The impact of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care, on women's perceptions of antenatal care quality: Survey results from the M@NGO randomized controlled trial for women of any risk.

BACKGROUND: The measurement and interpretation of patient experience is a distinct dimension of health care quality. The Midwives @ New Group practice Options (M@NGO) randomized control trial of caseload midwifery compared with standard care among women regardless of risk reported both clinical and cost benefits. This study reports participants' perceptions of the quality of antenatal care within caseload midwifery, compared with standard care for women of any risk within that trial. METHODS: A trial conducted at two Australian tertiary hospitals randomly assigned participants (1:1) to caseload midwifery or standard care regardless of risk. Women were sent an 89-question survey at 6 weeks postpartum that included 12 questions relating to pregnancy care. Ten survey questions (including 7-point Likert scales) were analyzed by intention to treat and illustrated by participant quotes from two free-text open-response items. RESULTS: From the 1748 women recruited to the trial, 58% (n = 1017) completed the 6-week survey. Of those allocated to caseload midwifery, 66% (n = 573) responded, compared with 51% (n = 444) of those allocated to standard care. The survey found women allocated to caseload midwifery perceived a higher level of quality care across every antenatal measure. Notably, those women with identified risk factors reported higher levels of emotional support (aOR 2.52 [95% CI 1.87-3.39]), quality care (2.94 [2.28-3.79]), and feeling actively involved in decision-making (3.21 [2.35-4.37]). CONCLUSIONS: Results from the study show that in addition to the benefits to clinical care and cost demonstrated in the M@NGO trial, caseload midwifery outperforms standard care in perceived quality of pregnancy care regardless of risk.

The presence of vaginal Lactobacillus species does not contribute to a measureable difference in amniotic fluid lactate levels collected from the vaginal tract of laboring women.

INTRODUCTION: Amniotic fluid lactate research is based on the hypothesis that a relationship exists between fatigued uterine muscles and raised concentrations of the metabolite lactate, which is excreted into the amniotic fluid during labor. To assess potentially confounding effects of lactate-producing organisms on amniotic fluid lactate measurements, we aimed to determine if the presence of vaginal Lactobacillus species was associated with elevated levels of amniotic fluid lactate, measured from the vaginal tract of women in labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Results from this study contribute to a large prospective longitudinal study of amniotic fluid lactate at a teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. Amniotic fluid lactate measurement was assessed at the time of routine vaginal examination, after membranes had ruptured, using a hand-held lactate meter StatStripXPress (Nova Biomedical). Vaginal swab samples were collected at the time of the first amniotic fluid lactate measurement and stored for later detection and quantification of Lactobacillus species using a TaqMan real-time PCR assay. Swab sample and amniotic fluid lactate results were paired and analyzed. RESULTS: The PCR assay detected Lactobacillus species in 48 of 388 (12%) vaginal swab specimens (8% positive, 4% low positive) collected from women in labor after membranes had ruptured. There was no significant difference in median and mean (respectively) amniotic fluid lactate levels with (8.35 mmol/L; 8.95 mmol/L) or without (8.5 mmol/L; 9.08 mmol/L) Lactobacillus species detected. CONCLUSION: There was no association between the presence or level of vaginal Lactobacillus species and the measurement of amniotic fluid lactate collected from the vaginal tract of women during labor.

Women's experiences of transfer from primary maternity unit to tertiary hospital in New Zealand: part of the prospective cohort Evaluating Maternity Units study.

