Jane Sandall

Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study

Objective To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units. Participants 64 538 eligible women with a singleton, term (≥37 weeks gestation), and “booked” pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded. Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units). Results There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%). Conclusions The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.

Journey to Confidence: Women's Experiences of Pain in Labour and Relational Continuity of Care

INTRODUCTION An evaluation carried out at Kings College Hospital Foundation National Health Service Trust in London identified that women who received continuity of carer from the Albany Midwifery Practice were significantly less likely to use pharmacological pain relief when comparisons were made with eight other midwifery group practices and the local maternity service as a whole. This study was designed to explore womens views of this phenomenon. METHODS We conducted a thematic analysis of semistructured, audiotaped, in-depth interviews with 10 women who reflected on their experiences of preparation and support for pain in labour and midwifery continuity of carer with Albany midwives, using a qualitative descriptive methodological approach. RESULTS Women reflected positively on how, throughout pregnancy and labour, their midwives promoted a sense of their ability to cope with the challenge of labour pain. This building of confidence was enabled through a relationship of trust that developed with their midwives and the value of hearing other womens stories during antenatal groups. These experiences enhanced womens ability to overcome fears and self-doubt about coping with pain and led to feelings of pride, elation, and empowerment after birth. DISCUSSION Women valued being encouraged and supported to labour without using pharmacological pain relief by midwives with whom they developed a trusting relationship throughout pregnancy. Features of midwifery approaches to pain in labour and relational continuity of care have important implications for promoting normal birth and a positive experience of pregnancy, labour, and birth for women.

The projected effect of scaling up midwifery

We used the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) to estimate deaths averted if midwifery was scaled up in 78 countries classified into three tertiles using the Human Development Index (HDI). We selected interventions in LiST to encompass the scope of midwifery practice, including prepregnancy, antenatal, labour, birth, and post-partum care, and family planning. Modest (10%), substantial (25%), or universal (95%) scale-up scenarios from present baseline levels were all found to reduce maternal deaths, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths by 2025 in all countries tested. With universal coverage of midwifery interventions for maternal and newborn health, excluding family planning, for the countries with the lowest HDI, 61% of all maternal, fetal, and neonatal deaths could be prevented. Family planning alone could prevent 57% of all deaths because of reduced fertility and fewer pregnancies. Midwifery with both family planning and interventions for maternal and newborn health could avert a total of 83% of all maternal deaths, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths. The inclusion of specialist care in the scenarios resulted in an increased number of deaths being prevented, meaning that midwifery care has the greatest effect when provided within a functional health system with effective referral and transfer mechanisms to specialist care.

To what extent are women free to choose where to give birth? How discourses of risk, blame and responsibility influence birth place decisions.

Over the past 50 years, two things have changed for women giving birth in high-income nations; birth has become much safer, and now takes place in hospital rather than at home. The extent to which these phenomena are related is a source of ongoing debate, but concern about high intervention rates in hospitals, and financial pressures on health care systems, have led governments, clinicians and groups representing women to support a return to birth in ‘alternative’ settings such as midwife-led birth centres or at home, particularly for well women with healthy pregnancies. Despite this, most women still plan to give birth in high-technology hospital labour wards. In this article, we draw on a longitudinal narrative study of pregnant women at three maternity services in England between October 2009 and November 2010. Our findings indicate that for many women, hospital birth with access to medical care remained the default option. When women planned hospital birth, they often conceptualised birth as medically risky, and did not raise concerns about overuse of birth interventions; instead, these were considered an essential form of rescue from the uncertainties of birth. Those who planned birth in alternative settings also emphasised their intention, and obligation, to seek medical care if necessary. Using sociocultural theories of risk to focus our analysis, we argue that planning place of birth is mediated by cultural and historical associations between birth and safety, and further influenced by prominent contemporary narratives of risk, blame and the responsibility. We conclude that even with high-level support for ‘alternative’ settings for birth, these discourses constrain women’s decisions, and effectively limit opportunities for planning birth in settings other than hospital labour wards. Our contention is that a combination of cultural and social factors helps explain the continued high uptake of hospital obstetric unit birth, and that for this to change, birth in alternative settings would need to be positioned as a culturally normative and acceptable practice.

