24h-payday

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘ACOG’

Henci Goer – Fact Checking the New York Times Home Birth Debate

February 26th, 2015 by avatar
home birth

© HoboMama

An article in The New York Times Opinion Pages – Room for Debate was released on February 24th, 2015.  As customary in this style of article, the NYT asks a variety of experts to provide essays on the topic at hand, in this case, the safety of home birth. Henci Goer, author and international speaker on maternity care, and an occasional contributor to our blog, takes a look at the facts on home birth and evaluates how they line up with some of the essay statements. Read Henci’s analysis below.  – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager

As one would predict, three of the four obstetricians participating in the NY Times debate “Is Home Birth Ever a Safe Choice?“assert that home birth is unacceptably risky. Equally predictably, the evidentiary support for their position is less than compelling.

John Jennings, MD president of the American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, in his response- “Emergency Care Can Be Too Urgently Needed,” cites a 2010 meta-analysis by Wax and colleagues that has been thoroughly debunked. Here is but one of the many commentaries, Meta-Analysis: The Wrong Tool Wielded Improperly, pointing out its weaknesses. In a nutshell, the meta-analysis includes studies in its newborn mortality calculation that were not confined to low-risk women having planned home births with a qualified home birth attendant while omitting a well-conducted Dutch home birth study that dwarfed the others in size and reported equivalent newborn death rates in low-risk women beginning labor at home and similar women laboring in the hospital (de Jonge 2009).

The other naysayers, Grunebaum and Chervenak, in their response – “Home Birth Is Not Safe“, source their support to an earlier NY Times blog post that, in turn, cites a study conducted by the two commentators (and others) (Grunebaum 2014). Their study uses U.S. birth certificate data from 2006 to 2009 to compare newborn mortality (day 1 to day 28) rates at home births attended by a midwife, regardless of qualifications, with births attended by a hospital-based midwife, who almost certainly would be a certified nurse midwife (CNM) in babies free of congenital anomalies, weighing 2500 g or more, and who had reached 37 weeks gestation. The newborn mortality rate with home birth midwives was 126 per 10,000 versus 32 per 10,000 among the hospital midwives, nearly a 4-fold difference. However, as an American College of Nurse-Midwives commentary on the abstract for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine presentation that preceded the study’s publication observed, vital statistics data aren’t reliably accurate, don’t permit confident determination of intended place of birth, and don’t follow transfers of care during labor.

As it happens, we have a study that is accurate and allows us to do both those things. The Midwives Alliance of North America study reports on almost 17,000 planned home births taking place between 2004 and 2009 (Cheyney 2014b), and therefore overlapping Grunebaum and Chervenak’s analysis, in which all but 1000 births (6%) were attended by certified or licensed home birth midwives. According to the MANA stats, the newborn death rate in women who had never had a cesarean and who were carrying one, head-down baby, free of lethal congenital anomalies was 53 per 10,000, NOT 126 per 10,000. This is less than half the rate in the Grunebaum and Chervenak analysis. (As a side note, let me forestall a critique of the MANA study, which is that midwives simply don’t submit births with bad outcomes to the MANA database. In point of fact, midwives register women in the database in pregnancy [Cheyney 2014a], before, obviously, labor outcome could be known. Once enrolled, data are logged throughout pregnancy, labor and birth, and the postpartum, so once in the system, women can’t fall off the radar screen.)

We’re not done. Grunebaum and Chervenak’s analysis suffers from another glaring flaw as well. Using hospital based midwives as the comparison group would seem to make sense at first glance, but unlike the MANA stats, which recorded outcomes regardless of where women ultimately gave birth or who attended them, hospital-based midwives would transfer care to an obstetrician when complications arose. This would remove labors at higher risk of newborn death from their statistics because the obstetrician would be listed on the birth certificate as the attendant, not the midwife. For this reason, the hospital midwife rate of 32 per 10,000 is almost certainly artificially low. So Grunebaum and Chervenak’s difference of 94 per 10,000 has become 21 per 10,000 at most and probably much less than that, a difference that I’d be willing to bet isn’t statistically significant, meaning unlikely to be due to chance. On the other hand, studies consistently find that, even attended by midwives, several more low-risk women per 100 will end up with cesarean surgery—more if they’re first-time mothers—then compared with women planning home births (Romano, 2012).

