Saraswathi Vedam

Outcomes of Care for 16,924 Planned Home Births in the United States: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009

INTRODUCTION Between 2004 and 2010, the number of home births in the United States rose by 41%, increasing the need for accurate assessment of the safety of planned home birth. This study examines outcomes of planned home births in the United States between 2004 and 2009. METHODS We calculated descriptive statistics for maternal demographics, antenatal risk profiles, procedures, and outcomes of planned home births in the Midwives Alliance of North American Statistics Project (MANA Stats) 2.0 data registry. Data were analyzed according to intended and actual place of birth. RESULTS Among 16,924 women who planned home births at the onset of labor, 89.1% gave birth at home. The majority of intrapartum transfers were for failure to progress, and only 4.5% of the total sample required oxytocin augmentation and/or epidural analgesia. The rates of spontaneous vaginal birth, assisted vaginal birth, and cesarean were 93.6%, 1.2%, and 5.2%, respectively. Of the 1054 women who attempted a vaginal birth after cesarean, 87% were successful. Low Apgar scores (< 7) occurred in 1.5% of newborns. Postpartum maternal (1.5%) and neonatal (0.9%) transfers were infrequent. The majority (86%) of newborns were exclusively breastfeeding at 6 weeks of age. Excluding lethal anomalies, the intrapartum, early neonatal, and late neonatal mortality rates were 1.30, 0.41, and 0.35 per 1000, respectively. DISCUSSION For this large cohort of women who planned midwife-led home births in the United States, outcomes are congruent with the best available data from population-based, observational studies that evaluated outcomes by intended place of birth and perinatal risk factors. Low-risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes.

The Experience of Planned Home Birth: Views of the First 500 Women

BACKGROUND Home birth remains a contentious issue in North America. Professional regulatory bodies are in conflict about the safety of home birth as an option for healthy women. The voices of women have largely been ignored in this debate. The purpose of this study is to report on the experiences of 559 women who had a planned home birth over a 2-year period in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS We asked all women in the Province of British Columbia who had planned for their birth to be at home with a regulated midwife in attendance to answer an open-ended question about positive and negative aspects of their birth. The qualitative method of interpretive description was used to understand what women believed to be the essence of their experience. RESULTS Women felt strongly positive about their trust in their midwifes skill and knowledge, a sense of emotional support and empowerment attained through their relationship with the midwife, perceptions of relaxation in their own home, being informed and included in the planning of their care, and the amount of time the midwife spent with their family. They believed that the confidence arising from their intense preparation and partnership with their midwives permitted them to choreograph their birth experience to a degree that would not be possible in a formal setting. CONCLUSIONS Women who planned a home birth with a registered midwife in British Columbia were overwhelmingly positive about their experience. Our qualitative report underscores the value women place on having the choice to give birth at home.

Transfer from planned home birth to hospital: Improving interprofessional collaboration

Womens heightened interest in choice of birthplace and increased rates of planned home birth in the United States have been well documented, yet there remains significant public and professional debate about the ethics of planned home birth in jurisdictions where care is not clearly integrated across birth settings. Simultaneously, the quality of interprofessional interactions is recognized as a predictor of health outcomes during obstetric events. When care is transferred across birth settings, confusion and conflict among providers with respect to roles and responsibilities can adversely affect both outcomes and the experience of care for women and newborns. This article reviews findings of recent North American studies that examine provider attitudes toward planned home birth, differing concepts of safety of birthplace as reported by women and providers, and sources of conflict among maternity care providers during transfer from home to hospital. Emerging evidence and clinical exemplars can inform the development of systems for seamless transfer of women and newborns from planned home births to hospital and improve experience and perceptions of safety among families and providers. Three successful models in the United States that have enhanced multidisciplinary cooperation and coordination of care across birth settings are described. Finally, best practice guidelines for roles, communication, and mutual accommodation among all participating providers when transfer occurs are introduced. Research, health professional education, and policy recommendations for incorporation of key components into existing health care systems in the United States are included.

