Outcomes of Free‐Standing,Midwife‐Led Birth Centers: A Structured Review

Abstract: Background : Over the last two decades, childbirth worldwide has been increasingly concentrated in large centralized hospitals, with a parallel trend toward more birth interventions. At the same time in several countries, interest in midwife‐led care and free‐standing birth centers has steadily increased. The objective of this review is to establish the current evidence base for free‐standing, midwife‐led birth centers. Methods : A structured review, based on Cochrane guidelines, was conducted that included nonrandomized studies. The comparative outcomes measured were rates of normal vaginal birth; cesarean section; intact perineum; episiotomy; transfers; and babies remaining with their mothers. Results : Of the 5 controlled studies that met the review criteria, all except one was a single site study. Since no study was randomized, meta‐analysis was not performed. The included studies all raised quality concerns, and significant heterogeneity was observed among them. For the outcomes measured, every study reported a benefit for women intending to give birth in the free‐standing, midwife‐led unit. Conclusions : The benefits shown for women recruited into the included studies who intended to give birth in a free‐standing, midwife‐led unit suggest a question about the efficacy of consultant unit care for low‐risk women. However, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the individual studies. Good quality controlled studies are needed to investigate these issues in the future.     

Improving Quality and Safety in Maternity Care: The Contribution of Midwife‐Led Care

This article draws on findings from a recent Cochrane systematic review of midwife‐led care and discusses its contribution to the safety and quality of women's care in the domains of safety, effectiveness, woman‐centeredness, and efficiency. According to the Cochrane review, women who received models of midwife‐led care were nearly eight times more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife, were 21% less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation, 19% less likely to have regional analgesia, 14% less likely to have instrumental birth, 18% less likely to have an episiotomy, and significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, initiate breastfeeding, and feel in control. In addition to normalizing and humanizing birth, the contribution of midwife‐led care to the quality and safety of health care is substantial. The implications are that policymakers who wish to improve the quality and safety of maternal and infant care, particularly around normalizing and humanizing birth, should consider midwife‐led models of care and how financing of midwife‐led services can support this. Suggestions for future research include exploring why fetal loss is reduced under 24 weeks' gestation in midwife‐led models of care, and ensuring that the effectiveness of midwife‐led models of care on mothers' and infants' health and well‐being are assessed in the longer postpartum period.     

Differences in the Valuation of Birth Outcomes Among Pregnant Women,Mothers, and Obstetricians

Background: Decisions are usually based on the perceived merits of alternative approaches. This process can be quantified by combining the probabilities of expected outcomes with their desirability. We studied differences in the valuation of birth outcomes among pregnant women, mothers, and obstetricians, and assessed how these would affect a particular obstetric decision. Methods: In a study conducted at Leiden Hospital, Leiden, The Netherlands, 12 obstetricians, 15 pregnant women, and 15 mothers participated in a standard reference gamble to determine the value of 12 different outcomes: 3 types of birth combined with 4 states of infant outcome. These were then applied to an obstetric decision tree based on the Dublin trial of intermittent auscultation versus electronic intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Results: Contrary to obstetricians, women valued permanent neurologic handicap significantly higher than neonatal death ( p < 0.01). Women expressed no overriding preferences for the type of birth, whereas obstetricians were clearly antipathetic to cesarean section. Within-group consistency was significantly higher for pregnant women and mothers than for obstetricians ( p < 0.0001). However, application of the measured values to the obstetric decision tree merely led to marginal changes in overall expected value of the decision alternatives. Conclusions: Values attached to birth processes and outcomes differ significantly between (expectant) mothers and doctors. These differences should be recognized and respected in obstetric decision making.     

