Intrapartum and neonatal mortality among low-risk women in midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands: a propensity score matched study.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare intrapartum and neonatal mortality in low-risk term women starting labour in midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care. STUDY DESIGN:We performed a propensity score matched study using data from our national perinatal register, completed with data from medical files. We studied women without major risk factors with singleton pregnancies who gave birth at term between 2005 and 2008 in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands. Major risk factors comprised non-vertex position of the fetus, previous Caesarean birth, hypertension, (gestational) diabetes mellitus, post-term pregnancy (?42 weeks), prolonged rupture of membranes (>24?hours), vaginal bleeding in the second half of pregnancy or induced labour. Groups were devided by midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour. The primary outcome was intrapartum and neonatal (<28 days) mortality. Secondary outcomes included obstetric interventions, 5 min Apgar scores<7?and neonatal intensive care admittance for >24?hours. RESULTS:We studied 57?396 women. Perinatal mortality occurred in 30 of 46 764 (0.64‰) women in midwife-led care and in 2 of 10 632 (0.19‰) women in obstetrician-led care (OR 3.4, 95%?CI 0.82 to 14.3). A propensity score matched analysis in a 1:1 ratio with 10?632 women per group revealed an OR for perinatal mortality of 4.0 (95% CI 0.85 to 18.9). CONCLUSION:Among low-risk women, midwife-led care at the onset of labour was associated with a statistically non-significant higher mortality rate.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Variations in childbirth interventions may indicate inappropriate use. Most variation studies are limited by the lack of adjustments for maternal characteristics and do not investigate variations in adverse outcomes. This study aims to explore regional variations in the Netherlands and their correlations with referral rates, birthplace, interventions, and adverse outcomes, adjusted for maternal characteristics. METHODS:In this nationwide retrospective cohort study, using a national data register, intervention rates were analysed between twelve regions among single childbirths after 37 weeks' gestation in 2010-2013 (n = 614,730). These were adjusted for maternal characteristics using multivariable logistic regression. Primary outcomes were intrapartum referral, birthplace, and interventions used in midwife- and obstetrician-led care. Correlations both between primary outcomes and between adverse outcomes were calculated with Spearman's rank correlations. FINDINGS:Intrapartum referral rates varied between 55-68% (nulliparous) and 20-32% (multiparous women), with a negative correlation with receiving midwife-led care at the onset of labour in two-thirds of the regions. Regions with higher referral rates had higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhages. Rates of home birth varied between 6-16% (nulliparous) and 16-31% (multiparous), and was negatively correlated with episiotomy and postpartum oxytocin rates. Among midwife-led births, episiotomy rates varied between 14-42% (nulliparous) and 3-13% (multiparous) and in obstetrician-led births from 46-67% and 14-28% respectively. Rates of postpartum oxytocin varied between 59-88% (nulliparous) and 50-85% (multiparous) and artificial rupture of membranes between 43-52% and 54-61% respectively. A north-south gradient was visible with regard to birthplace, episiotomy, and oxytocin. CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggests that attitudes towards interventions vary, independent of maternal characteristics. Care providers and policy makers need to be aware of reducing unwarranted variation in birthplace, episiotomy and the postpartum use of oxytocin. Further research is needed to identify explanations and explore ways to reduce unwarranted intervention rates.