Freestanding midwifery unit versus obstetric unit: a matched cohort study of outcomes in low-risk women

Objective To compare perinatal and maternal morbidity and birth interventions in low-risk women giving birth in two freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) and two obstetric units (OUs). Design A cohort study with a matched control group. Setting The region of North Jutland, Denmark. Participants 839 low-risk women intending FMU birth and a matched control group of 839 low-risk women intending OU birth were included at the start of care in labour. OU women were individually chosen to match selected obstetric/socio-economic characteristics of FMU women. Analysis was by intention to treat. Main outcome measures Perinatal and maternal morbidity and interventions. Results No significant differences in perinatal morbidity were observed between groups (Apgar scores <7/5, <9/5 or <7/1, admittance to neonatal unit, asphyxia or readmission). Adverse outcomes were rare and occurred in both groups. FMU women were significantly less likely to experience an abnormal fetal heart rate (RR: 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5), fetal–pelvic complications (0.2, 0.05 to 0.6), shoulder dystocia (0.3, 0.1 to 0.9), occipital–posterior presentation (0.5, 0.3 to 0.9) and postpartum haemorrhage >500 ml (0.4, 0.3 to 0.6) compared with OU women. Significant reductions were found for the FMU groups use of caesarean section (0.6, 0.3 to 0.9), instrumental delivery (0.4, 0.3 to 0.6), and oxytocin augmentation (0.5, 0.3 to 0.6) and epidural analgesia (0.4, 0.3 to 0.6). Transfer during or <2 h after birth occurred in 14.8% of all FMU births but more frequently in primiparas than in multiparas (36.7% vs 7.2%). Conclusion Comparing FMU and OU groups, there was no increase in perinatal morbidity, but there were significantly reduced incidences of maternal morbidity, birth interventions including caesarean section, and increased likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth. FMU care may be considered as an adequate alternative to OU care for low-risk women. Pregnant prospective mothers should be given an informed choice of place of birth, including information on transfer.

Discussions of findings from a Cochrane review of midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women: continuity, normality and safety

Health and Social Care Research Division, King’s College, London, UK Departement de Medecine Sociale et Preventive, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada School of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK Warwick Medical School Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Corresponding author at: NIHR King’s Patient Safety and Service Quality Research Centre, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, Waterloo Bridge Wing, 150 Stamford Street, King’s College, London SE1 9NH, UK. E-mail address: jane.sandall@kcl.ac.uk (J. Sandall).

The impact of birthplace on women's birth experiences and perceptions of care

Overall birth experience is an important outcome of birth, and studies of psycho-social birth outcomes and womens perspectives on care are increasingly used to evaluate and develop maternity care services. We examined the influence of birthplace on womens birth experiences and perceptions of care in two freestanding midwifery units (FMU) and two obstetric units (OU) in north Denmark, all pursuing an ideal of high-quality, humanistic and patient-centred care. As part of a matched cohort study, a postal questionnaire survey was undertaken. Two hundred and eighteen low-risk women in FMU care, admitted between January-October 2006, and an obstetrically/socio-demographically matched control group of 218 low-risk women admitted to an OU were invited to participate. Three hundred and seventy-five women (86%) responded. Birth experience and satisfaction with care were rated significantly more positively by FMU than by OU women. Significantly better results for FMU care were also found for specific patient-centred care elements (support, participation in decision-making, attentiveness to psychological needs and to wishes for birth, information, and for womens feeling of being listened to). Adjustment for medical birth factors slightly increased the positive effect of FMU care. Subgroup analysis showed that a significant, negative effect of low education and employment level on birth experience was found only for the OU group. Our results provide strong support of FMU care and underline the big challenges in providing individual and supportive care for all women, especially in OUs. Policy-makers and professionals need to consider how the advantages provided by FMU care can support the effort to improve womens birth experience and possibly also the combat of the negative effect of social disadvantage on health.

