Out-of-Hospital Birth.

Since the 1970s, most births in the United States have been planned to occur in a hospital. However, a small percentage of Americans choose to give birth outside of a hospital. The number of out-of-hospital births has increased, with one in every 61 U.S. births (1.64%) occurring out of the hospital in 2018. Out-of-hospital (or community) birth can be planned or unplanned. Of those that are planned, most occur at home and are assisted by midwives. Patients who choose a planned community birth do so for multiple reasons. International observational studies that demonstrate comparable outcomes between planned out-of-hospital and planned hospital birth may not be generalizable to the United States. Most U.S. studies have found statistically significant increases in perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity for home birth compared with hospital birth. Conversely, planned community birth is associated with decreased odds of obstetric interventions, including cesarean delivery. Perinatal outcomes for community birth may be improved with appropriate selection of low-risk, vertex, singleton, term pregnancies in patients who have not had a previous cesarean delivery. A qualified, licensed maternal and newborn health professional who is integrated into a maternity health care system should attend all planned community births. Family physicians are uniquely poised to provide counseling to patients and their families about the risks and benefits associated with community birth, and they may be the first physicians to evaluate and treat newborns delivered outside of a hospital.

[Opening Status of the Korea Midwifery Birthing Centers and Development of Midwifery Practice Guideline].

PURPOSE: This study was to investigate the operational status of the midwifery birthing centers (MBCs) and midwives' job status (Phase 1) and to develop midwifery practice guidelines (MPG) (Phase 2) in Korea. METHODS: In the first phase, the subjects were 15 midwives who operated 11 of 14 MBCs that were opened as of August 2018. The questionnaire consisted of items to measure the operational status of the MBC and midwives' job status. In the second phase, the MPG was developed from literature review, interviews with five midwives opening their MBCs, surveys with 74 midwives, and a validity evaluation conducted by seven experts. RESULTS: The distribution of operating MBCs was five in Gyunggi-do, two each in Seoul and Incheon, one each in Busan, Chungcheongbuk-do, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Gyeongsangnam-do and Jeju-do. The mean age of midwives was 54.3 and all were female. In 2017, a total of 762 births including 81 homebirths were performed by midwives. The job performance was highest in the order of neonatal care 3.81, childbirth care 3.56, and postpartal care 3.53, respectively. The MPG included seven areas of prenatal care, childbirth care, postpartal care, neonatal care, primary health care, law/ethics, and administration, with 56 tasks and 166 task elements. CONCLUSION: This study provides the valid basic data for the operational status of the MBC and the midwives' job status. The MPG describes the midwife's job and may be used as basic data for preparing policies for the development of midwifery practice in Korea.

Barriers to women's access to alongside midwifery units in England.

BACKGROUND: Alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are managed by midwives and proximate to obstetric units (OUs), offering a home-like birth environment for women with straightforward pregnancies. They support physiological birth, with fast access to medical care if needed. AMUs have good perinatal outcomes and lower rates of interventions than OUs. In England, uptake remains lower than potential use, despite recent changes in policy to support their use. This article reports on experiences of access from a broader study that investigated AMU organisation and care. METHODS: Organisational case studies in four National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected for variation geographically and in features of their midwifery units. Fieldwork (December 2011 to October 2012) included observations (>100 h); semi-structured interviews with staff, managers and stakeholders (n = 89) and with postnatal women and partners (n = 47), on which this paper reports. Data were analysed thematically using NVivo10 software. RESULTS: Women, partners and families felt welcome and valued in the AMU. They were drawn to the AMUs' environment, philosophy and approach to technology, including pain management. Access for some was hindered by inconsistent information about the existence, environment and safety of AMUs, and barriers to admission in early labour. CONCLUSIONS: Key barriers to AMUs arise through inequitable information and challenges with admission in early labour. Most women still give birth in obstetric units and despite increases in the numbers of women birthing on AMUs since 2010, addressing these barriers will be essential to future scale-up.