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide debate regarding the appropriateness and safety of different birthplaces for well women. The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study's primary objective was to compare clinical outcomes for well women intending to give birth in either a tertiary level maternity hospital or a freestanding primary level maternity unit. Little is known about how women experience having to change their birthplace plans during the antenatal period or before admission to a primary unit, or transfer following admission. This paper describes and explores women's experience of these changes-a secondary aim of the EMU study. METHODS: This paper utilised the six week postpartum survey data, from the 174 women from the primary unit cohort affected by birthplace plan change or transfer (response rate 73%). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The study was undertaken in Christchurch, New Zealand, which has an obstetric-led tertiary maternity hospital and four freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units (2010-2012). The 702 study participants were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these facilities, all of whom received continuity of midwifery care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: Of the women who had to change their planned place of birth or transfer the greatest proportion of women rated themselves on a Likert scale as unbothered by the move (38.6%); 8.8% were 'very unhappy' and 7.6% 'very happy' (quantitative analysis). Four themes were identified, using thematic analysis, from the open ended survey responses of those who experienced transfer: 'not to plan', control, communication and 'my midwife'. An interplay between the themes created a cumulatively positive or negative effect on their experience. Women's experience of transfer in labour was generally positive, and none expressed stress or trauma with transfer. CONCLUSIONS: The women knew of the potential for change or transfer, although it was not wanted or planned. When they maintained a sense control, experienced effective communication with caregivers, and support and information from their midwife, the transfer did not appear to be experienced negatively. The model of continuity of midwifery care in New Zealand appeared to mitigate the negative aspects of women's experience of transfer and facilitate positive birth experiences.

QF2011: a protocol to study the effects of the Queensland flood on pregnant women, their pregnancies, and their children's early development.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that maternal exposure to a severe stressor during pregnancy increases the fetus' risk for a variety of disorders in adulthood. Animal studies testing the fetal programming hypothesis find that maternal glucocorticoids pass through the placenta and alter fetal brain development, particularly the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. However, there are no prospective studies of pregnant women exposed to a sudden-onset independent stressor that elucidate the biopsychosocial mechanisms responsible for the wide variety of consequences of prenatal stress seen in human offspring. The aim of the QF2011 Queensland Flood Study is to fill this gap, and to test the buffering effects of Midwifery Group Practice, a form of continuity of maternity care. METHODS/DESIGN: In January 2011 Queensland, Australia had its worst flooding in 30 years. Simultaneously, researchers in Brisbane were collecting psychosocial data on pregnant women for a randomized control trial (the M@NGO Trial) comparing Midwifery Group Practice to standard care. We invited these and other pregnant women to participate in a prospective, longitudinal study of the effects of prenatal maternal stress from the floods on maternal, perinatal and early childhood outcomes. Data collection included assessment of objective hardship and subjective distress from the floods at recruitment and again 12 months post-flood. Biological samples included maternal bloods at 36 weeks pregnancy, umbilical cord, cord blood, and placental tissues at birth. Questionnaires assessing maternal and child outcomes were sent to women at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The protocol includes assessments at 16 months, 2½ and 4 years. Outcomes include maternal psychopathology, and the child's cognitive, behavioral, motor and physical development. Additional biological samples include maternal and child DNA, as well as child testosterone, diurnal and reactive cortisol. DISCUSSION: This prenatal stress study is the first of its kind, and will fill important gaps in the literature. Analyses will determine the extent to which flood exposure influences the maternal biological stress response which may then affect the maternal-placental-fetal axis at the biological, biochemical, and molecular levels, altering fetal development and influencing outcomes in the offspring. The role of Midwifery Group Practice in moderating effects of maternal stress will be tested.

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. METHODS: In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. FINDINGS: Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

An exploration of influences on women's birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the Evaluating Maternity Units study.

