
      • 51% with some high school education had heard of preeclampsia
      • 37% who earned under $25k a year had heard of preeclampsia

Download the Preeclampsia Infographic

Survey Findings Drive Education Campaign

Released in conjunction with Preeclampsia Awareness Month, the survey findings provided the basis of the Foundation’s education campaign launched this month. Its theme – Take the Preeclampsia Pledge: Know the Symptoms. Spread the Word – highlights the importance of early recognition and reporting of symptoms. The campaign features Promise Walks for Preeclampsia™ across the country, social media events, and an easy-to-understand and share video called Preeclampsia: 7 Symptoms Every Pregnant Woman Should Know. (Spanish version)


 Know the Symptoms. Spread the Word.

Early recognition and reporting of symptoms is the key to timely detection and management of preeclampsia. Women who are pregnant or recently delivered should contact their doctor or midwife right away if they experience any of the symptoms listed below, and healthcare providers should be appropriately responsive. While these symptoms don’t necessarily indicate preeclampsia, they are cause for concern and require immediate medical evaluation.

  • Swelling of the hands and face, especially around the eyes (swelling of the feet is more common in late pregnancy and probably not a sign of preeclampsia)
  • Weight gain of more than five pounds in a week
  • Headache that won’t go away, even after taking medication for pain relief
  • Changes in vision like seeing spots or flashing lights; partial or total loss of eyesight
  • Nausea or throwing up, especially suddenly, after mid pregnancy (not the morning sickness that many women experience in early pregnancy)
  • Upper right belly pain, sometimes mistaken for indigestion or the flu
  • Difficulty breathing, gasping, or panting
  • “I just don’t feel right”

It’s also important to know that some women with preeclampsia have NO symptoms. Healthcare providers can only diagnose preeclampsia by monitoring blood pressure and protein in the urine, which is routinely done at prenatal appointments, so keeping all appointments is vital throughout pregnancy and immediately after delivery.

About the Preeclampsia Awareness Survey

The survey was conducted among visitors to the BabyCenter® website from January 17 to January 20, 2014. A total of 1,591 respondents completed the survey; qualified respondents are defined as female U.S. residents, 18 years or older, who are pregnant or have at least one child three years of age or younger.

About the Preeclampsia Foundation

A U.S.-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established in 2000, the Preeclampsia Foundation is dedicated to providing patient support and education, raising public awareness, catalyzing research and improving health care practices, envisioning a world where preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders of pregnancy no longer threaten the lives of mothers and babies. More information can be found at www.preeclampsia.org or by calling toll-free 800.665.9341.

How do you talk about preeclampsia in your childbirth classes?  When do you discuss it?  Are you also sharing that postpartum women can also develop this disease?  Would you consider showing the brief video above highlighting the seven key symptoms.  Let us know how you are discussing this topic in the comments section below. – SM

About Eleni Z. Tsigas 

eleni tsigas head shotEleni Z. Tsigas is the Executive Director of the Preeclampsia Foundation. Prior to this position, she served in a variety of volunteer capacities for the organization, including six years on the Board of Directors, two as its chairman. Working with dedicated volunteers, board members and professional staff, Eleni has helped lead the Foundation to its current position as a sustainable, mission-driven, results-oriented organization.

Eleni is married, and had has two of her three pregnancies seriously impacted by preeclampsia. As a preeclampsia survivor, she is a relentless champion for the improvement of patient and provider education and practices, for the catalytic role that patients can have to advance the science and status of maternal-infant health, and for the progress that can be realized by building global partnerships to improve patient outcomes.

Eleni has served as a technical advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO), is a member of the PRE-EMPT Technical Advisory Group and Knowledge Translation Committee (funded by the Gates Foundation), and participates in the Hypertension in Pregnancy Task Force created by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), as well as a similar task force for the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC). Eleni is frequently engaged as an expert representing the consumer perspective on preeclampsia at national and international meetings, and as a spokesperson in various public speaking venues. She was honored to deliver The Jim & Midge Breeden Lecture as part of ACOG’s 2012 Annual Clinical Meeting President’s Program.

Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Maternal Mortality, Maternity Care, News about Pregnancy, Pre-eclampsia, Pregnancy Complications , , , ,

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