Factors Associated With Non‐Normal Birth Outcomes for Low‐Risk Women in an Inner‐City Hospital

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with normal versus non‐normal birth outcomes for low‐risk women who were admitted for care in spontaneous labor. Methods: The birth records of 93 women were reviewed. Results: At the completion of the fourth stage of labor, 61% of births (n = 57) met the criteria for normal, while 39% of births (n = 36) had non‐normal outcomes. On bivariate analysis, variables associated with non‐normal outcomes included nulliparity (odds ratio [OR], 9.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3–28; P <.0001), lower average centimeters of dilation at admission (t‐score 4.422; P <.001), use of pharmacologic pain relief, including narcotics and epidural anesthesia (OR, 5.03; 95% CI, 2–16; P = .005), and birth attended by a physician versus a certified nurse‐midwife (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2–9; P = .004). In a multivariate analysis, nulliparity (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 2–19; P = .002) and lower average centimeters of dilation at admission (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.5–0.9; P = .005) were independently associated with non‐normal outcome. Discussion: The development of clinical guidelines aimed at reducing admissions of women in early labor may reduce non‐normal outcomes, particularly for nulliparous women.     

Outcomes of Planned Hospital Birth Attended by Midwives Compared with Physicians in British Columbia

ABSTRACT: Background: The impact of midwifery versus physician care on perinatal outcomes in a population of women planning birth in hospital has not yet been explored. We compared maternal and newborn outcomes between women planning hospital birth attended by a midwife versus a physician in British Columbia, Canada. Methods: All women planning a hospital birth attended by a midwife during the 2‐year study period who were of sufficiently low‐risk status to meet eligibility requirements for home birth as defined by the British Columbia College of Midwives were included in the study group (n =488). The comparison group included women meeting the same eligibility requirements but planning a physician‐attended birth in hospitals where midwives also practiced (n =572). Outcomes were ascertained from the British Columbia Reproductive Care Program Perinatal Registry to which all hospitals in the province submit data. Results: Adjusted odds ratios for women planning hospital birth attended by a midwife versus a physician were significantly reduced for exposure to cesarean section (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.86), narcotic analgesia (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18–0.37), electronic fetal monitoring (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.16–0.30), amniotomy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.98), and episiotomy (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42–0.93). The odds of adverse neonatal outcomes were not different between groups, with the exception of reduced use of drugs for resuscitation at birth (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04–0.83) in the midwifery group. Conclusions: A shift toward greater proportions of midwife‐attended births in hospitals could result in reduced rates of obstetric interventions, with similar rates of neonatal morbidity. (BIRTH 34:2 June 2007)     

Relationship Between Hospital‐Level Percentage of Midwife‐Attended Births and Obstetric Procedure Utilization

Introduction

Research has shown good outcomes among individual low‐risk women who receive perinatal care from midwives, yet little is known about how hospital‐level variation in midwifery care relates to procedure use and maternal health. This study aimed to document the association between the hospital‐level proportion of midwife‐attended births and obstetric procedure utilization.

Methods

This analysis used 2 data sources: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database data for New York in 2014, and New York State Department of Health data on the percentage of midwife‐attended births at hospitals in the state in 2014. Using logistic regression, we estimated the association between the hospital‐level percentage of midwife‐attended births and 4 outcomes among low‐risk women: labor induction, cesarean birth, episiotomy, and severe maternal morbidity.

Results

Hospital‐level percentage of midwife‐attended births was not associated with reduced odds of labor induction or severe maternal morbidity. Women who gave births at hospitals with more midwife‐attended births had lower odds of giving birth by cesarean (eg, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59‐0.82 at a hospital with 15% to 40% of births attended by midwives, compared to no midwife‐attended births) and lower odds of episiotomy (eg, aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23‐0.74 at a hospital with more than 40% of births attended by midwives, compared to no midwife‐attended births).

Discussion

Our results indicate that hospitals with more midwife‐attended births have lower utilization of some obstetric procedures among low‐risk women; this raises the possibility of improving value in maternity care through greater access to midwifery care.     