Hopefully, I’ve helped to provide a defense for those who may find themselves under attack as a result of the NY Times article. I’m not sanguine, though. As can be seen by Jennings, Grunebaum, and Chervenak, people against home birth often fall into the category of “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

photo source: creative commons licensed (BY-NC-SA) flickr photo by HoboMama: http://flickr.com/photos/44068064@N04/8586579077

References

Cheyney, M., Bovbjerg, M., Everson, C., Gordon, W., Hannibal, D., & Vedam, S. (2014). Development and validation of a national data registry for midwife-led births: the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 dataset. J Midwifery Womens Health, 59(1), 8-16. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12165 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24479670

Cheyney, M., Bovbjerg, M., Everson, C., Gordon, W., Hannibal, D., & Vedam, S. (2014b). Outcomes of care for 16,924 planned home births in the United States: the midwives alliance of north america statistics project, 2004 to 2009. J Midwifery Womens Health, 59(1), 17-27. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12172 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24479690

de Jonge, A., van der Goes, B. Y., Ravelli, A. C., Amelink-Verburg, M. P., Mol, B. W., Nijhuis, J. G., . . . Buitendijk, S. E. (2009). Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG 116(9), 1177-1184. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=1177%5Bpage%5D+AND+2009%5Bpdat%5D+AND+de+jonge%5Bauthor%5D&cmd=detailssearch

Grunebaum, A., McCullough, L. B., Sapra, K. J., Brent, R. L., Levene, M. I., Arabin, B., & Chervenak, F. A. (2014). Early and total neonatal mortality in relation to birth setting in the United States, 2006-2009. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 211(4), 390 e391-397. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.047 http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(14)00275-0/abstract

Romano, A. (2012). The place of birth: home births. In Goer H. & Romano A. (Eds.), Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach. Seattle, WA: Classic Day Publishing.

Wax, J. R., Lucas, F. L., Lamont, M., Pinette, M. G., Cartin, A., & Blackstone, J. (2010). Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 203(3), 243.e241-e248. http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2810%2900671-X/abstract

About Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.  

 

 

Babies, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Home Birth, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery , , , , ,

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 , , , ,

Evidence on Water Birth Safety – Exclusive Q&A with Rebecca Dekker on her New Research

July 10th, 2014 by avatar

 

Evidence Based Birth , a popular blog written by occasional Science & Sensibility contributor Rebecca Dekker, PhD, RN, APRN, has just today published a new article, “Evidence on Water Birth Safety” that looks at the current research on the safety of water birth for mothers and newborns.  Rebecca researched and wrote that article in response to the joint Opinion Statement “Immersion in Water During Labor and Delivery” released in March, 2014 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics.  I had the opportunity to ask Rebecca some questions about her research into the evidence available on water birth, her thoughts on the Opinion Statement and her conclusions after writing her review. – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager.

Sharon Muza: First off, is it waterbirth or water birth?

Rebecca Dekker: That’s actually good question! Research experts tend to use the term “waterbirth.” Google prefers “water birth.” So I used both terms in my article to satisfy everyone!

SM: Have you heard or been told of stories of existing water birth programs shutting down or being modified as a result of the recent AAP/ACOG opinion?

RD: Yes, definitely. There was a mother in my state who contacted me this spring because she was 34 weeks pregnant and her hospital decided not to offer waterbirth anymore. She had given birth to her daughter in a waterbirth at the same hospital two years earlier. With her current pregnancy, she had been planning another hospital waterbirth. She had the support of her nurse midwife, the hospital obstetricians, and hospital policy. However, immediately after the release of the ACOG/AAP opinion, the hospital CEO put an immediate stop to waterbirth. This particular mother ended up switching providers at 36 weeks to a home birth midwife. A few weeks ago, she gave birth to her second baby, at home in the water. This mother told me how disheartening it was that an administrator in an office had decided limit her birth options, even though physicians and midwives at the same hospital were supportive of her informed decision to have a waterbirth.

In another hospital in my hometown, they were gearing up to start a waterbirth program this year—it was going to be the first hospital where waterbirth would be available in our city—and it was put on hold because of the ACOG/AAP Opinion.

Then of course, there were a lot of media reports about various hospital systems that suspended their waterbirth programs. One hospital system in particular, in Minnesota, got a lot of media coverage.

SM: Did you attempt to contact ACOG/AAP with questions and if so, did they respond?

RD: Yes. As soon as I realized that the ACOG/AAP Opinion Statement had so many major scientific errors, I contacted ImprovingBirth.org and together we wrote two letters. I wrote a letter regarding the scientific problems with the Opinion Statement, and ImprovingBirth.org wrote a letter asking ACOG/AAP to suspend the statement until further review. The letters were received by the President and President-Elect of ACOG, and they were forwarded to the Practice Committee. We were told that the Practice Committee would review the contents of our letters at their meeting in mid-June, and that was the last update that we have received.

SM: What is the difference between an “Opinion Statement” and other types of policy recommendations or guidelines that these organizations release? Does it carry as much weight as practice bulletins?

RD: That’s an interesting question. At the very top of the Opinion Statement, there are two sentences that read: “This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed.” But, as you will see, some hospitals do see this statement as dictating an exclusive course of treatment, and others don’t.