Choosing embryos: ethical complexity and relational autonomy in staff accounts of PGD

The technique of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is commonly explained as a way of checking the genes of embryos produced by IVF for serious genetic diseases. However, complex accounts of this technique emerged during ethics discussion groups held for PGD staff. These form part of a study exploring the social processes, meanings and institutions that frame and produce ‘ethical problems’ for practitioners, scientists and others working in the specialty of PGD in the UK. Two ‘grey areas’ raised by staff are discussed in terms of how far staff are, or in the future may be, able to support autonomous choices of women/couples: accepting ‘carrier’ embryos within the goal of creating a ‘healthy’ child; and sex selection of embryos for social reasons. These grey areas challenged the staffs resolve to offer individual informed choice, in the face of their awareness of possible collective social effects that might ensue from individual choices. We therefore argue that these new forms of choice pose a challenge to conventional models of individual autonomy used in UK genetic and reproductive counselling, and that ‘relational autonomy’ may be a more suitable ethical model to describe the ethical principles being drawn on by staff working in this area.

Occupational burnout and work factors in community and hospital midwives: a survey analysis.

BACKGROUND community-based midwifery practice has been promoted in the UK maternity policy over the last decade as a means of increasing continuity of care. However, there have been growing concerns to suggest that the community-based continuity model may not be sustainable due to the high levels of occupational burnout in midwives resulted by increased on-call work. AIMS this paper attempted to identify work factors associated with the levels of burnout in community midwives as compared to hospital midwives, aiming at contributing to the debate of organising sustainable midwifery care. METHODS a statistical analysis was conducted drawing on data from a survey of all midwives working at one Hospital Trust in England (n=238). Occupational burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). RESULTS the sample midwives (n=128, 54%) had significantly higher levels of burnout compared to the reference groups. Multiple regression analysis identified as follows: (1) high levels of occupational autonomy were a key protective factor of burnout, and more prevalent in the community, (2) working hours were positively associated with burnout, and community midwives were more likely to have higher levels of stress recognition, and (3) support for work-life-balance from the Trust had a significant protective effect on the levels of burnout. CONCLUSION the results should be taken into account in the maternity policy in order to incorporate continuity of care and sustainable organisation of midwifery care.

Understanding how rapid response systems may improve safety for the acutely ill patient: learning from the frontline

Introduction Rapid response systems (RRSs) have been introduced to facilitate effective ‘rescue’ of seriously ill patients on hospital wards. While research has demonstrated some benefit, uncertainty remains regarding impact on patient outcomes. Little is known about the relationship between social contexts and the application of the RRS. Design This comparative case study of the RRS within the medical services of two UK hospitals used ethnographic methods over a 12-month period in 2009, including observation (ward work and shadowing medical staff = 150 h), interviews with doctors, ward and critical care nurses, healthcare assistants, safety leads and managers (n=35), documentary review and analysis of routine data. Data were analysed using NVivo software. Results The RRS reduced variability in recording, recognition and response behaviour. The RRS formalised understandings of deterioration and provided a mandate for escalating care across professional and hierarchical boundaries. However, markers of deterioration not assimilated into risk scores were marginalised and it was harder for staff to escalate care without the ‘objective evidence’ provided by the score. Contextual features (eg, leadership, organisational culture and training) shaped implementation, utilisation and impact of the RRS. Reporting and feedback of audit data enabled learning about ‘selected’ escalation work on the wards. Difficulties with referral upwards and across medical boundaries were reported by junior medical staff. Conclusion Locating a RRS within a pathway of care for the acutely ill patient illustrates the role of these safety strategies within the social organisation of clinical work. There is a need to broaden the focus of inquiry from detection and initiation of escalation (where the strategies are principally directed) towards team response behaviour and towards those medical response practices which to date have escaped scrutiny and monitoring.