Transfer from home to hospital

A transfer from planned home birth, to hospital, can bring challenges to both the mother and the midwife, testing the partnership and trust between them.

From time to time, and at times unexpectedly, I need to arrange transfer to hospital. Being able to transfer care, without anxiety, from midwife-led primary care in the woman's home, to medically supervised specialist care in hospital is one of the most basic 'acts' that a midwife must be able to carry out in protecting the wellbeing of mother and baby.

Midwives working in hospital-based homebirth programs, and even birth centres, have a strict set of rules to follow. Any clinical finding that could be interpreted as an unacceptable 'risk' (such as previous caesarean surgery) or an escalation in 'risk' for mother or baby (such as meconium stained liquor) means that the midwife has no choice other than to follow the risk management process set down by the hospital.

Midwives working independently, in a private employment relationship with each woman, are able to consider the situation more broadly. This does not mean that midwives practising privately are unconcerned about risk. But it can allow a more holistic (whole-person) assessment of the situation, often meaning that the woman who is considered unacceptable for 'low risk' hospital-managed models (homebirth or birth centre) is able to proceed without any complication to giving birth to a healthy baby in her home, in the care of a midwife.

A publication that has guided and informed my practice in a significant way since the mid-1990s is the World Health Organisation (WHO)'s Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide (1996).

This paper does not primarily deal with the issue of 'home birth' or 'hospital birth': it focuses on 'normal birth'. That's a really important point. If birth is normal, the place of birth is of little consequence as long as the mother's and baby's needs are met. The midwife is fully able to attend such a birth, providing appropriate care.

The WHO (1996) paper provides a clear discussion of the 'Risk approach in Maternity Care' (p3), stating that

"An assessment of need and of what might be called "birthing potential" is the foundation for good decision making for birth, the beginning of good care. What is known as the "risk approach" has dominated decisions about birth, its place, its type and the caregiver for decades now (Enkin 1994). The problem with many such systems is that they have resulted in a disproportionately high number of women being categorised as "at risk", with a concominant risk of having a high level of intervention in the birth. A further problem is that, despite scrupulous categorisation, the risk approach fails signally to identify many of the women who will in fact need care for complications in childbirth. By the same token, many women identified as "high risk" go on to have perfectly normal, uneventful births."

The picture of the process of ongoing decision making in the birth process is described in some detail, including this series of highlighted paragraphs:

"Risk assessment is not a once-only measure, but a procedure continuing throughout pregnancy and labour. At any moment early complications may become apparent and may induce the decision to refer a woman to a higher level of care." (p3)

"We define normal birth as: spontaneous in onset, low risk at the start of labour and remaining so throughout labour and delivery. The infant born spontaneously in the vertex position between 37 and 42 completed weeks of pregnancy. After birth mother and infant are in good condition.
However, as the labour and delivery of many high-risk pregnant women have a norml course, a number of recommendations in this papeer also apply ot the care of these women." (p4)

"In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process." (p4)

In recent years I have perceived a strong movement by the birthing consumer movement in this country, whereby a woman's 'choice' has become the guiding principle in calls for better maternity care. Choice that is not balanced by the critical judgment of a skilled midwife or other professional can be more dangerous than Russian roulette. A midwife cannot provide optimal maternity care if the woman's choice is more important than any other factor.

A woman giving birth has only one real choice: to either do it herself, or to submit to the medical care available. If there is a valid reason to interfere in the natural process, the midwife is bound to advise that intervention, even when it clearly goes against the woman's 'choice' or wishes.

This is often the situation when a midwife recommends transfer from home to hospital.

One of the key principles articulated by midwives in practising privately for planned home birth addresses the time of transfer:

"We support seamless and reliable processes by which midwives are able to make hospital bookings for women planning homebirth, and arrange transfer to the hospital in a timely way when needed."

[APMA Position Statement on Planned Home Births with a Midwife]

Thankyou for your comments

A new book from Michel Odent - part 2

[Continuing on from the previous post]

Having now finished, and enjoyed this book, there's one additional point I would like to explore. It's a small detail.

In the epilogue, Odent indulges in some fanciful thoughts about childbirth in the land of Utopia, January 2031. [That's only 20 years from now, and my grandchildren may be having babies at that time!]