I have heard that “opinions” do not carry as much weight as “practice bulletins,” but it really depends on who the audience is and who is listening. In other words, some hospitals may take the Opinion Statement word-for-word and feel that they must follow it to the letter, and other hospitals may ignore it. A lot of it probably depends on the advice of their risk management lawyers.

For example, a nurse midwife at a hospital in Illinois sent me a letter that their risk-management attorneys had put together to advise them on this issue. (She had the attorney’s permission to share the letter with me). These lawyers basically said that when a committee of two highly-respected organizations says that the practice of waterbirth should be considered an experimental procedure, both health care providers and hospitals are “charged with a duty to heed that statement,” unless they find research evidence that waterbirth has benefits for the mother or fetus, and that the evidence can override the Committee’s conclusions.

On the other hand, another risk management lawyer for a large hospital system told me that of course hospitals are not under any obligation to follow an ACOG/AAP Opinion Statement. It’s simply just that—an opinion.

So as to how much weight the Opinion Statement carries—I guess it is really dependent on who is reading it!

SM: How would you suggest a well-designed research study be conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of waterbirth? Or would you say that satisfactory research already exists.

RD: First of all, I want to say that I’m really looking forward to the publication of the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) data on nearly 4,000 waterbirths that occurred in birth centers in the U.S., to see what kind of methods they used. From what I hear, they had really fantastic outcomes.

And it’s also really exciting that anyone can join the AABC research registry, whether you practice in a hospital, birth center, or at home. The more people who join the registry, the bigger the data set will be for future research and analysis. Visit the AABC PDR website to find out more.

I think it’s pretty clear that a randomized trial would be difficult to do, because we would need at least 2,000 women in the overall sample in order to tell differences in rare outcomes. So instead we need well-designed observational studies.

My dream study on waterbirth would be this: A large, prospective, multi-center registry that follows women who are interested in waterbirth and compares three groups: 1) women who have a waterbirth, 2) women who want a waterbirth and are eligible for a waterbirth but the tub is not available—so they had a conventional land birth, 3) women who labored in water but got out of the tub for the birth. The researchers would measure an extensive list of both maternal and fetal outcomes.

It would also be interesting to do an additional analysis to compare women from group 2 who had an epidural with women from group 1 who had a waterbirth. To my knowledge, only one study has specifically compared women who had waterbirths with women who had epidurals. Since these are two very different forms of pain relief, it would be nice to have a side-by-side comparison to help inform mothers’ decision making.

SM: What was the most surprising finding to you in researching your article on the evidence on water birth safety?

RD: I guess I was most surprised by how poorly the ACOG/AAP literature review was done in their Opinion Statement. During my initial read of it, I instantly recognized multiple scientific problems.

A glance at the references they cited was so surprising to me—when discussing the fetal risks of waterbirth, they referenced a laboratory study of pregnant rats that were randomized to exercise swimming in cold or warm water! There weren’t even any rat waterbirths! It was both hilarious and sad, at the same time! And it’s not like you have to read the entire rat article to figure out that they were talking about pregnant rats—it was right there in their list of references, in the title of the article, “Effect of water temperature on exercise-induced maternal hyperthermia on fetal development in rats.”

These kind of mistakes were very surprising, and incredibly disappointing. I expect a lot higher standards from such important professional organizations. These organizations have a huge influence on the care of women in the U.S., and even around the world, as other countries look to their recommendations for guidance. The fact that they were making a sweeping statement about the availability of a pain relief option during labor, based on an ill-researched and substandard literature review—was very surprising indeed.

SM: What was the most interesting fact you discovered during your research?

RD: With all this talk from ACOG and the AAP about how there are “no maternal benefits,” I was fascinated as I dug into the research to almost immediately find that waterbirth has a strong negative effect on the use of episiotomy during childbirth.

Every single study on this topic has shown that waterbirth drastically reduces and in some cases completely eliminates the use of episiotomy. Many women are eager to avoid episiotomies, and to have intact perineums, and waterbirth is associated with both lower episiotomy rates and higher intact perineum rates. That is a substantial maternal benefit. It’s kind of sad to see leading professional organizations not even give the slightest nod to waterbirth’s ability to keep women’s perineums intact.

In fact, I’m puzzled as to why keeping women’s perineums intact and uncut is not perceived as a benefit by anyone other than the women themselves. And here is the heart of declaring waterbirth as “not having enough benefits” to justify its use: Who decides the benefits? Who decides what a benefit is, if not the person benefitting? Who should be weighing the potential harms and the potential benefits of waterbirth, and making an informed decision about their options? Should it be the mother? Or should it be the obstetrician?

SM: What can families do if they want waterbirth to be an option in their local hospital or birth center and it has been taken away or not even ever been offered before?

RD: That’s a hard question. It’s a big problem.

