Low-Interventional Approaches to Intrapartum Care: Hospital Variation in Practice and Associated Factors.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence supporting the safety of low-interventional approaches to intrapartum care, defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as "practices that facilitate a physiologic labor process and minimize intervention," little is known about how frequently such practices are utilized. We examined hospital use of low-interventional practices, as well as variation in utilization across hospitals. METHODS: Data came from 185 California hospitals completing a survey of intrapartum care, including 9 questions indicating use of low- versus high-interventional practices (eg, use of intermittent auscultation, nonpharmacologic pain relief, and admission of women in latent labor). We performed a group-based latent class analysis to identify distinct groups of hospitals exhibiting different levels of utilization on these 9 measures. Multivariable logistic regression identified institutional characteristics associated with a hospital's likelihood of using low-interventional practices. Procedure rates and patient outcomes were compared between the hospital groups using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 2 distinct groups of hospitals that tended to use low-interventional (n = 44, 23.8%) and high-interventional (n = 141, 76.2%) practices, respectively. Hospitals more likely to use low-interventional practices included those with midwife-led or physician-midwife collaborative labor management (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.52; 95% CI, 2.53-22.37; P < .001) and those in rural locations (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.03-13.60; P = .04). Hospitals with a higher proportion of women covered by Medicaid or other safety-net programs were less likely to use low-interventional practices (aOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; P = .004), as were hospitals in counties with higher medical liability insurance premiums (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.85; P = .008). Hospitals in the low-intervention group had comparable rates of severe maternal and newborn morbidities but lower rates of cesarean birth and episiotomy compared with hospitals in the high-intervention group. DISCUSSION: Only one-quarter of hospitals used low-interventional practices. Attention to hospital culture of care, incorporating the midwifery model of care, and addressing medical-legal concerns may help promote utilization of low-interventional intrapartum practices.

Drivers of maternity care in high-income countries: can health systems support woman-centred care?

In high-income countries, medical interventions to address the known risks associated with pregnancy and birth have been largely successful and have resulted in very low levels of maternal and neonatal mortality. In this Series paper, we present the main care delivery models, with case studies of the USA and Sweden, and examine the main drivers of these models. Although nearly all births are attended by a skilled birth attendant and are in an institution, practice, cadre, facility size, and place of birth vary widely; for example, births occur in homes, birth centres, midwifery-led birthing units in hospitals, and in high intervention hospital birthing facilities. Not all care is evidenced-based, and some care provision may be harmful. Fear prevails among subsets of women and providers. In some settings, medical liability costs are enormous, human resource shortages are common, and costs of providing care can be very high. New challenges linked to alteration of epidemiology, such as obesity and older age during pregnancy, are also present. Data are often not readily available to inform policy and practice in a timely way and surveillance requires greater attention and investment. Outcomes are not equitable, and disadvantaged segments of the population face access issues and substantially elevated risks. At the same time, examples of excellence and progress exist, from clinical interventions to models of care and practice. Labourists (who provide care for all the facility's women for labour and delivery) are discussed as a potential solution. Quality and safety factors are informed by women's experiences, as well as medical evidence. Progress requires the ability to normalise birth for most women, with integrated services available if complications develop. We also discuss mechanisms to improve quality of care and highlight areas where research can address knowledge gaps with potential for impact. Evaluation of models that provide woman-centred care and the best outcomes without high costs is required to provide an impetus for change.