Poor Health‐related Quality of Life After Severe Preeclampsia

Abstract: Background: Preeclampsia is a major complication of pregnancy associated with increased maternal morbidity and mortality, and adverse birth outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe changes in all domains of health‐related quality of life between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum after mild and severe preeclampsia; to assess the extent to which it differs after mild and severe preeclampsia; and to assess which factors contribute to such differences. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study of 174 postpartum women who experienced preeclampsia, and who gave birth between February 2007 and June 2009. Health‐related quality of life was measured at 6 and 12 weeks postpartum by the RAND 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). The population for analysis comprised women (74%) who obtained scores on the questionnaire at both time points. Results: Women who experienced severe preeclampsia had a lower postpartum health‐related quality of life than those who had mild preeclampsia (all p < 0.05 at 6 wk postpartum). Quality of life improved on almost all SF‐36 scales from 6 to 12 weeks postpartum (p < 0.05). Compared with women who had mild preeclampsia, those who experienced severe preeclampsia had a poorer mental quality of life at 12 weeks postpartum (p < 0.05). Neonatal intensive care unit admission and perinatal death were contributing factors to this poorer mental quality of life. Conclusions: Obstetric caregivers should be aware of poor health‐related quality of life, particularly mental health quality of life in women who have experienced severe preeclampsia (especially those confronted with perinatal death or their child’s admission to a neonatal intensive care unit), and should consider referral for postpartum psychological care. (BIRTH 38:3 September 2011)     

Behavior Change Following Implementation of Home‐Based Life‐Saving Skills in Liberia,West Africa

Introduction: Home‐Based Life‐Saving Skills (HBLSS) has been fully integrated into Liberia's long‐term plan to decrease maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity, coordinated through the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. The objective of this article is to disseminate evaluation data from project monitoring and documentation on translation of knowledge and skills obtained through HBLSS into behavior change at the community level. Methods: One year after completion of HBLSS training, complication audits were conducted with 434 postpartum women in 1 rural county in Liberia. Results: Sixty‐two percent (n = 269) of the women were attended during birth by an HBLSS‐trained traditional midwife or family member, while 38% (n = 165) were attended by a traditional midwife or family member who did not receive HBLSS training. Home‐Based Life‐Saving Skills–trained birth attendants performed significantly more first actions (life‐saving actions taught to be performed after every birth) than the attendants not HBLSS trained. Fourteen percent of our sample (n = 62) reported too much bleeding following the birth. Of these women, approximately half (n = 29) were attended by an HBLSS‐trained traditional midwife or family member. There was a significant difference in secondary actions (those actions taught to be performed when a woman experiences too much bleeding following childbirth) that were reported to have been performed by HBLSS‐trained attendants (mean 5.26, standard deviation [SD] 1.88) and untrained attendants (mean 2.73, SD 1.97; P < .0001). Discussion: Our findings suggest that HBLSS knowledge is being transferred into behavior change and used at the community level by traditional midwives and family members.     

Making Choices for Childbirth: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision‐aid for Informed Birth after Cesareana

ABSTRACT: Background: Decision‐making about mode of birth after a cesarean delivery presents challenges to women and their caregivers and requires a balance of risks and benefits according to individual circumstances. The study objective was to determine whether a decision‐aid for women who have experienced previous cesarean birth facilitates informed decision‐making about birth options during a subsequent pregnancy. Method: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial of 227 pregnant women was conducted within 3 prenatal clinics and 3 private obstetric practices in New South Wales, Australia. Women with 1 previous cesarean section and medically eligible for trial of vaginal birth were recruited at 12 to 18 weeks’ gestation; 115 were randomized to the intervention group and 112 to the control group. A decision‐aid booklet describing risks and benefits of elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor was given to intervention group women at 28 weeks’ gestation. Main outcome measures included level of knowledge, decisional conflict score, women's preference for mode of birth, and recorded mode of birth. Results: Women who received the decision‐aid demonstrated a significantly greater increase in mean knowledge scores than the control group (increasing by 2.17 vs 0.42 points on a 15‐point scale)(p < 0.001, 95% CI for difference = 1.15–2.35). The intervention group demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict score (p < 0.05). The decision‐aid did not significantly affect the rate of uptake of trial of labor or elective repeat cesarean section. Preferences expressed at 36 weeks were not consistent with actual birth outcomes for many women. Conclusion: A decision‐aid for women facing choices about birth after cesarean section is effective in improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. However, little evide nce suggested that this process led to an informed choice. Strategies are required to better equip organizations and practitioners to empower women so that they can translate informed preferences into practice. Further work needs to examine ways to enhance women's power in decision‐making within the doctor‐patient relationship. (BIRTH 32:4 December 2005)     