Basically what it boils down to is this—there are a lot of restraining forces that keep waterbirth from being a pain relief option for many women. But there are also some positive driving forces. According to change theory, if you want to see a behavior change at the healthcare organization level, it is a matter of decreasing the restraining forces, while increasing the driving forces. Debunking the ACOG/AAP Opinion Statement is an important piece of decreasing restraining forces. On the other side, increasing consumer pressure can help drive positive change.

SM: Do you think that consumers will be responding with their health dollars in changing providers and facilities in order to have a waterbirth?

RD: I think that if a hospital offered waterbirth as an option to low-risk women, that this could be a huge marketing tool and would put that hospital at an advantage in their community, especially if the other hospitals did not offer waterbirth.

SM: The ACOG/AAP opinion sounded very reactionary, but to what I am not sure. What do you think are the biggest concerns these organizations have and why was this topic even addressed? Weren’t things sailing along smoothly in the many facilities already offering a water birth option?

RD: I don’t know if you saw the interview with Medscape, but one of the authors of the Opinion Statement suggested that they were partially motivated to come out with this statement because of the increase in home birth, and they perceive that women are having a lot of waterbirths at home.

I also wonder if they are hoping to leverage their influence as the FDA considers regulation of birthing pools. You may remember that in 2012, the FDA temporarily prohibited birthing pools from coming into the U.S. Then the FDA held a big meeting with the different midwifery and physician organizations. At that meeting, AAP and ACOG had a united front against waterbirth. So I guess it’s no surprise for them to come out with a joint opinion statement shortly afterwards.

My sincere hope is that the FDA is able to recognize the seriously flawed methods of the literature review in this Opinion Statement, before they come out with any new regulations.

SM: How should childbirth educators be addressing the topic of waterbirth and waterbirth options in our classes in light of the recent ACOG/AAP Opinion Statement and what you have written about in your research review on the Evidence on Water Birth Safety?

RD: It’s not an easy subject. There are both pros and cons to waterbirth, and it’s important for women to discuss waterbirth with their providers so that they can make an informed decision. At the same time, there are a lot of obstetricians who cannot or will not support waterbirth because of ACOG’s position. So if a woman is really interested in waterbirth, she will need to a) find a supportive care provider, b) find a birth setting that encourages and supports waterbirth.

You can’t really have a waterbirth with an unwilling provider or unwilling facility. Well, let me take that back… you can have an “accidental” waterbirth… but unplanned waterbirths have not been included in the research studies on waterbirth, so the evidence on the safety of waterbirth does not generalize to unplanned waterbirths. Also, you have to ask yourself, is your care provider knowledgeable and capable of facilitating a waterbirth? It might not be safe to try to have an “accidental” waterbirth if your care provider and setting have no idea how to handle one. Do they follow infection control policies? Do they know how to handle a shoulder dystocia in the water?

SM: What kind of response do you think there will be from medical organizations and facilities as well as consumers about your research findings?

RD: I hope that it is positive! I would love to see some media coverage of this issue. I hope that the Evidence Based Birth® article inspires discussion among care providers and women, and among colleagues at medical organizations, about the quality of evidence in guidelines, and their role in providing quality information to help guide informed decision-making.

SM: Based on your research, you conclude that the evidence does not support universal bans on waterbirth. Is there anything you would suggest be done or changed to improve waterbirth outcomes for mothers or babies?

RD: The conclusion that I came to in my article—that waterbirth should not be “banned,” is basically what several other respected organization have already said. The American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Association of Birth Centers, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives have all said basically the same thing.

How can we improve waterbirth outcomes? I think continuing to be involved in clinical research studies (such as the AABC registry) is an important way to advance the science and provide evidence on which we can base practice and make more informed decisions with. Also, conducting clinical audits (tracking outcomes) in facilities that provide waterbirth would be important for quality control.

SM: Let’s look into the future. What is next on your plate to write about?

RD: I recently had a writing retreat with several amazing clinicians and researchers who flew from across the country to conduct literature reviews with me. We made an awesome team!! The topics that we have started looking at are: induction for post-dates, induction for ruptured membranes, and evidence-based care for women of advanced maternal age. I can’t decide which one we will publish first! The Evidence Based Birth readers have requested AMA next, but the induction for ruptured membranes article is probably further along than that one. We shall see!!

SM: Is there anything else you would like to share with Science & Sensibility readers on this topic?

RD: Thanks for being so patient with me! I know a lot of people were eagerly awaiting this article, and I wish it could have come out sooner, but these kinds of reviews take a lot of time. Time is my most precious commodity right now!

Has the recent Opinion Statement released by ACOG/AAP impacted birth options in your communities?  Do you discuss this with your clients, students and patients?  What has been the reaction of the families you work with? Let us know below in the comments section! – SM.

ACOG, American Academy of Pediatrics, Babies, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Home Birth, informed Consent, Maternity Care, New Research, Newborns, Research , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , ,