Is a randomized controlled trial of waterbirth possible? An Australian feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The safety of waterbirth is contested because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials and conflicting results. This research assessed the feasibility of a prospective study of waterbirth (trial or cohort). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization. The primary midwife assessed waterbirth eligibility and intention on admission in labor, and onset of second stage. Primary outcomes measured feasibility. Intention-to-treat analysis, and per-protocol analysis, compared clinical outcomes of women and their babies who intended waterbirth and nonwaterbirth at onset of second stage. RESULTS: 1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth). In per-protocol analysis, 14% (n = 48) were excluded. Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to have amniotomy and more likely to have water immersion and physiological third stage. There were no differences in other measures of maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity; four cord avulsions occurred in the waterbirth group with none in the landbirth group. An RCT would need approximately 6000 women to be approached at onset of second stage. CONCLUSIONS: A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention-to-treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible.

Birthing on Country (in Our Community): a case study of engaging stakeholders and developing a best-practice Indigenous maternity service in an urban setting.

Developing high-quality and culturally responsive maternal and infant health services is a critical part of 'closing the gap' in health disparities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians. The National Maternity Services Plan led work that describes and recommends Birthing on Country best-practice maternity care adaptable from urban to very remote settings, yet few examples exist in Australia. This paper demonstrates Birthing on Country principles can be applied in the urban setting, presenting our experience establishing and developing a Birthing on Country partnership service model in Brisbane, Australia. An initial World Café workshop effectively engaged stakeholders, consumers and community members in service planning, resulting in a multiagency partnership program between a large inner city hospital and two local Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). The Birthing in Our Community program includes: 24/7 midwifery care in pregnancy to six weeks postnatal by a named midwife, supported by Indigenous health workers and a team coordinator; partnership with the ACCHS; oversight from a steering committee, including Indigenous governance; clinical and cultural supervision; monthly cultural education days; and support for Indigenous student midwives through cadetships and placement within the partnership. Three years in, the partnership program is proving successful with clients, as well as showing early signs of improved maternal and infant health outcomes.

Women's, midwives' and obstetricians' experiences of a structured process to document refusal of recommended maternity care.

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND: Ethical and professional guidance for midwives and obstetricians emphasises informed consent and respect for patient autonomy; the right to refuse care is well established. However, the existing literature is largely silent on the appropriate clinical responses when pregnant women refuse recommended care, and accounts of disrespectful interactions and conflict are numerous. Policies and processes to support women and maternity care providers are rare and unstudied. AIM: To document the perspectives of women, midwives and obstetricians following the introduction of a structured process (Maternity Care Plan; MCP) to document refusal of recommended maternity care in a large tertiary maternity unit. METHODS: A qualitative, interpretive study involved thematic analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews with women (n=9), midwives (n=12) and obstetricians (n=9). FINDINGS: Four major themes were identified including: 'Reassuring and supporting clinicians'; 'Keeping the door open'; 'Varied awareness, criteria and use of the MCP process' and 'No guarantees'. CONCLUSION: Clinicians felt protected and reassured by the structured documentation and communication process and valued keeping women engaged in hospital care. This, in turn, protected women's access to maternity care. However, the process could not guarantee favourable responses from other clinicians subsequently involved in the woman's care. Ongoing discussions of risk, perceived by women and some midwives to be pressure to consent to recommended care, were still evident. These limitations may have been attributable to the absence of agreed criteria for initiating the MCP process and fragmented care. Varying awareness and use of the process also diminished women's access to it.

A randomised trial, conducted by midwives, of perineal repairs comparing a polyglycolic suture material and chromic catgut.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the effect of suture materials (an absorbable synthetic suture material versus catgut) used in perineal repairs undertaken by midwives who had been trained and accredited in repair techniques. DESIGN: randomised controlled trial. SETTING: tertiary obstetric hospital in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 391 women with a live singleton birth at > or =34 weeks gestation, resulting from a spontaneous vaginal delivery and who required perineal repair due to either an episiotomy or first or second degree tear. INTERVENTION: eligible women were randomly allocated for repair with either polyglycolic acid or chromic catgut. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: perineal pain and dyspareunia up to six months postpartum. FINDINGS: of the 194 women allocated to polyglycolic suture 106 (55%) were primipara compared with 79 (40%) of the 197 women allocated to catgut. Due to this unexplained imbalance, odds ratios were estimated with and without adjustment for parity. The parity-adjusted odds ratios were little changed (<11%) from the crude odds ratios. Although there were no statistically significant differences, parity-adjusted odds ratios (aOR) suggest that compared with women sutured with catgut, women sutured with polyglycolic were less likely to experience perineal pain at Day 3 postpartum (aOR=0.70 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.46-1.08) but by six months postpartum were somewhat more likely to experience perineal pain (aOR=1.77, 95% CI 0.57-5.47), dyspareunia (aOR=1.21 [0.62-2.33] and require removal of a suture (aOR=2.61 95% CI 0.59-12.41). CONCLUSIONS: the finding of reduced short-term perineal pain in women repaired with polyglycolic compared with catgut is similar to that of a Cochrane Systematic Review. The possibility that polyglycolic is associated with worse longer-term outcomes has not been previously reported but is biologically plausible (catgut causes a local inflammatory reaction but is rapidly absorbed, while polyglycolic causes little inflammation but absorption takes longer). This trial also illustrates the difficulties of undertaking clinical research in a busy delivery ward.