Organising safe and sustainable care in alongside midwifery units: Findings from an organisational ethnographic study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Alongside midwifery units (AMUs, also known as hospital or co-located birth centres) were identified as a novel hybrid organisational form in the Birthplace in England Research Programme. This follow-on study aimed to investigate how AMUs are organised, staffed and managed, the experiences of women, and maternity staff including those who work in AMUs and in adjacent obstetric units. This article focuses on study findings relating to the organisation and management of AMUs. METHODS: An organisational ethnography approach was used, incorporating case studies of four AMUs, selected for maximum variation on the basis of geographical context, length of establishment, size of unit, leadership and physical design. Interviews were conducted between December 2011 and October 2012 with service managers and key stakeholders (n = 35), with professionals working within and in relation to AMUs (n = 54) and with postnatal women and birth partners (n = 47). Observations were conducted of key decision-making points in the service (n = 20). FINDINGS: Managers saw four key areas as vital to developing and sustaining good quality midwifery unit care: finance and service management support, staffing, training, and appropriate guidelines. Development of AMUs was often opportunistic, with service leaders making use of service reconfigurations to achieve change, including development of MUs and new care pathways. Midwives working in AMUs valued the environment, approach and the opportunity to exercise greater clinical judgement but relations between groups of midwives in different units could be experienced as problematic. Key potential challenges for the quality, safety and sustainability of AMU care included: boundary work and management; professional issues; developing appropriate staffing models and relationships; midwives' skills and confidence; and information and access for women. Responses to such challenges included greater focus on interdisciplinary skills training, and integrated models of midwifery and care pathways. Positive leadership and appropriate development and use of guidelines were important to underpin the development and sustainability of midwifery units. CONCLUSIONS: The units studied had been developed to form a key part of the maternity service, and their role was increasingly being recognised as valid and as maintaining the quality and safety of care in the maternity service as a whole. However, each was providing birth care for only about a third of women who had been classified as eligible to plan birth outside an obstetric unit at the end of pregnancy. Developing midwifery units involves aligning physical, professional and philosophical boundaries. However, this poses challenges when managing the service, to ensure it is sustainable, of high quality and safe. In order to fulfil evidence-based guidelines on providing midwifery unit care, further attention is needed to staff training and support; the development of integrated, continuity-based staffing models; and ensuring AMUs are positioned as a core service rather than a marginal one.

Differences in optimality index between planned place of birth in a birth centre and alternative planned places of birth, a nationwide prospective cohort study in The Netherlands: results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Optimality Index of planned birth in a birth centre with planned birth in a hospital and planned home birth for low-risk term pregnant women who start labour under the responsibility of a community midwife. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Low-risk pregnant women under care of a community midwife and living in a region with one of the 21 participating Dutch birth centres or in a region with the possibility for midwife-led hospital birth. Home birth was commonly available in all regions included in the study. PARTICIPANTS: 3455 low-risk term pregnant women (1686 nulliparous and 1769 multiparous) who gave birth between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2013: 1668 planned birth centre births, 701 planned midwife-led hospital births and 1086 planned home births. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Optimality IndexNL-2015, a tool to measure 'maximum outcome with minimal intervention', was assessed by planned place of birth being a birth centre, a hospital setting or at home. Also, a composite maternal and perinatal adverse outcome score was calculated for the different planned places of birth. RESULTS: There were no differences in Optimality Index NL-2015 for pregnant women who planned to give birth in a birth centre compared with women who planned to give birth in a hospital. Although effect sizes were small, women who planned to give birth at home had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015 than women who planned to give birth in a birth centre. The differences were larger for multiparous than for nulliparous women. CONCLUSION: The Optimality Index NL-2015 for women with planned birth centre births was comparable with planned midwife-led hospital births. Women with planned home births had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015, that is, a higher sum score of evidence-based items with an optimal value than women with planned birth centre births.

Are stipulated requirements for the quality of maternity care complied with? / Følges fastsatte kvalitetskrav i fødselsomsorgen?