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide debate surrounding the safety and appropriateness of different birthplaces for well women. One of the primary objectives of the Evaluating Maternity Units prospective cohort study was to compare the clinical outcomes for well women, intending to give birth in either an obstetric-led tertiary hospital or a free-standing midwifery-led primary maternity unit. This paper addresses a secondary aim of the study--to describe and explore the influences on women's birthplace decision-making in New Zealand, which has a publicly funded, midwifery-led continuity of care maternity system. METHODS: This mixed method study utilised data from the six week postpartum survey and focus groups undertaken in the Christchurch area in New Zealand (2010-2012). Christchurch has a tertiary hospital and four primary maternity units. The survey was completed by 82% of the 702 study participants, who were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these places. All women received midwifery-led continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: Almost all the respondents perceived themselves as the main birthplace decision-makers. Accessing a 'specialist facility' was the most important factor for the tertiary hospital group. The primary unit group identified several factors, including 'closeness to home', 'ease of access', the 'atmosphere' of the unit and avoidance of 'unnecessary intervention' as important. Both groups believed their chosen birthplace was the right and 'safe' place for them. The concept of 'safety' was integral and based on the participants' differing perception of safety in childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: Birthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women's experience of childbirth. This is the first published study reporting New Zealand women's perspectives on their birthplace decision-making. The groups' responses expressed different ideologies about childbirth. The tertiary hospital group identified with the 'medical model' of birth, and the primary unit group identified with the 'midwifery model' of birth. Research evidence affirming the 'clinical safety' of primary units addresses only one aspect of the beliefs influencing women's birthplace decision-making. In order for more women to give birth at a primary unit other aspects of women's beliefs need addressing, and much wider socio-political change is required.

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care. METHODS: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'. RESULTS: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care. CONCLUSIONS: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.

Maternal morbidity of women receiving birth center care in New South Wales: a matched-pair analysis using linked health data.

BACKGROUND: Around 2 percent of women who give birth in Australia each year do so in a birth center. New South Wales, Australia's largest state, accounts for almost half of these births. Previous studies have highlighted the need for better quality data on maternal morbidity and mortality, to fully evaluate the safety of birth center care. AIMS: This study aimed to examine maternal morbidity related to birth center care for women in New South Wales. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with matched-pairs was conducted using linked health data for New South Wales. Maternal outcomes were compared for women who intended to give birth in a birth center, matched with women who intended to give birth in the co-located hospital labor ward. RESULTS: Rates of maternal outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, and postpartum infection, were significantly lower in the birth center group, after controlling for demographic and institutional factors. Interventions such as cesarean section and episiotomy were also significantly lower in these women, and the rate of breastfeeding at discharge was higher. There existed no difference in length of stay, admission to ICU, or maternal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Birth centers are a safe option for low-risk women; however, further research is required for some rare maternal outcomes.

Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term. METHODS: Women with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N=101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n=50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n=51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: OPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p< .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p= .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p=.003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p< .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p=.001). CONCLUSIONS: OPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.

Collaboration in maternity care is achievable and practical.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing collaboration has been highlighted as a marker for future success in maternity care, although this suggestion comes with little methodological guidance. This study assessed the efficacy of a collaborative partnership between obstetric doctors and midwives providing Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) care. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken with notes from weekly case review meetings held between the obstetricians and midwives over a 12-month period; audio recordings and a prospective analysis of 16 meetings with verbal contributions of the different professions; the number and types of cases discussed and referred, medical records kept at these meetings and a professional satisfaction questionnaire. Consistency of care was measured against the Australian National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral. RESULTS: Of the 337 women booked with MGP, 50% were discussed at least once. Of these, 35% were referred for consultation with an obstetrician. Women as 'Patients' were most commonly discussed, followed by educational discussions and anecdotes with equal verbal contributions from midwives and doctors. Plans for each case were recorded 97% of the time, and adhered to 90% of the time. A high level of consistency of care between similar cases (75% of the time) and with the consultation and referral guidelines (85% of the time) were achieved. Professional satisfaction with this model of care rated highly for both groups. CONCLUSION: Inter-professional collaboration between midwifery and obstetric staff is highly attainable within this model of care. This study reinforces the effectiveness of collaboration in the MGP model of care for women of all risk levels and should encourage other maternity care providers to consider adopting this collaborative model.

Australian maternity reform through clinical redesign.