Skin‐to‐Skin Care with the Father after Cesarean Birth and Its Effect on Newborn Crying and Prefeeding Behavior

ABSTRACT: Background: Previous reports have shown that skin‐to‐skin care immediately after vaginal birth is the optimal form of care for full‐term, healthy infants. Even in cases when the mother is awake and using spinal analgesia, early skin‐to‐skin contact between her and her newborn directly after cesarean birth might be limited for practical and medical safety reasons. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of skin‐to‐skin contact on crying and prefeeding behavior in healthy, full‐term infants born by elective cesarean birth and cared for skin‐to‐skin with their fathers versus conventional care in a cot during the first 2 hours after birth. Methods: Twenty‐nine father‐infant pairs participated in a randomized controlled trial, in which infants were randomized to be either skin‐to‐skin with their father or next to the father in a cot. Data were collected both by tape‐recording crying time for the infants and by naturalistic observations of the infants’ behavioral response, scored every 15 minutes based on the scoring criteria described in the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS). Results: The primary finding was the positive impact the fathers’ skin‐to‐skin contact had on the infants’ crying behavior. The analysis of the tape recordings of infant crying demonstrated that infants in the skin‐to‐skin group cried less than the infants in the cot group (p < 0.001). The crying of infants in the skin‐to‐skin group decreased within 15 minutes of being placed skin‐to‐skin with the father. Analysis of the NBAS‐based observation data showed that being cared for on the father’s chest skin‐to‐skin also had an impact on infant wakefulness. These infants became drowsy within 60 minutes after birth, whereas infants cared for in a cot reached the same stage after 110 minutes. Rooting activity was more frequent in the cot group than in the skin‐to‐skin group (p < 0.01), as were sucking activities (p ≤0.001) and overall duration of wakefulness (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The infants in the skin‐to‐skin group were comforted, that is, they stopped crying, became calmer, and reached a drowsy state earlier than the infants in the cot group. The father can facilitate the development of the infant’s prefeeding behavior in this important period of the newborn infant’s life and should thus be regarded as the primary caregiver for the infant during the separation of mother and baby. (BIRTH 34:2 June 2007)     

An Evaluation of Pain and “Fitness” During Labor and Its Acceptability to Women

Abstract: Background : Labor experiences involve many dimensions that change during labor but are rarely measured contemporaneously and longitudinally. We examined pain and “fitness” aspects of women's labor experience and assessed the acceptability to participants. Methods : Thirty nulliparas and 20 multiparas in term labor indicated pain and fitness every 45 minutes in contraction‐free intervals on visual analog scales from 0 to 10. Fitness implied both physical and psychological strength. Data were analyzed cross‐sectionally and longitudinally, with adjustment for analgesia and time dependency. Women received feedback and evaluated their participation on the first day postpartum. Results : Measurements of pain and fitness ranged from 2 to 22 per woman (mean ± SD: 7.4 ± 4.4). Pain scores showed various patterns, mostly increasing from 1.4 (± 1.9) at the first to 6.6 (± 3.8) at the last measurement in nulliparas and from 1.3 (± 2.1) to 6.2 (± 4.0) in multiparas. One half of the women declined steadily in fitness throughout labor, occasionally after a slight increase early on. Multiparas entered labor more fit (5.9 ± 3.0) than nulliparas (3.9 ± 2.7), but showed a sharper decline so that the difference leveled out just before birth. Although fitness at any one time did not reflect pain levels, fitness and pain were inversely related, especially in nulliparas (p = 0.003). Analgesia affected pain scores but affected fitness only a little. Women's responses were mainly positive, especially in appreciating the feedback. Nevertheless, 32 percent of women skipped one or more measurements, often toward the end or when too close to a contraction. Conclusions : Pain and “fitness” are two distinctly different dimensions of labor experience. Repeated longitudinal measurements of elements of well‐being are clearly feasible and acceptable to laboring women. They may be useful to assess how labor events and interventions affect women's well‐being.     