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units. PARTICIPANTS: 64,538 eligible women with a singleton, term (?37 weeks gestation), and "booked" pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units). RESULTS: There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although interventions in childbirth are important in order to prevent neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, non-indicated use may cause avoidable harm. Regional variations in intervention rates, which cannot be explained by maternal characteristics, may indicate over- and underuse. The aim of this study is to explore regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands and their associations with interventions and adverse outcomes, controlled for maternal characteristics. METHODS:Childbirth intervention rates were compared between twelve Dutch regions, using data from the national perinatal birth register for 2010-2013. All single childbirths from 37 weeks' gestation onwards were included. Primary outcomes were induction and augmentation of labour, pain medication, instrumental birth, caesarean section (prelabour, intrapartum) and paediatric involvement. Secondary outcomes were adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for maternal characteristics. Associations were expressed in Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. RESULTS:Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement. Epidural analgesia rates varied from between 12 and 38% (nulliparous) and from between 5 and 14% (multiparous women). These rates were negatively correlated with rates of other pharmacological pain relief, which varied from between 15 and 43% (nulliparous) and from between 10 and 27% (multiparous). Rates of paediatric involvement varied from between 37 and 60% (nulliparous) and from between 26 and 43% (multiparous). For instrumental vaginal births, rates varied from between 16 and 19% (nulliparous) and from between 3 and 4% (multiparous). For intrapartum caesarean section, the variation was 13-15% and 5-6%, respectively. A positive correlation was found between intervention rates in midwife-led and obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour within the same region. Adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes were not lower in regions with higher intervention rates. Higher augmentation of labour rates correlated with higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS:Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement, and least for instrumental vaginal births and intrapartum caesarean sections. Care providers and policy makers should critically audit remarkable variations, since these may be unwarranted. Limited variation for some interventions may indicate consensus for their use. Further research should focus on variations in evidence-based interventions and indications for the use of interventions in childbirth.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess intrapartum/neonatal mortality and morbidity risk in infants born at 37 weeks of gestation compared with infants born at 39-41 weeks of gestation. DESIGN:Nationwide cohort study. SETTING:The Netherlands. POPULATION:A total of 755 198 women delivering at term of a singleton without congenital malformations during 2010-14. METHODS:We used data from the national perinatal registry (PERINED). Analysis was performed with logistic regression and stratification for the way labour started and type of care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Intrapartum or neonatal mortality up to 28 days and adverse neonatal outcome (neonatal mortality, 5-minute Apgar <7, and/or neonatal intensive care unit admission). RESULTS:At 37 weeks of gestation intrapartum/neonatal mortality was 1.10‰ compared with 0.59‰ at 39-41 weeks (P < 0.0001). Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for 37 weeks compared with 39-41 weeks was 1.84 (95% CI) 1.39-2.44). Adverse neonatal outcome at 37 weeks was 21.4‰ compared with 12.04‰ at 39-41 weeks (P < 0.0001) with an aOR 1.63 (95% CI 1.53-1.74). Spontaneous start of labour at 37 weeks of gestation was significantly associated with increased intrapartum/neonatal mortality with an aOR of 2.20 (95% CI 1.56-3.10), in both primary (midwifery-led) care and specialist care. Neither induction of labour nor planned caesarean section showed increased intrapartum/neonatal mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS:Birth at 37 weeks of gestation is independently associated with a higher frequency of clinically relevant adverse perinatal outcomes than birth at 39-41 weeks. In particular, spontaneous start of labour at 37 weeks of gestation doubles the risk for intrapartum/neonatal mortality. Extra fetal monitoring is warranted. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT:Birth at 37 weeks of gestation gives markedly higher intrapartum/neonatal mortality risk than at 39-41 weeks, especially with spontaneous start of labour.
Project description:In Australia and internationally, there is concern about the growing proportion of women giving birth by caesarean section. There is evidence of increased risk of placenta accreta and percreta in subsequent pregnancies as well as decreased fertility; and significant resource implications. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of continuity of midwifery care have reported reduced caesareans and other interventions in labour, as well as increased maternal satisfaction, with no statistically significant differences in perinatal morbidity or mortality. RCTs conducted in the UK and in Australia have largely measured the effect of teams of care providers (commonly 6-12 midwives) with very few testing caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care. This study aims to determine whether caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care for women at low risk of medical complications decreases the proportion of women delivering by caesarean section compared with women receiving 'standard' care. This paper presents the trial protocol in detail.A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women who are identified at low medical risk will be recruited from the antenatal booking clinics of a tertiary women's hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Baseline data will be collected, then women randomised to caseload midwifery or standard low risk care. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a designated primary midwife with one or two antenatal visits conducted by a 'back-up' midwife. The midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary. If the woman has an extended labour, or if the primary midwife is unavailable, care will be provided by the back-up midwife. For women allocated to standard care, options include midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. Data will be collected at recruitment (self administered survey) and at 2 and 6 months postpartum by postal survey. Medical/obstetric outcomes will be abstracted from the medical record. The sample size of 2008 was calculated to identify a decrease in caesarean birth from 19 to 14% and detect a range of other significant clinical differences. Comprehensive process and economic evaluations will be conducted.