The current Australian national maternity reform agenda focuses on improving access to maternity care for women and their families while preserving safety and quality. The caseload midwifery model of care offers the level of access to continuity of care proposed in the reforms however the introduction of these models in Australia continues to meet with strong resistance. In many places access to caseload midwifery care is offered as a token, usually restricted to well women, within limited metropolitan and regional facilities and where available, places for women are very small as a proportion of the total service provided. This case study outlines a major clinical redesign of midwifery care at a metropolitan tertiary referral maternity hospital in Sydney. Caseload midwifery care was introduced under randomised trial conditions to provide midwifery care to 1500 women of all risk resulting in half of the publicly insured women receiving midwifery group practice care. The paper describes the organisational quality and safety tools that were utilised to facilitate the process while discussing the factors that facilitated the process and the barriers that were encountered within the workforce, operational and political context.

Midwives speaking out on COVID-19: The international confederation of midwives global survey.

BACKGROUND: Maternity services around the world have been disrupted since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) representing one hundred and forty-three professional midwifery associations across the world sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on women and midwives. AIM: The aim of this study was to understand the global impact of COVID-19 from the point of view of midwives' associations. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey using an on-line questionnaire was sent via email to every midwives' association member of ICM. SURVEY INSTRUMENT: The survey was developed and tested by a small global team of midwife researchers and clinicians. It consisted of 106 questions divided into seven discreet sections. Each member association was invited to make one response in either English, French or Spanish. RESULTS: Data were collected between July 2020 and April 2021. All respondents fulfilling the inclusion criteria irrespective of whether they completed all questions in the survey were eligible for analysis. All data collected was anonymous. There were 101 surveys returned from the 143 member associations across the world. Many countries reported being caught unaware of the severity of the infection and in some places, midwives were forced to make their own PPE, or reuse single use PPE. Disruption to maternity services meant women had to change their plans for place of birth; and in many countries maternity facilities were closed to become COVID-19 centres. Half of all respondents stated that women were afraid to give birth in hospitals during the pandemic resulting in increased demand for home birth and community midwifery. Midwifery students were denied access to practical or clinical placements and their registration as midwives has been delayed in many countries. More than 50% of the associations reported that governments did not consult them, and they have little or no say in policy at government levels. These poor outcomes were not exclusive to high-, middle- or low-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations that stem from this research include the need to include midwifery representation on key government committees and a need to increase the support for planned out of hospital birth. Both these recommendations stand to enhance the effectiveness of midwives in a world that continues to face and may face future catastrophic pandemics.

Experiences and outcomes of women with bleeding in early pregnancy presenting to the Emergency Department: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy occurs in approximately a quarter of all pregnancies and is a common reason for presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). This review combined current knowledge about experiences, interventions, outcomes and frequency of women presenting to the ED with per vaginal (PV) bleeding in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. METHODS: This integrative literature review was conducted using electronic database and hand searching methods for primary research published from 2000; followed by screening and appraisal. Articles were compared and grouped to identify characteristics and patterns that guided the synthesis of categories. RESULTS: Forty-two primary research articles met inclusion criteria. Four main categories related to experiences and outcomes of women with bleeding in early pregnancy presenting to the ED were identified: presentation frequency and characteristics; women and their partners' experiences in the ED; interventions and treatments; patient and health service outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Negative and often frustrating experiences are reported by women experiencing PV bleeding, their partners and ED healthcare providers. While strategies such as early pregnancy assessment services contribute to improved outcomes, the availability of these services vary. Further research is needed to identify specific needs of this group of women and their partners, and the staff providing their care in the ED, to inform strategies for improved quality of care.

A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options).

BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant.Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246.

Changes to booking, transfer criteria and procedures in birth centres in Australia from 1997-2007: a national survey.