Factors Associated with the Choice of Delivery without Epidural Analgesia in Women at Low Risk in France

ABSTRACT: Background: Regional anesthesia is used for three‐fourths of the deliveries in France. Epidural analgesia during labor is supposed to be available to all women at low risk. The purpose of our study was to examine how the choice of delivery without an epidural varied in this context according to women’s characteristics, prenatal care, and type of maternity unit. Methods: The 2003 National Perinatal Survey in France collected data about a representative sample of births. We selected 8,233 women who were at low risk and therefore should have been able to choose whether or not to deliver without epidural analgesia. Women were interviewed in the maternity unit after delivery. The factors associated with women’s choice to deliver without epidural analgesia were studied with multivariable analyses. Results: Of the 2,720 women who gave birth without epidural analgesia, 37 percent reported that they had not wanted one; other reasons were labor occurring too quickly (43.9%), medical contraindication (3.3%), and unavailability of an anesthesiologist (2.8%). The reported decision to deliver without epidural analgesia was closely associated with high parity. It was also more frequent among women in an unfavorable social situation (not cohabiting, no or low‐qualified job) and among women who gave birth in nonuniversity public hospitals, in small‐ or medium‐sized maternity units, and in maternity units without an anesthesiologist always on site. Conclusions: Unfavorable social situation and organizational factors are associated with the reported choice to give birth without epidural analgesia. This finding suggests that women are not always in a position to make a real choice. It would be useful to improve the understanding of how pregnant women define their preferences and to know how these preferences change during pregnancy and labor. (BIRTH 35:3 September 2008)     

In‐Hospital Birth Center with the Same Medical Guidelines as Standard Care: A Comparative Study of Obstetric Interventions and Outcomes

Background: A challenge of obstetric care is to optimize maternal and infant health outcomes and the mother’s experience of childbirth with the least possible intervention in the normal process. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of modified birth center care on obstetric procedures during delivery and on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: In a cohort study 2,555 women who signed in for birth center care during pregnancy were compared with all 9,382 low‐risk women who gave birth in the standard delivery ward in the same hospital from March 2004 to July 2008. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) and adjusted for maternal background characteristics, elective cesarean section, and gestational age. Results: The modified birth center group included fewer emergency cesarean sections (primiparas: OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83; multiparas: OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23–0.51), and in multiparas the vacuum extraction rate was reduced (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26–0.67). In addition, epidural analgesia was used less frequently (primiparas: OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.41–0.53; multiparas: OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.20–0.32). Fetal distress was less frequently diagnosed in the modified birth center group (primiparas: OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.87; multiparas: OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.29–0.69), but no statistically significant differences were found in neonatal hypoxia, low Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, or proportion of perinatal deaths (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–1.13). Anal sphincter tears were reduced (primiparas: OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.98; multiparas: OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20–0.83). Conclusion: Midwife‐led comprehensive care with the same medical guidelines as in standard care reduced medical interventions without jeopardizing maternal and infant health. (BIRTH 38:2 June 2011)     

“It's All the Rage These Days”: University Students' Attitudes Toward Vaginal and Cesarean Birth

