Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 2. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020).

Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. The second part of this guideline presents recommendations and statements on care during the dilation and expulsion stages as well as during the placental/postnatal stage. Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG190 guideline "Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies". Other international guidelines were also consulted in individual cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions where necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline, and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.

Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020).

Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. This first part presents recommendations and statements about patient information and counselling, general patient care, monitoring of patients, pain management and quality control measures for vaginal birth. Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG 190 guideline "Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies". Other international guidelines were also consulted in specific cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions, if this was considered necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of the additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.

Naegele's rule revisited.

Recent literature suggests that Franz Carl Naegele's (1778-1851) rule for estimating the date of delivery has been misinterpreted, resulting in this being brought forward by five days. Baskett and Nagele's work underpinning this argument has become widely accepted and quoted in obstetrical and midwifery textbooks. However, our re-examination of Naegele's original statements does not support the recent findings. On the contrary, the original textbooks of Naegele clearly advise taking the first day of menstruation for the calculation of the date of delivery.

Temporal trends in fetal mortality at and beyond term and induction of labor in Germany 2005-2012: data from German routine perinatal monitoring.

PURPOSE: While a variety of factors may play a role in fetal and neonatal deaths, postmaturity as a cause of stillbirth remains a topic of debate. It still is unclear, whether induction of labor at a particular gestational age may prevent fetal deaths. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group was granted access to the most recent set of relevant German routine perinatal data, comprising all 5,291,011 hospital births from 2005 to 2012. We analyzed correlations in rates of induction of labor (IOL), perinatal mortality (in particular stillbirths) at different gestational ages, and fetal morbidity. Correlations were tested with Pearson's product-moment analysis (α = 5 %). All computations were performed with SPSS version 22. RESULTS: Induction rates rose significantly from 16.5 to 21.9 % (r = 0.98; p < 0.001). There were no significant changes in stillbirth rates (0.28-0.35 per 100 births; r = 0.045; p = 0.806). Stillbirth rates 2009-2012 remained stable in all gestational age groups irrespective of induction. Fetal morbidity (one or more ICD-10 codes) rose significantly during 2005-2012. This was true for both children with (from 33 to 37 %, r = 0.784, p < 0.001) and without (from 25 to 31 %, (r = 0.920, p < 0.001) IOL. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in IOL at term is not associated with a decline in perinatal mortality. Perinatal morbidity increased with and without induction of labor.

Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators.

BACKGROUND: This paper critically reviews published tools and indicators currently used to measure maternity care performance within Europe, focusing particularly on whether and how current approaches enable systematic appraisal of processes of minimal (or non-) intervention in support of physiological or "normal birth". The work formed part of COST Actions IS0907: "Childbirth Cultures, Concerns, and Consequences: Creating a dynamic EU framework for optimal maternity care" (2011-2014) and IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health - an interdisciplinary whole system approach to understanding and contextualising physiological labour and birth (BIRTH) (2014-). The Actions included the sharing of country experiences with the aim of promoting salutogenic approaches to maternity care. METHODS: A structured literature search was conducted of material published between 2005 and 2013, incorporating research databases, published documents in english in peer-reviewed international journals and indicator databases which measured aspects of health care at a national and pan-national level. Given its emergence from two COST Actions the work, inevitably, focused on Europe, but findings may be relevant to other countries and regions. RESULTS: A total of 388 indicators were identified, as well as seven tools specifically designed for capturing aspects of maternity care. Intrapartum care was the most frequently measured feature, through the application of process and outcome indicators. Postnatal and neonatal care of mother and baby were the least appraised areas. An over-riding focus on the quantification of technical intervention and adverse or undesirable outcomes was identified. Vaginal birth (no instruments) was occasionally cited as an indicator; besides this measurement few of the 388 indicators were found to be assessing non-intervention or "good" or positive outcomes more generally. CONCLUSIONS: The tools and indicators identified largely enable measurement of technical interventions and undesirable health (or pathological medical) outcomes. A physiological birth generally necessitates few, or no, interventions, yet most of the indicators presently applied fail to capture (a) this phenomenon, and (b) the relationship between different forms and processes of care, mode of birth and good or positive outcomes. A need was identified for indicators which capture non-intervention, reflecting the reality that most births are low-risk, requiring few, if any, technical medical procedures.

[Midwifery education: apprentice or student?]. / Lehrtochter oder Hebammenschülerin?

The article focuses on the history of midwifery education in Northern Germany and the changes male surgeons and doctors have brought up with their presence in the teaching of midwives. Before the academic doctors Georg David Bössel (born 1704) and Johann Georg Nessler (died 1804) started midwifery schools in Flensburg and Altona (1765) a woman was a trainee of a midwife, when she wanted to learn the profession. As early as 1731 Jacob Leonard Vogel (1694-1781) in Luebeck gave some theoretical lessons as an addition to the apprenticeship. When Christian Carstens (1781-1814) became midwifery teacher in 1805 he succeeded within short time to exchange the "old" midwives of Luebeck with younger midwives who only had learned practical obstetrics in a delivery ward. Of course the new pupils learned less as the apprentice in former times as they only delivered very few women and didn't experienced the conditions under which women gave birth to their child in their own home and with their own birth setting. Nevertheless the state officials accepted this new method of teaching as a norm and established a new midwifery school in 1805 attached to the University of Kiel.