BACKGROUND: The Directorate of Health's national guide Et trygt fødetilbud ­ kvalitetskrav til fødselsomsorgen [A safe maternity service ­ requirements regarding the quality of maternity care] was published in December 2010 and was intended to provide a basis for an improved and more predictable maternity service. This article presents data from the maternity institutions on compliance with the quality requirements, including information on selection, fetal monitoring, organisation, staffing and competencies. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The information was acquired with the aid of an electronic questionnaire in the period January­May 2015. The form was sent by e-mail to the medical officer in charge at all maternity units in Norway as at 1 January 2015 (n=47). RESULTS: There was a 100 % response to the questionnaire. The criteria for selecting where pregnant women should give birth were stated to be in conformity with the quality requirements. Some maternity institutions failed to describe the areas of responsibilities of doctors and midwives (38.5 % and 15.4 %, respectively). Few institutions recorded whether the midwife was present with the patient during the active phase. Half of the maternity departments (level 2 birth units) reported unfilled doctors' posts, and a third of the university hospitals/central hospitals (level 1 birth units) reported a severe shortage of locum midwives. Half of the level 2 birth units believed that the quality requirements had resulted in improved training, but reported only a limited degree of interdisciplinary or mandatory instruction. INTERPRETATION: The study reveals that there are several areas in which the health enterprises have procedures that conform to national quality requirements, but where it is still unclear whether they are observed in practice. Areas for improvement relate to routines describing areas of responsibility, availability of personnel resources and staff training.

Freestanding midwifery units: Maternal and neonatal outcomes following transfer.

BACKGROUND: the viability of freestanding midwifery units in Australia is restricted, due to concerns over their safety, particularly for women and babies who, require transfer. AIM: to compare the maternal and neonatal birth outcomes of women who planned, to give birth at freestanding midwifery units and subsequently, transferred to a tertiary maternity unit to the maternal and neonatal, outcomes of a low-risk cohort of women who planned to give birth in, tertiary maternity unit. METHODS: a descriptive study compared two groups of women with low-risk singleton, pregnancies who were less than 28 weeks pregnant at booking: women who, planned to give birth at a freestanding midwifery unit (n=494) who, transferred to a tertiary maternity unit during the antenatal, intrapartum or postnatal periods (n=260) and women who planned to give, birth at a tertiary maternity unit (n=3157). Primary outcomes were mode, of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5minutes and admission to, special care nursery or neonatal intensive care. KEY FINDINGS: the proportion of women who experienced a caesarean section was lower, among the freestanding midwifery unit women who transferred during the, intrapartum/postnatal period compared to women in the tertiary maternity, unit group (16.1% versus 24.8% respectively). Other outcomes were, comparable between the cohorts. Rates of primary outcomes in relation to, stage of transfer varied when stratified by parity. DISCUSSION: these descriptive results support the provision of care in freestanding, midwifery units as an alternative to tertiary maternity units for women, with low risk pregnancies at the time of booking. A larger study, powered, to determine statistical significance of any differences in outcomes, is, required.

Midwifing the notion of a 'good' birth: a philosophical analysis.

OBJECTIVE: to ponder afresh what makes a good birth experience in a listening manner. DESIGN: a hermeneutic approach that first explores the nature of how to listen to a story that is already familiar to us and then draws on Heidegger's notion of the fourfold to seek to capture how the components of a'good birth' come together within experience. SETTING: primary birthing centre, New Zealand PARTICIPANTS: the focus of this paper is the story of one participant. It was her second birth; her first birth involved a lot of medical intervention. She had planned to travel one hour to the tertiary birthing unit but in labour chose to stay at the Birth Centre. Her story seems to portray a 'very good birth'. FINDINGS: in talking of birth, the nature of a research approach is commonly to focus on one aspect: the place, the care givers, or the mode of care. In contrast, we took on the challenge of first listening to all that was involved in one woman's story. We came to see that what made her experience 'good' was'everything' gathered together in a coherent and supportive oneness. Heidegger's notion of the fourfold helped reveal that one cannot talk about one thing without at the same time talking about all the other things as well. Confidence was the thread that held the story together. KEY CONCLUSIONS: there is value in putting aside the fragmented approach of explicating birth to recognise the coming together of place, care, situation, and the mystery beyond explanation. Women grow a confidence in place when peers and community encourage the choice based on their own experience. Confidence of caregiver comes in relationship. Feeling confident within 'self' is part of the mystery. When confidence in the different dimensions holds together, birth is 'good'. IMPLICATIONS OR PRACTICE: one cannot simply build a new birthing unit and assume it will offer a good experience of birth. Experience is about so much more. Being mindful of the dimensions of confidence that need to be built up and sheltered is a quest for wise leaders. Protecting the pockets where we know 'good birth' already flourishes is essential.