AIMS: This study aimed to describe booking and transfer criteria and procedures available in birth centres in Australia in 2007 and to compare results with those of a previous national birth centre study undertaken in 1997. BACKGROUND: Approximately 2% of women who give birth in Australia each year do so in a birth centre. A national study on birth centre procedures was conducted in 1997. There have been changes in the management of women in birth centres during the past 10 years and this may be due in part to changes in booking and transfer criteria. DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 23 birth centres. Questions included: types of procedures, equipment and pain relief available and exclusion criteria for booking and transfer. Of the birth centres, 19 satisfied the inclusion criteria and 16 completed surveys. RESULTS: Changes were noted in booking and transfer criteria and procedures for birth centres between 1997-2007. These included a decline in birth centres accepting postterm pregnancies, vaginal births after caesarean section and women who are obese. There were also reductions in the use of artificial rupture of membranes for augmentation of labour, forceps and opioids. Use of natural therapies was widespread in 2007. Increases in birth centres managing induction of labour and electronic fetal monitoring were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: The changes observed in birth centre practice reflect overall changes in maternity care in Australia from 1997-2007. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Findings of the study suggest that factors such as increasing obesity and limited admission for vaginal births after caesarean section may lead to proportionately more women being unable to access birth centres as their preferred place of birth.

Perinatal outcomes of women intending to give birth in birth centers in Australia.

BACKGROUND: A recent Australian study showed perinatal mortality was lower among women who gave birth in a birth center than in a comparable low-risk group of women who gave birth in a hospital. The current study used the same large population database to investigate whether perinatal outcomes were improved for women intending to give birth in a birth center at the onset of labor, regardless of the actual place of birth. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Perinatal Data Collection (NPDC) in Australia. The study included 822,955 mothers who gave birth during the 5-year period, 2001 to 2005, and their 836,919 babies. Of these, 22,222 women (2.7%) intended to give birth in a birth center at the onset of labor. Maternal and perinatal factors and outcomes were compared according to the intended place of birth. Data were not available on congenital anomalies, or cause, or timing of death. RESULTS: Women intending to give birth in a birth center at the onset of labor had lower rates of intervention and of adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women intending to give birth in a hospital, including less preterm birth and low birthweight. No statistically significant difference was found in perinatal mortality for term babies of mothers intending to give birth in a birth center compared with term babies of low-risk women intending to give birth in a hospital (1.3 per 1,000 births [99% CI = 0.66, 1.95] vs 1.7 per 1,000 births [99% CI = 1.50, 1.80], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Term babies of women who intended to give birth in a birth center were less likely to be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery, and no significant difference was found in other perinatal outcomes compared with term babies of low-risk women who intended to give birth in a hospital labor ward. Birth center care remains a viable option for eligible women giving birth at term.

Women's unmet needs in early labour: Qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses in the M@NGO trial of caseload midwifery.

OBJECTIVE: to analyse women's experiences of early labour care in caseload midwifery in Australia. DESIGN: this study sits within a multi-site randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery versus standard care. Participant surveys were conducted at 6-weeks and 6-months after birth. Free-text responses about experiences of care were subject to critical thematic analysis in NVivo 11 software. SETTING: two urban Australian hospitals in different states. PARTICIPANTS: women 18 years and over, with a singleton pregnancy, less than 24 weeks' pregnant, not planning a caesarean section or already booked with a care provider; were eligible to participate in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: participants were randomised to caseload midwifery or standard care for antenatal, labour and birth and postpartum care. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: The 6-week survey response rate was 58% (n = 1,019). The survey included five open questions about women's experiences of pregnancy, labour and birth, and postnatal care. Nine-hundred and one respondents (88%) provided free text comments which were coded to generate 10 categories. The category of early labour contained data from 84 individual participants (caseload care n = 44; standard care n = 40). Descriptive themes were: (1) needing permission; (2) doing the 'wrong' thing; and (3) being dismissed. Analytic themes were: (1) Seeking: women wanting to be "close to those who know what's going on"; and (2) Shielding: midwives defending resources and normal birth. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of model of care, early labour care was primarily described in negative terms. This could be attributed to reporting bias, because women who were neutral about early labour care may not comment. Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate a gap in knowledge about early labour care in caseload midwifery models. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Maternity services that offer caseload midwifery are ideally placed to evaluate how early labour home visiting impacts women's experiences of early labour.