Background: At 30 percent, British Columbia has the highest cesarean section rate in Canada. Little is known about the childbirth views and birthing preferences of college‐aged women and men. The objectives of this study were to document (a) the prevalence of cesarean versus vaginal delivery as the preferred mode of delivery among nonpregnant university students without a history of childbirth, (b) the reasons for reported childbirth preferences, and (c) confidence in vaginal birth as a predictor of childbirth preference. Methods: A cohort of 3,680 male and female university students without a history of childbirth participated in an online survey of childbirth preferences. The study used a mixed methods approach (quantitative thematic analysis and logistic regression modeling). Prevalence of, and reasons for, preferred mode of delivery were analyzed separately for male and female respondents. Results: Most men and women responded that they preferred vaginal delivery, with 9 percent stating a preference for cesarean delivery. Reasons for preferred mode of delivery were similar for men and women. For women, confidence in vaginal birth emerged as a significant predictor of childbirth preference. Conclusions: Results indicate that a preference for cesarean section is linked to fear of childbirth and driven by low confidence in vaginal birth. Educational strategies targeting university‐aged men and women may be helpful in alleviating fears of vaginal birth and providing evidence‐based information about different birth options.     

Have Women Become More Willing to Accept Obstetric Interventions and Does This Relate to Mode of Birth? Data from a Prospective Study

ABSTRACT: Background: Concern has increased about rising rates of cesarean section and other obstetric interventions, and it has been suggested that a change in women’s attitudes may be partly responsible. Our objectives were, first, to examine changes in women’s antenatal willingness to accept obstetric interventions between 1987 and 2000 and, second, to look at the relationship between willingness to accept obstetric interventions and mode of birth. Methods: Data on willingness to accept obstetric interventions were collected at 35–36 weeks of pregnancy using postal questionnaires, and follow‐up of women was conducted 6 weeks postnatally. Data are presented for 977 women drawn from 8 maternity units in England who were due to give birth in April to May 2000. To address the first objective, data were compared with the parent study carried out in 1987. Results: The sample had significantly more positive antenatal attitudes toward obstetric interventions than the comparable sample in 1987 (F= 42.25, df= 1, p < 0.001). Willingness to accept obstetric interventions was related to mode of birth. Binary logistic regression controlling for age, education, and parity showed that women with high “willingness to accept intervention” scores had a nearly twofold increase in the odds of an operative or instrumental birth (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.28–2.95) compared with women who had low scores. These attitudes also predicted epidural analgesia use, and differences in mode of birth were no longer significant when epidural use was included in the regression model. Conclusions: A shift toward greater willingness to accept obstetric interventions appears to have occurred since 1987, and this shift does appear to relate to mode of birth in the 2000 cohort but not in 1987. The findings suggest that epidural analgesia use mediates the link. (BIRTH 34:1 March 2007)     

Use of Hyaluronidase to Prevent Perineal Trauma During Spontaneous Births: A Randomized,Placebo‐Controlled,Double‐blind,Clinical Trial

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency and severity of perineal trauma during spontaneous birth with or without perineal injections of hyaluronidase (HAase). Methods: A randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind clinical trial was conducted in a midwife‐led, in‐hospital birth center in São Paulo, Brazil. Primiparous women (N = 160) were randomly assigned to an experimental (n = 80) or control (n = 80) group. During the second stage of labor, women in the experimental group received an injection of 20.000 turbidity‐reducing units of HAase in the posterior region of the perineum, and those in the control group received a placebo injection. The assessment of perineal outcome was performed by 2 independent nurse‐midwives. A 1‐tailed Fisher exact test was performed, and a P value < .025 was considered statistically significant. Results: Perineal integrity occurred in 34.2% of the experimental group and in 32.5% of the control group, which was not a statistically significant difference (P= .477). First‐degree laceration was the most common trauma in the posterior region of the perineum in women in both groups (experimental = 56%, control = 42.6%). Severe perineal trauma occurred in 28.9% of the experimental group and 38.8% of the control group, which also was not a statistically significant difference (P= .131). The depth of second‐degree perineal lacerations in the experimental and control groups, measured by the Peri‐Rule, was 1.9 cm and 2.3 cm, respectively. An episiotomy was performed in 11 women (experimental group = 3, control group = 8), and 4 (all in control group) had third‐degree lacerations. Discussion: The use of injectable HAase did not increase the proportion of intact perineum and did not reduce the proportion of severe perineal trauma in our sample.     