The Dutch Birth Centre Study: study design of a programmatic evaluation of the effect of birth centre care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Birth centres are regarded as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth, assisted by a midwife and a maternity care assistant. In case of (threatening) complications referral to a maternity unit of a hospital is necessary. In the last decade up to 20 different birth centres have been instituted in the Netherlands. This increase in birth centres is attributed to various reasons such as a safe and easy accessible place of birth, organizational efficiency in integration of care and direct access to obstetric hospital care if needed, and better use of maternity care assistance. Birth centres are assumed to offer increased integration and quality of care and thus to contribute to better perinatal and maternal outcomes. So far there is no evidence for this assumption as no previous studies of birth centres have been carried out in the Netherlands. DESIGN: The aims are 1) Identification of birth centres and measuring integration of organization and care 2) Measuring the quality of birth centre care 3) Effects of introducing a birth centre on regional quality and provision of care 4) Cost-effectiveness analysis 5) In depth longitudinal analysis of the organization and processes in birth centres. Different qualitative and quantitative methods will be used in the different sub studies. The design is a multi-centre, multi-method study, including surveys, interviews, observations, and analysis of registration data and documents. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will enable users of maternity care, professionals, policy makers and health care financers to make an informed choice about the kind of birth location that is appropriate for their needs and wishes.

Women׳s birthplace decision-making, the role of confidence: Part of the Evaluating Maternity Units study, New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: to explore women׳s birthplace decision-making and identify the factors which enable women to plan to give birth in a freestanding midwifery-led primary level maternity unit rather than in an obstetric-led tertiary level maternity hospital in New Zealand. DESIGN: a mixed methods prospective cohort design. METHODS: data from eight focus groups (37 women) and a six week postpartum survey (571 women, 82%) were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. The qualitative data from the focus groups and survey were the primary data sources and were integrated at the analysis stage; and the secondary qualitative and quantitative data were integrated at the interpretation stage. SETTING: Christchurch, New Zealand, with one tertiary maternity hospital and four primary level maternity units (2010-2012). PARTICIPANTS: well (at 'low risk' of developing complications), pregnant women booked to give birth in one of the primary units or the tertiary hospital. All women received midwifery continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. FINDINGS: five core themes were identified: the birth process, women׳s self-belief in their ability to give birth, midwives, the health system and birth place. 'Confidence' was identified as the overarching concept influencing the themes. Women who chose to give birth in a primary maternity unit appeared to differ markedly in their beliefs regarding their optimal birthplace compared to women who chose to give birth in a tertiary maternity hospital. The women who planned a primary maternity unit birth expressed confidence in the birth process, their ability to give birth, their midwife, the maternity system and/or the primary unit itself. The women planning to give birth in a tertiary hospital did not express confidence in the birth process, their ability to give birth, the system for transfers and/or the primary unit as a birthplace, although they did express confidence in their midwife. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: birthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women׳s experience of childbirth. Birthplace decision-making is complex, in common with many other aspects of childbirth. A multiplicity of factors needs converge in order for all those involved to gain the confidence required to plan what, in this context, might be considered a 'countercultural' decision to give birth at a midwife-led primary maternity unit.

Provider perspectives on the enabling environment required for skilled birth attendance: a qualitative study in western Nepal.