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012607000073404.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of the world's perinatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. A substantial proportion occurs intrapartum and is avoidable with better care. At a low-resource tertiary hospital, this study assessed the quality of intrapartum care and adherence to locally-tailored clinical guidelines. METHODS:A non-participatory, structured, direct observation study was held at Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar, Tanzania, between October and November 2016. Women in active labour were followed and structure, processes of labour care and outcomes of care systematically recorded. Descriptive analyses were performed on the labour observations and compared to local guidelines and supplemented by qualitative findings. A Poisson regression analysis assessed factors affecting foetal heart rate monitoring (FHRM) guidelines adherence. RESULTS:161 labouring women were observed. The nurse/midwife-to-labouring-women ratio of 1:4, resulted in doctors providing a significant part of intrapartum monitoring. Care during labour and two-thirds of deliveries was provided in a one-room labour ward with shared beds. Screening for privacy and communication of examination findings were done in 50 and 34%, respectively. For the majority, there was delayed recognition of labour progress and insufficient support in second stage of labour. While FHRM was generally performed suboptimally with a median interval of 105 (interquartile range 57-160) minutes, occurrence of an intrapartum risk event (non-reassuring FHR, oxytocin use or poor progress) increased assessment frequency significantly (rate ratio 1.32 (CI 1.09-1.58)). CONCLUSIONS:Neither international nor locally-adapted standards of intrapartum routine care were optimally achieved. This was most likely due to a grossly inadequate capacity of birth attendants; without whom innovative interventions at birth are unlikely to succeed. This calls for international and local stakeholders to address the root causes of unsafe intrafacility care in low-resource settings, including the number of skilled birth attendants required for safe and respectful births.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To test the hypothesis that it is possible to select a group of low risk women who can start labour in midwife-led care without having increased rates of severe adverse maternal outcomes compared to women who start labour in secondary care.<h4>Design and methods</h4>We conducted a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands, using data from 223 739 women with a singleton pregnancy between 37 and 42 weeks gestation without a previous caesarean section, with spontaneous onset of labour and a child in cephalic presentation. Information on all cases of severe acute maternal morbidity collected by the national study into ethnic determinants of maternal morbidity in the Netherlands (LEMMoN study), 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006, was merged with data from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry of all births occurring during the same period. Our primary outcome was severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM, i.e. admission to an intensive care unit, uterine rupture, eclampsia or severe HELLP, major obstetric haemorrhage, and other serious events). Secondary outcomes were postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta.<h4>Results</h4>Nulliparous and parous women who started labour in midwife-led care had lower rates of SAMM, postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta compared to women who started labour in secondary care. For SAMM the adjusted odds ratio's and 95% confidence intervals were for nulliparous women: 0.57 (0.45 to 0.71) and for parous women 0.47 (0.36 to 0.62).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Our results suggest that it is possible to identify a group of women at low risk of obstetric complications who may benefit from midwife-led care. Women can be reassured that we found no evidence that midwife-led care at the onset of labour is unsafe for women in a maternity care system with a well developed risk selection and referral system.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Over the last decade, a trend towards high utilisation of primary maternity care was observed in high-income countries. There is limited research with contradictory results regarding frequent attendance (FA) and perinatal outcomes in midwifery care. Therefore, this study examined possible associations between FA in midwifery care and obstetric interventions and perinatal outcomes. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was performed in a medium-sized midwifery-led care practice in an urban region in the Netherlands. Frequent attenders (FAs) were categorised using the Kotelchuck-Index Revised. Regression analyses were executed to examine the relationship between FAs and perinatal outcomes, stratified by antenatal referral to an obstetrician. Main outcomes of interest were Apgar score???7 and perinatal death, birth weight, mode of delivery, haemorrhage, place of birth, transfer during labour, and a requirement for pain relief. RESULTS:The study included 1015 women, 239 (24%) FAs and 776 (76%) non-FAs, 538 (53%) were not referred and 447 (47%) were referred to an obstetrician. In the non-referred group, FA was significantly associated with a requirement for pain relief (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.24-3.17) and duration of dilatation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04-1.38). In the referred group, FA was significantly associated with induction of labour (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17-2.95), ruptured perineum (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.95) and episiotomy (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.95). In the non-referred and the referred group, FA was not associated with the other obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Due to small numbers, we could not measure possible associations of FA with an Apgar score???7 and perinatal death. CONCLUSION:In our study, perinatal outcomes differed by FA and antenatal referral to an obstetrician. In the non-referred group, FA was significantly associated with medical pain relief and duration of dilatation. In the referred group, FA was significantly associated with induction of labour, ruptured perineum, and episiotomy. Further research with a larger study population is needed to look for a possible association between FA and primary adverse birth outcomes such as perinatal mortality.