Patient Safety in Midwifery Care for Low‐Risk Women: Instrument Development

Introduction: Few studies have examined the safety of midwife‐led care for low‐risk childbearing women. While most women have a low‐risk profile at the start of pregnancy, validated measures to detect patient safety risks for this population are needed. The increased interest of midwife‐led care for childbearing women to substitute for other models of care requires careful evaluation of safety aspects. In this study, we developed and tested an instrument for safety assessment of midwifery care. Methods: A structured approach was followed for instrument development. First, we reviewed the literature on patient safety in general and obstetric and midwifery care in particular. We identified 5 domains of patient risk: organization, communication, patient‐related risk factors, clinical management, and outcomes. We then developed a prototype to assess patient records and, in an iterative process, reviewed the prototype with the help of a review team of midwives and safety experts. The instrument was pilot tested for content validity, reliability, and feasibility. Results: Trained reviewers with clinical midwifery expertise applied the instrument. We were able to reduce the original 100‐item screening instrument to 32 items and applied the instrument to patient records in a reliable manner. With regard to the validity of the instrument, review of the literature and the validation procedure produced good content validity. Discussion: A valid and feasible instrument to assess patient safety in low‐risk childbearing women is now available and can be used for quantitative analyses of patient records and to identify unsafe situations. Identification and analysis of patient safety incidents required clinical judgment and consultation with the panel of safety experts. The instrument allows us to draw conclusions about safety and to recommend steps for specific, domain‐based improvements. Studies on the use of the instrument for improving patient safety are recommended.     

Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with twin pregnancies with excessive gestational weight gain

Objective: To determine if an excessive rate of gestational weight gain (GWG) in twin pregnancies is associated with adverse obstetric outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study of twin pregnancies delivered at the University of California, San Diego 2001–2014. Women were included if they had adequate or excessive rates of GWG as determined by Institute of Medicine guidelines. Demographic and outcome variables were collected by chart review.

Results: Four hundred and eighty-nine twin pregnancies met inclusion criteria. Of which, 40.5% had adequate rates of GWG and 41.5% had excessive rates of GWG. The rates of preterm birth and gestational diabetes were similar between the two groups. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia were more common in women with excessive GWG (37.9% versus 19.7%; p?<?0.01). This finding persisted in multivariate analysis. The mean birth weight percentiles were higher in the excessive GWG group and these women were also less likely to have an infant with a birth weight <10th percentile (21.4% versus 35.9%, p?<?0.01).

Conclusions: Excessive GWG is associated with a higher risk for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, but no other adverse perinatal outcomes. Infants born to mothers with excessive GWG are less likely to be small for gestational age than those born to women with adequate GWG.     

Midwife-led care unit for ‘low risk’ pregnant women in a Japanese hospital

Objectives.?To examine the obstetric outcomes of our ‘low risk’ pregnant women under the midwife-led delivery care compared with those under the obstetric shared care.

Methods.?A retrospective cohort study compared outcomes of labor under midwife ‘primary’ care with those under obstetric shared care. The factors examined were: maternal age, parity, gestational age at delivery, length of labor, augmentation of labor pains, delivery mode, episiotomy, perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, neonatal birth weight, Apgar score, and umbilical artery pH. In this study, pregnant women were initially considered ‘low risk’ at admission when they had no history of medical, gynecological, or obstetric problems and no complications during the present pregnancy.

Results.?There were 1031 pregnant women initially considered ‘low risk’ at admission. At admission, 878 of them (85%) requested to give birth under midwife care; however 364 of these women (42%) were transferred to obstetric shared care during labor. The average length of labor under the midwife ‘primary’ care was significantly longer than that under the obstetric shared care. However, there were no significant differences in the rate of prolonged labor (≥24?h). There were no significant differences in other obstetric or neonatal outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusions.?There was no evidence indicating that midwife ‘primary’ care is unsafe for ‘low risk’ pregnant women. Therefore, midwifery care is recommended for ‘low risk’ pregnant women.