OBJECTIVES: In Nepal, where difficult geography and an under-resourced health system contribute to poor health care access, the government has increased the number of trained skilled birth attendants (SBAs) and posted them in newly constructed birthing centres attached to peripheral health facilities that are available to women 24 h a day. This study describes their views on their enabling environment. METHODS: Qualitative methods included semi-structured interviews with 22 SBAs within Palpa district, a hill district in the Western Region of Nepal; a focus group discussion with ten SBA trainees, and in-depth interviews with five key informants. RESULTS: Participants identified the essential components of an enabling environment as: relevant training; ongoing professional support; adequate infrastructure, equipment and drugs; and timely referral pathways. All SBAs who practised alone felt unable to manage obstetric complications because quality management of life-threatening complications requires the attention of more than one SBA. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal health guidelines should account for the provision of an enabling environment in addition to the deployment of SBAs. In Nepal, referral systems require strengthening, and the policy of posting SBAs alone, in remote clinics, needs to be reconsidered to achieve the goal of reducing maternal deaths through timely management of obstetric complications.

[Midwife-led birth centres: an alternative to hospital childbirth?]. / Geburtshäuser: Versorgungsalternative zur Klinikentbindung?

After midwife-led birth centres had been included into the Social Security Statute Book (§134a SGB V) and thus become covered by German Public Health Insurance since April 1st, 2007 contract negotiations on flat rate costs have followed. Meanwhile the 2nd edition of this -agreement has come into effect. The present contribution describes how this non-hospital obstetric care has developed in the last 3 years. The medical care situation is explained based on legal conditions. Special attention is paid to regulations concerning quality management as well as the certification or auditing required to remain listed in the national register of midwife-led units at the Social Health Insurance. Results are shown from data collected by the Associa-tion for Quality Assurance on Out-of-hospital births (QUAG) and from a pilot project which also contains comparisons with clinical findings. The discussion refers to data taken from German as well as international publications. The conclusion points out some aspects in need of further development.

Models of antenatal care and obstetric outcomes in Sydney South West.

OBJECTIVES: To assess obstetric outcomes of different models of antenatal care. METHODS: The study was historical cohort analysis of population birth data of 67,675 singleton births delivered in all public hospitals in Sydney South-west. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared for different models of antenatal care received. The care was provided within the hospitals in doctor's clinic, midwives' clinic, birth centre, or by a team of midwives in the caseload midwifery. In the non-hospital settings, the care was provided by private obstetricians or by the general practitioner (GP) as part of the GP Shared Care program. The data for those women who received no antenatal care were also analysed. RESULTS: This study provided information that the obstetric outcomes were very similar regardless of whether a woman received her antenatal care in the midwives' clinic, the birth centre, under the GP Shared Care program or in the doctor's clinic in Sydney South-west hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the view that different models of maternity care can be provided with good outcomes.

The influence of the birthplace and models of care on midwifery practice for the management of women in labour.

This paper will examine how the settings in which midwives practice (the birthplace) and models of care affect midwives' decision making during the management of labour. One-hundred-and-four independent, team and hospital based midwives and 100 low obstetric risk nulliparous women to whom labour care was provided were surveyed. These midwives and women resided in the Auckland metropolitan area of New Zealand. The majority of midwives who participated worked in models of care which provided women with continuity of carer and care, however, this was not found to influence the way the midwives provided labour care. Instead, practice was found to be relatively homogenous regardless of whether the midwives worked in independent, team, or hospital-based practice. The birthplace setting in which the labour care took place did influence midwifery practice. The majority of midwives provided labour care in large obstetric hospitals and identified practices dominated by the medical model of care. Practice was described as being influenced by intervention and the need for technology, however, this did not prevent the majority of women from perceiving they were actively involved in the decision making process and that they worked in partnership with their midwives. Closer examination of the midwives' decision making processes whilst providing the labour care revealed that the midwives' individual decisions were influenced by the needs of the women rather than the hospital protocols. What became evident was that the midwives in this study had adopted a humanistic approach to care whereby technology was used alongside relationship-centred care.