Spring roses in the front garden

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

~ C.S. Lewis

Women may 'go it alone' on home births Ireland

[Posted: Fri 15/10/2010 by Niall Hunter, Editor - www.irishhealth.com]

A campaign group has warned that some women may opt for home births without professional care as a result of problems with indemnity insurance for qualified home-birth midwives.

The Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services-Ireland (AIMS) says proposed new midwifery legislation will in effect make it illegal for a home birth midwife to provide antenatal and birth care if the pregnant woman's circumstances do not meet criteria set in a current memorandum of understanding which midwives have to sign with the HSE.

Krysia Lynch of AIMS told irishhealth.com said the memorandum, which will be used in the legislation, outlines the criteria for State indemnity insurance cover for midwives in home births but these criteria were too restrictive.

She claims they are based on a misinterpretation by the HSE of evidence-based guidelines for home births and claims the HSE is attempting to restrict home birth and midwife-led services.

AIMS says the restrictive criteria could lead to midwives becoming uninsured in the middle of a home birth should the mother's clinical circumstances change.

Midwives attending women having home births could face could face fines or imprisonment or both if they are found in breach of the new legislation, which is expected to be passed by the Oireachtas before the end of the year, AIMS says.

It adds that a growing number of women who do not want to attend maternity hospitals are saying that if professional midwife-led home birth services are not available to them, they will "go it alone" with their home birth without professional care providers.

Ms Lynch said this type of "underground home birth movement" has already taken root in other countries where home birth services are restricted.

AIMS says it understands a group of lay midwives without medical training are now offering their services to women who have difficulty in finding professionally-registered midwives.

The organisation is calling for revisions to be made to the Nurses and Midwives Bill in order to change the professional indemnity criteria for home births.

It is organising a petition calling for a changes in the proposed legislation.

Further details on this issue, and a petition to sign, are available here

I have signed the petition - signer #873:

Ireland's Home Birth Services: MOU and Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010.

The Australian Government's current effort to reform maternity services is also likely to have this negative effect of directing women with known 'risks' into the underground home birth movement.  Midwives are faced with real and imagined restrictions when providing care for women who have had previous caesareans, or whose pregnancies continue beyond Term, or who are over weight, or ...  These women would likely benefit greatly from a known midwife primary carer.

Understanding statistics

Those who want homebirth to be, if not outlawed, at least so marginalised and dirty that noone with any sense would go near it, are able to use statistics to coerce their listeners into compliance, and to assure authorities that they are acting 'in the public interest'. There have been a couple of outstanding examples of this phenomenon in the past year.

Firstly, remember the Australian Medical Journal's publication of Planned home and hospital births in South Australia, 1991-2006: differences in outcomes (Kennare et al 2010), using shameless distortion of facts gathered in the research. I wrote about it and set up links to the paper at the MiPP blog in January this year. Alarm bells sounded, and media picked up the story from the abstract: X7 higher risk of intrapartum death and X27-fold higher risk of death from intrapartum asphyxia in the planned home births group.


The second doozie [for readers who are unfamiliar with this word, it's Australian slang - not sure what it really means, but it seems to fit here] is the Wax et al 2010 paper on maternal and newborn outcomes for homebirths in North America.

Various reliable midwifery organisations have critiqued this paper for its methodology and conclusions. The Medscape "Attention-Grabbing No Doubt, But Uninformative" comment by Andrew Vickers, copied in full (below) is worth reading.

Midwives can also understand statistics.

"Home Birth Triples the Neonatal Death Rate": Attention-Grabbing No Doubt, But Uninformative
Andrew J. Vickers, PhD

Posted: 09/27/2010

Home birth, according to a position statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is "trendy" and "fashionable." Moreover, women who choose to deliver a baby at home "place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby."[1] Interesting thoughts, I guess, but hardly evidence-based. Has anyone actually interviewed home-birthing parents to determine, for example, that they rate having a healthy baby at, say, 5 out of 10, whereas being allowed to listen to druid chanting during the second stage of labor is rated an 8? And with respect to being fashionable, have researchers really evaluated the wardrobes of home-birthers compared with those choosing to labor in the hospital, finding in the former a higher proportion of Marc Jacobs and Manolo Blahnik?

So it is nice to finally see some data that quantify the relative benefits and harms of home birth. Joseph R. Wax and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis, combining data from 12 studies including more than a half million deliveries, in order to report on a wide variety of outcomes, including process (eg, use of epidural), maternal morbidity (eg, vaginal laceration), neonatal morbidity (eg, prematurity), and mortality (of both mother and child).[2] What isn't so nice is the spin. The study authors themselves, who are from a department of obstetrics, report a highly alarming statistic -- that home birth is associated with a triple the risk for neonatal death. The American College of Nurse-Midwives, predictably enough, finds fault with the methodology of the study and cautions against overinterpretation of the findings.[3]

I am sympathetic toward the critiques. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that are entered, and it is somewhat disconcerting to see a mixture of prospective and retrospective observational studies all mixed in with a single randomized trial. (On which point, it is even more disconcerting to find that the paper referenced for the randomized trial was a discussion piece, not a trial report.) But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the paper is perfect and accurately represents the true outcomes of home and hospital delivery.