Development and Validation of a National Data Registry for Midwife‐Led Births: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 Dataset

INTRODUCTION In 2004, the Midwives Alliance of North Americas (MANAs) Division of Research developed a Web-based data collection system to gather information on the practices and outcomes associated with midwife-led births in the United States. This system, called the MANA Statistics Project (MANA Stats), grew out of a widely acknowledged need for more reliable data on outcomes by intended place of birth. This article describes the history and development of the MANA Stats birth registry and provides an analysis of the 2.0 datasets content, strengths, and limitations. METHODS Data collection and review procedures for the MANA Stats 2.0 dataset are described, along with methods for the assessment of data accuracy. We calculated descriptive statistics for client demographics and contributing midwife credentials, and assessed the quality of data by calculating point estimates, 95% confidence intervals, and kappa statistics for key outcomes on pre- and postreview samples of records. RESULTS The MANA Stats 2.0 dataset (2004-2009) contains 24,848 courses of care, 20,893 of which are for women who planned a home or birth center birth at the onset of labor. The majority of these records were planned home births (81%). Births were attended primarily by certified professional midwives (73%), and clients were largely white (92%), married (87%), and college-educated (49%). Data quality analyses of 9932 records revealed no differences between pre- and postreviewed samples for 7 key benchmarking variables (kappa, 0.98-1.00). DISCUSSION The MANA Stats 2.0 data were accurately entered by participants; any errors in this dataset are likely random and not systematic. The primary limitation of the 2.0 dataset is that the sample was captured through voluntary participation; thus, it may not accurately reflect population-based outcomes. The datasets primary strength is that it will allow for the examination of research questions on normal physiologic birth and midwife-led birth outcomes by intended place of birth.

The Canadian Birth Place Study: Describing maternity practice and providers' exposure to home birth

OBJECTIVES (1) to describe educational, practice, and personal experiences related to home birth practice among Canadian obstetricians, family physicians, and registered midwives; (2) to identify barriers to provision of planned home birth services, and (3) to examine inter-professional differences in attitudes towards planned home birth. DESIGN the first phase of a mixed-methods study, a quantitative survey, comprised of 38 items eliciting demographic, education and practice data, and 48 items about attitudes towards planned home birth, was distributed electronically to all registered midwives (N=759) and obstetricians who provide maternity care (N=800), and a random sample of family physicians (n=3,000). SETTING Canada. This national investigation was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. PARTICIPANTS Canadian registered midwives (n=451), obstetricians (n=245), and family physicians (n=139). FINDINGS almost all registered midwives had extensive educational and practice experiences with planned home birth, and most obstetricians and family physicians had minimal exposure. Attitudes among midwives and physicians towards home birth safety and advisability were significantly different. Physicians believed that home births are less safe than hospital births, while midwives did not agree. Both groups believed that their views were evidence-based. Midwives were the most comfortable with including planned home birth as an option when discussing choice of birth place with pregnant women. Both midwives and physicians expressed discomfort with inter-professional consultation related to planned home births. In addition, both family physicians and obstetricians reported discomfort with discussing home birth with their patients. A significant proportion of family physicians and obstetricians would have liked to attend a home birth as part of their education. CONCLUSIONS the amount and type of education and exposure to planned home birth practice among maternity care providers were associated with attitudes towards home birth, comfort with discussing birth place options with women, and beliefs about safety. Barriers to home birth practice across professions were both logistical and philosophical. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE formal mechanisms for midwifery and medical education programs to increase exposure to the theory and practice of planned home birth may facilitate evidence based informed choice of birth place, and increase comfort with integration of care across birth settings. An increased focus among learners and clinicians on reliable methods for assessing the quality of the evidence about birth place and maternal-newborn outcomes may be beneficial.

The Canadian birth place study: examining maternity care provider attitudes and interprofessional conflict around planned home birth.

BackgroundAvailable birth settings have diversified in Canada since the integration of regulated midwifery. Midwives are required to offer eligible women choice of birth place; and 25-30% of midwifery clients plan home births. Canadian provincial health ministries have instituted reimbursement schema and regulatory guidelines to ensure access to midwives in all settings. Evidence from well-designed Canadian cohort studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of midwife-attended home birth. However, national rates of planned home birth remain low, and many maternity providers do not support choice of birth place.MethodsIn this national, mixed-methods study, our team administered a cross-sectional survey, and developed a 17 item Provider Attitudes to Planned Home Birth Scale (PAPHB-m) to assess attitudes towards home birth among maternity providers. We entered care provider type into a linear regression model, with the PAPHB-m score as the outcome variable. Using Students’ t tests and ANOVA for categorical variables and correlational analysis (Pearson’s r) for continuous variables, we conducted provider-specific bivariate analyses of all socio-demographic, education, and practice variables (n=90) that were in both the midwife and physician surveys.ResultsMedian favourability scores on the PAPHB–m scale were very low among obstetricians (33.0), moderately low for family physicians (38.0) and very high for midwives (80.0), and 84% of the variance in attitudes could be accounted for by care provider type. Amount of exposure to planned home birth during midwifery or medical education and practice was significantly associated with favourability scores. Concerns about perinatal loss and lawsuits, discomfort with inter-professional consultations, and preference for the familiarity of the hospital correlated with less favourable attitudes to home birth. Among all providers, favourability scores were linked to beliefs about the evidence on safety of home birth, and confidence in their own ability to manage obstetric emergencies at a home birth.ConclusionsIncreasing the knowledge base among all maternity providers about planned home birth may increase favourability. Key learning competencies include criteria for birth site selection, management of obstetric emergencies at planned home births, critical appraisal of literature on safety of home birth, and inter-professional communication and collaboration when women are transferred from home to hospital.