Newborn self-inflating manual resuscitators: precision robotic testing of safety and reliability.

AIM: A controlled bench test was undertaken to determine the performance variability among a range of neonatal self-inflating bags (SIB) compliant with current International Standards Organisation (ISO). INTRODUCTION: Use of SIB to provide positive pressure ventilation during newborn resuscitation is a common emergency procedure. The United Nations programmes advocate increasing availability of SIB in low-income and middle-income nations and recommend devices compliant with ISO. No systematic study has evaluated variance in different models of neonatal SIB. METHODS: 20 models of SIB were incrementally compressed by an automated robotic device simulating the geometry and force of a human hand across a range of precise distances in a newborn lung model. Significance was calculated using analysis of variance repeated measures to determine the relationship between distance of SIB compression and delivered ventilation. A pass/fail was derived from a composite score comprising: minimum tidal volume; coefficient of variation (across all compression distances); peak pressures generated and functional compression distance. RESULTS: Ten out of the 20 models of SIB failed our testing methodology. Two models could not provide safe minimum tidal volumes (2.5-5 mL); six models exceeded safety inflation pressure limit >45 cm H2O, representing 6% of their inflations; five models had excessive coefficient of variation (>30% averaged across compression distances) and three models did not deliver inflation volumes >2.5 mL until approximately 50% of maximum bag compression distance was reached. The study also found significant intrabatch variability and forward leakage. CONCLUSION: Compliance of SIBs with ISO standards may not guarantee acceptable or safe performance to resuscitate newborn infants.

Evaluation of an Australian Aboriginal model of maternity care: The Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service.

BACKGROUND: The urban-based Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service integrates multidisciplinary wrap-around services along-side continuity of midwifery care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers and babies. AIM: To evaluate the Malabar Service from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2014. METHODS: A mixed method design. Outcomes for mothers of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander babies cared for at an urban Australian referral hospital by the Malabar Service were compared to mainstream. Primary outcomes are rates of low birth weight; smoking >20 weeks gestation; preterm birth; and breastfeeding at discharge. Malabar outcomes are also compared to national and state perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: The Malabar Service (n = 505) demonstrated similar rates of preterm birth (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 0.96-4.97); breastfeeding at discharge (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 0.61-1.86); and a higher rate of low birth weight babies (aOR 3.6, 95% CI 1.02-12.9) than the comparison group (n = 201). There was a 25% reduction in smoking rates from 38.9% to 29.1%. Compared to national and state populations, Malabar outcomes were better. Women experienced greater psychosocial complexity but were well supported. Malabar Mothers (n = 9) experienced: accessibility, preparedness for birth and cultural safety. Staff (n = 13) identified going 'above and beyond' and teamwork to provide culturally safe care counterbalanced with concerns around funding and cultural support. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated integrated continuity of midwifery care with wrap-around services for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander mothers is highly valued and is culturally safe. The service is as safe as main stream services and promotes better clinical outcomes compared to national and state outcomes.

Caesarean birth: consumption, safety, order, and good mothering.

This article draws on qualitative data to explore the beliefs through which decisions about caesarean birth are made and to consider how these might contribute to the increasing rate of caesarean birth. A total of 36 interviews were conducted in Australia, including 12 hospital-based midwives, 6 obstetricians, and 18 women who had experienced caesarean birth within the 2 years prior to the research interview. Data reveal a belief derived from the pervasive discourse of neo-liberalism that women are self-governing autonomous subjects in their birth experience, with entitlement to the consumption of birthing information and services, as guided by obstetricians. Feeding into this belief are coexisting discourses that serve to organise 'free choice' in terms of safe/unsafe, order/disorder, life/death; and with ontological meanings, by structuring women's mothering identities as good/bad. The neo-liberal obligation to manage risk and pursue success for both mothers and babies means that women (and others) are obliged to choose what is set up as the most obvious and sensible option: safe, ordered caesareans. The structuring of discourses in this way shows how caesareans can be positioned as a preferential means of birth.