First off, how should we interpret a "tripling of death rates"? This is what statisticians call a relative risk, and it is widely known to be problematic for decision-making. As a simple example,[4] would you buy a pair of slippers if I told you that they were 90% off? Well, no, you would want to know how much they cost. It is the same with risk; it is the absolute amount that matters. The classic example is the contraceptive pill and breast cancer. One estimate is that the pill raises the risk for early breast cancer by 50%. This sounds pretty scary until you realize that most women's risk is so low that this translates to about 1 woman with breast cancer for every 10,000 on the pill. Most women would feel that is a risk worth taking, given the benefits of the pill and the possible harms of the alternative: pregnancy, which after all, has dangers of its own.

In place of a "tripling in death rate," the more informative statistic is the absolute increase in neonatal death associated with home birth. On the basis of the results tables, it is possible to calculate that this turns out to be 1 neonatal death per 1000 women who choose home birth. However, the results tables show that those women would also experience some benefits, including 40 fewer premature labors, 45 fewer cesarean sections, 140 fewer vaginal lacerations, and 140 fewer epidurals. This type of cost-benefit analysis -- trading off neonatal mortality against maternal morbidity -- can seem sort of cold-blooded. But if the only thing we cared about was a healthy baby, then we'd do cesareans on all pregnant women at 38 weeks (as well as insist that all women conceive once they turned 21). We implicitly trade off risks and benefits anytime we consider a medical procedure. Let's do it explicitly rather than implicitly, on the basis of decision-analytic statistics such as absolute risk, rather than headline-grabbing statistics such as a "tripling of the death rate."

References
1. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. ACOG statement on home births. Medscape OB/GYN and Women's Health. 2010.Available at: http://ww.medscape.com/viewarticle/725383 Accessed September 9, 2010.
2. Wax JR, Lucas FL, Lamont M, Pinette MG, Carlin A, Blackstone J. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs. planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:e1-e8.
3. American College of Nurse Midwives. The American College of Nurse Midwives expresses concerns with recent ACOG statement on home births. Medscape OB/GYN and Women's Health. 2010. Available at: http://ww.medscape.com/viewarticle/725382 Accessed September 9, 2010.
4. Vickers AJ. Top scientific papers vs. furry green slippers: which should you trust? Medscape Business of Medicine, 2010. Available at: http://ww.medscape.com/viewarticle/722723 Accessed September 9, 2010.

The current state of private midwifery practice

This is a brief summary - more detailed information can be sourced, of course.

Private midwifery practice for planned homebirth
Midwives continue to practise as we have for many years, providing the full scope of pre-, intra- and postnatal services for women who want to give birth at home, working without medical interference, without drugs to stimulate labour or relieve pain, and in harmony with natural physiological processes.

Midwives continue to provide statistical data to the government data collection agencies, as we have done for many years.

Midwives inform our clients that we are not able to purchase professional indemnity insurance for homebirth, and that the government has provided a 2-year exemption from this requirement, until June 2012. We don't know what will happen after that date.

The Nursing and Midwifery Board (NMBA) is preparing a Safety and Quality Framework document which (according to the most recent draft) is:

• "consistent with the principles underpinning provision of primary maternity care (Attachment 1) and
• "recognises the full scope of midwifery practice.
• "recognises that women will make the final choice about their care and birthing choices in most circumstances [MOST circumstances ???]

"It is incumbent upon privately practising midwives (PPMs) to provide balanced and contemporary clinical advice to ensure that informed decisions are able to be made."

The Framework also relies heavily on the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (2008). A further 'guidance' document on collaboration is being prepared under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) - we have not seen drafts of that yet.

Private Midwifery practice for planned hospital birth
Many women who intend to give birth in hospital employ a midwife to attend them for birth, and provide continuity of care through the pregnancy to the postnatal period. Although private midwives do not have visiting access arrangements with hospitals, the partnership between the labouring woman and her known and trusted midwife is able to transcend most situations in which a hospital protocol might derail normal birth. The woman and her private midwife make decisions about when to travel to hospital, as the midwife uses her knowledge and skill to protect the natural processes in birth and early parenting.

This aspect of private midwifery practice goes unrecognised in Australian birth reports. The woman who plans homebirth, then transfers her care to hospital can be tracked statistically, but not the woman whose plans include a private midwife for planned hospital birth. The position of the private midwife in hospital has not been mentioned in all the so-called 'reform' that we are engaged in at present.

Private midwifery practice and Medicare-eligible midwives
This is the aspect of private midwifery practice that is set to emerge from 1 November, less than one month away. There are more questions at present than answers.

The Medicare-eligible midwife who I will refer to as the 'MEDI-WIFE' will be a very different person from the ordinary privately practising midwife. The MEDI-WIFE will:

• have a close working relationship with a group of obstetricians (no doctors work 24/7 these days
• provide prenatal checks in the community, possibly in 'rooms' shared with obstetricians or other doctors
• attend births in private hospitals where she has visiting access, and where the 'senior' member of the professional team is always the obstetrician
• be able to order basic tests and prescribe basic drugs, such as oxytocics
• provide postnatal services for mothers and babies in hospital, and possibly at home.

The Australian Medical Association has published Collaborative arrangements: what you need to know, in preparation for the birth of the MEDI-WIFE.

A great deal of discussion is taking place in the world of midwifery about the signed collaborative agreements that have been required, under law, for a midwife to be eligible for Medicare &c. Go to the MiPP blog for more information.

Midwives are now being asked to record examples of our efforts to comply with the requirements of the Determination, so that the implementation of the government's maternity 'reform' can be reviewed over time.