The Mother’s Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care

Shared decision making (SDM) is core to person-centered care and is associated with improved health outcomes. Despite this, there are no validated scales measuring women’s agency and ability to lead decision making during maternity care. Objective To develop and validate a new instrument that assesses women’s autonomy and role in decision making during maternity care. Design Through a community-based participatory research process, service users designed, content validated, and administered a cross-sectional quantitative survey, including 31 items on the experience of decision-making. Setting and participants Pregnancy experiences (n = 2514) were reported by 1672 women who saw a single type of primary maternity care provider in British Columbia. They described care by a midwife, family physician or obstetrician during 1, 2 or 3 maternity care cycles. We conducted psychometric testing in three separate samples. Main outcome measures We assessed reliability, item-to-total correlations, and the factor structure of the The Mothers’ Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale. We report MADM scores by care provider type, length of prenatal appointments, preferences for role in decision-making, and satisfaction with experience of decision-making. Results The MADM scale measures a single construct: autonomy in decision-making during maternity care. Cronbach alphas for the scale exceeded 0.90 for all samples and all provider groups. All item-to-total correlations were replicable across three samples and exceeded 0.7. Eigenvalue and scree plots exhibited a clear 90-degree angle, and factor analysis generated a one factor scale. MADM median scores were highest among women who were cared for by midwives, and 10 or more points lower for those who saw physicians. Increased time for prenatal appointments was associated with higher scale scores, and there were significant differences between providers with respect to average time spent in prenatal appointments. Midwifery care was associated with higher MADM scores, even during short prenatal appointments (<15 minutes). Among women who preferred to lead decisions around their care (90.8%), and who were dissatisfied with their experience of decision making, MADM scores were very low (median 14). Women with physician carers were consistently more likely to report dissatisfaction with their involvement in decision making. Discussion The Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale is a reliable instrument for assessment of the experience of decision making during maternity care. This new scale was developed and content validated by community members representing various populations of childbearing women in BC including women from vulnerable populations. MADM measures women’s ability to lead decision making, whether they are given enough time to consider their options, and whether their choices are respected. Women who experienced midwifery care reported greater autonomy than women under physician care, when engaging in decision-making around maternity care options. Differences in models of care, professional education, regulatory standards, and compensation for prenatal visits between midwives and physicians likely affect the time available for these discussions and prioritization of a shared decision making process. Conclusion The MADM scale reflects person-driven priorities, and reliably assesses interactions with maternity providers related to a person’s ability to lead decision-making over the course of maternity care.

A Crusade Against Home Birth

A recent study by Grunebaum et al examined the relationship between place of birth and adverse neonatal outcomes (Apgar of 0 at 5 minutes, and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction—hereafter referred to as neonatal seizures) as reported in birth certificate data from 2007 to 2010 for term newborns (n = 13,891,274) (1). Outcomes were analyzed by four practitioner types: hospital physician, hospital midwife, freestanding birth center midwife, and home birth midwife. The authors claim that babies born at home and in freestanding birth centers were at a significantly higher risk of having a 5-minute Apgar score of 0 (RR = 10.55 and 3.56, respectively) and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction (RR = 3.80 and 1.88). However, these findings must be interpreted with caution for several reasons. Limitations of birth certificate data for epidemiologic analysis have been widely discussed in the literature, and include concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of specific items on birth certificates, and the inability of birth certificates to provide longitudinal information (such as for planned home births that transfer to the hospital) or information on clinical intentions (2–4). The neonatal seizure variable, for example, is one of several medical variables unreliably reported on birth certificates (4–6). Two detailed studies comparing birth certificate data to medical records in New Jersey and Tennessee yielded sensitivity rates for neonatal seizures of 0.226 and 0.182, respectively (5,6). This means that approximately 80 percent of cases of neonatal seizures identified on medical records are not reported on birth certificates. Data of this poor quality should not be used as the main outcome measure in any study. Although reporting of data on 5-minute Apgar scores in broad categories (such as <7 or ≥7) is a bit better (7), no studies have examined the validity of reporting of 5-minute Apgar score = 0. However, there is substantial evidence that the reporting of this item on birth certificates is very problematic. Watterberg found that although large differences existed between home, birthing center, and hospital settings for reported Apgar scores of 0 and 10, these differences were greatly reduced for Apgar <4, and virtually eliminated for the combined category of Apgar 9 or 10 (8). There appear to be real differences between how physicians and home and birth center midwives perceive and report Apgar scores at the edges of the Apgar spectrum. Physicians are more likely to report fine gradations of either very low or very high Apgar scores, whereas home and birth center midwives are more likely to report Apgar scores of 0 or 10 more absolutely. Apgar score <4 is the more commonly used measure of early neonatal compromise, and has the added advantage of providing greater numbers of cases for analysis. The reported odds ratios for 5-minute Apgar score of 0 and neonatal seizures in the Grunebaum et al study are based on very small numbers of cases, and thus have limited generalizability or clinical relevance. It is also well-established that Apgar scores are poor predictors of neonatal outcomes (9), so even if these data could be improved, they