Project description:Internationally, a typical model of maternity care is a medically led system with varying levels of midwifery input. New Zealand has a midwife-led model of care, and there are movements in other countries to adopt such a system. There is a paucity of systemic evaluation that formally investigates safety-related outcomes in relationship to midwife-led care within an entire maternity service. The main objective of this study was to compare major adverse perinatal outcomes between midwife-led and medical-led maternity care in New Zealand.This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. Participants were mother/baby pairs for all 244,047 singleton, term deliveries occurring between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2012 in New Zealand in which no major fetal, neonatal, chromosomal or metabolic abnormality was identified and the mother was first registered with a midwife, obstetrician, or general practitioner as lead maternity carer. Main outcome measures were low Apgar score at five min, intrauterine hypoxia, birth-related asphyxia, neonatal encephalopathy, small for gestational age (as a negative control), and mortality outcomes (perinatal related mortality, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality). Logistic regression models were fitted, with crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) generated for each outcome for midwife-led versus medical-led care (based on lead maternity carer at first registration) with 95% confidence intervals. Fully adjusted models included age, ethnicity, deprivation, trimester of registration, parity, smoking, body mass index (BMI), and pre-existing diabetes and/or hypertension in the model. Of the 244,047 pregnancies included in the study, 223,385 (91.5%) were first registered with a midwife lead maternity carer, and 20,662 (8.5%) with a medical lead maternity carer. Adjusted ORs showed that medical-led births were associated with lower odds of an Apgar score of less than seven at 5 min (OR 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.64), intrauterine hypoxia (OR 0.79; 0.62-1.02), birth-related asphyxia (OR 0.45; 0.32-0.62), and neonatal encephalopathy (OR 0.61; 0.38-0.97). No association was found between lead carer at first registration and being small for gestational age (SGA), which was included as a negative control (OR 1.00; 0.95-1.05). It was not possible to definitively determine whether one model of care was associated with fewer infant deaths, with ORs for the medical-led model compared with the midwife-led model being 0.80 (0.54-1.19) for perinatal related mortality, 0.86 (0.55-1.34) for stillbirth, and 0.62 (0.25-1.53) for neonatal mortality. Major limitations were related to the use of routine data in which some variables lacked detail; for example, we were unable to differentiate the midwife-led group into those who had received medical input during pregnancy and those who had not.There is an unexplained excess of adverse events in midwife-led deliveries in New Zealand where midwives practice autonomously. The findings are of concern and demonstrate a need for further research that specifically investigates the reasons for the apparent excess of adverse outcomes in mothers with midwife-led care. These findings should be interpreted in the context of New Zealand's internationally comparable birth outcomes and in the context of research that supports the many benefits of midwife-led care, such as greater patient satisfaction and lower intervention rates.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Several key policy documents have advocated 24-hour consultant obstetrician presence on the labour ward as a means of improving the safety of birth. However, it is unclear what published evidence exists comparing the outcomes of intrapartum care with 24-hour consultant labour ward presence and other models of consultant cover.<h4>Objectives</h4>To collate and critically appraise evidence of the effect of continuous resident consultant obstetrician cover on the labour ward on outcomes of intrapartum care compared with other models of consultant cover.<h4>Search strategy</h4>Studies were included which quantitatively compared intrapartum outcomes for women and babies where continuous resident consultant obstetric cover was provided with other models of consultant cover.<h4>Selection criteria</h4>Quantitative studies within healthcare systems with mixed obstetric-midwifery models of care.<h4>Data collection and analysis</h4>Two researchers independently screened titles and full-text publications, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using REVIEW MANAGER 5.3.<h4>Main results</h4>About 1508 publications were screened resulting in two papers, three conference abstracts and one letter being included. All were single-site time-period comparison studies. The quality of studies overall was poor with significant risk of bias. The only significant finding in meta-analysis related to instrumental deliveries, which occurred more frequently when there was on-call consultant cover (unadjusted risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.24).<h4>Conclusion</h4>No reliable evidence of the effects of 24-hour resident consultant presence on the labour ward on intrapartum outcomes was identified.<h4>Tweetable abstract</h4>More robust research is needed to assess intrapartum outcomes with resident consultant labour ward presence.