Mapping integration of midwives across the United States: Impact on access, equity, and outcomes

Poor coordination of care across providers and birth settings has been associated with adverse maternal-newborn outcomes. Research suggests that integration of midwives into regional health systems is a key determinant of optimal maternal-newborn outcomes, yet, to date, the characteristics of an integrated system have not been described, nor linked to health disparities. Methods Our multidisciplinary team examined published regulatory data to inform a 50-state database describing the environment for midwifery practice and interprofessional collaboration. Items (110) detailed differences across jurisdictions in scope of practice, autonomy, governance, and prescriptive authority; as well as restrictions that can affect patient safety, quality, and access to maternity providers across birth settings. A nationwide survey of state regulatory experts (n = 92) verified the ‘on the ground’ relevance, importance, and realities of local interpretation of these state laws. Using a modified Delphi process, we selected 50/110 key items to include in a weighted, composite Midwifery Integration Scoring (MISS) system. Higher scores indicate greater integration of midwives across all settings. We ranked states by MISS scores; and, using reliable indicators in the CDC-Vital Statistics Database, we calculated correlation coefficients between MISS scores and maternal-newborn outcomes by state, as well as state density of midwives and place of birth. We conducted hierarchical linear regression analysis to control for confounding effects of race. Results MISS scores ranged from lowest at 17 (North Carolina) to highest at 61 (Washington), out of 100 points. Higher MISS scores were associated with significantly higher rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery, vaginal birth after cesarean, and breastfeeding, and significantly lower rates of cesarean, preterm birth, low birth weight infants, and neonatal death. MISS scores also correlated with density of midwives and access to care across birth settings. Significant differences in newborn outcomes accounted for by MISS scores persisted after controlling for proportion of African American births in each state. Conclusion The MISS scoring system assesses the level of integration of midwives and evaluates regional access to high quality maternity care. In the United States, higher MISS Scores were associated with significantly higher rates of physiologic birth, less obstetric interventions, and fewer adverse neonatal outcomes.

The Mothers on Respect (MOR) index: measuring quality, safety, and human rights in childbirth

Background Abuse of human rights in childbirth are documented in low, middle and high resource countries. A systematic review across 34 countries by the WHO Research Group on the Treatment of Women During Childbirth concluded that there is no consensus at a global level on how disrespectful maternity care is measured. In British Columbia, a community-led participatory action research team developed a survey tool that assesses womens experiences with maternity care, including disrespect and discrimination. Methods A cross-sectional survey was completed by women of childbearing age from diverse communities across British Columbia. Several items (31/130) assessed characteristics of their communication with care providers. We assessed the psychometric properties of two versions of a scale (7 and 14 items), among women who described experiences with a single maternity provider (n=2514 experiences among 1672 women). We also calculated the proportion and selected characteristics of women who scored in the bottom 10th percentile (those who experienced the least respectful care). Results To demonstrate replicability, we report psychometric results separately for three samples of women (S1 and S2) (n=2271), (S3, n=1613). Analysis of item-to-total correlations and factor loadings indicated a single construct 14-item scale, which we named the Mothers on Respect index (MORi). Items in MORi assess the nature of respectful patient-provider interactions and their impact on a persons sense of comfort, behavior, and perceptions of racism or discrimination. The scale exhibited good internal consistency reliability. MORi- scores among these samples differed by socio-demographic profile, health status, experience with interventions and mode of birth, planned and actual place of birth, and type of provider. Conclusion The MOR index is a reliable, patient-informed quality and safety indicator that can be applied across jurisdictions to assess the nature of provider-patient relationships, and access to person-centered maternity care.