This chapter has appeared previously in Odent's newsletter, and republished with permission at the midwivesVictoria blog in 2009.

My interest in this utopian dream was piqued by a question "What if the prerequisite to be qualified as an obstetrician would also be to have a personal experience of giving birth without any medical intervention and to consider birth as a positive experience?"

... at which time the participants in this utopian scenario all shouted "Eureka!"

Odent has previously proposed this prerequesite for the authentic midwife. It's idealistic, but fascinating.

My response, which may be influenced by personal bias, culture, and anything else, is to immediately say "no way!" as far as obstetricians are concerned.

Obstetricians should perhaps be required to have major abdominal surgery after 36 hours of sleepless activity, then be required to tend to a little creature who needs all that a newborn baby needs. Even that would not start to mimic the emotional/hormonal cocktail that a new mother experiences.

A midwife is 'with woman', bringing a special partnership to the childbearing event that allows the woman to proceed under natural physiological influences without fear. This allows her body to do whatever it needs in the growing and birthing and nurturing of a baby.

There is no similar concept of 'partnership' in medical/obstetric ethics or standards. The doctor/obstetrician is required to be an independent thinker, who brings special surgical skill to births that would not do well under natural physiological processes. The doctor is not there to be 'with' the woman.

For this reason I reject any suggestion that the obstetrician in the utopian setting would be someone with "a personal experience of giving birth without any medical intervention and to consider birth as a positive experience." Indeed, if an obstetrician had that level of experience, I would suggest that obstetrican could also be admitted to the profession of midwifery.



Thankyou for your comments

A new book from Michel Odent

I am, once more, enjoying a book written by Michel Odent, the French doctor who has contributed an enormous amount to my understanding of the physiology of normal birth.

Last week I sat in a workshop and listened to Michel speak, without notes or anything remotely modern, such as a data projector, for three hours. It required a lot of concentration to understand his accent, which seems more 'French' than it was a few years ago, the last time I heard him speak. There was also a problem with the microphone, which didn't help. I chatted with him at lunch time, and he autographed my copy of his new book.

This octogenarian champion of birth physiology is not going to please many of his readers all the time. For instance, he has come down hard on the natural childbirth movement, for its penchant for birth videos, its teachings about 'support', its masculinization of the birth room, and much much more. You will have to read the book to get the full picture. Here is a brief quote from p47-48:

Language is a specifically human stimulant of the [neo]cortex. This implies that in situations associated with intense activity of archaic brain structures, such as giving birth, exposure to language should be avoided. ... Of course, after thousands of years of culturally controlled childbirth, silence as a basic need cannot be accepted overnight. It is all the more difficult today since many theories that are at the root of 'natural childbirth' movements have reinforced a deep-rooted cultural conditioning and have introduced to the birthing place a guide (a 'coach') who does not hesitate to use language.

There are statements that will not please midwife intellectuals and researchers, particularly his apparent uncritical acceptance of recent publications such as the meta analysis by Wax et al (2010) which report increased adverse outcomes for women at low risk who plan home birth (see p60). This study has been strongly criticised for its methodology and conclusions.

When reading this book I detect an idealism that seems to suggest that all women will be fine if only they can progress within an appropriate setting that is silent, unstimulating, free of husband and other onlookers, free of language, and with a midwife who is knitting in the corner. There seems to be an avoidance of recognition of the midwife's role in detecting complications and accessing appropriate specialis care when progress is abnormal. I am willing to understand this apparent bias as an assumption that readers already know about such matters.

There is a very interesting discussion around the phenomen of two midwives attending a birth together. This practice is widely promoted in Melbourne by hospitals and independent midwives: indeed some of my colleagues have told me that they consider it unwise and possibly unsafe for me to attend a birth as a solo midwife. Don't I know there could be two people needing my attention at once?

Another obstacle is a deep-rooted tendency to introduce without any caution several people around the labouring woman. This tendency is as old as the socialisation of childbirth. In many societies one of the women around plays the role of the midwife, often accompanied by relatives or neighbours. Traditionally the midwife is an autonomous, very independent person. There are proverbs, in places as diverse as Persia or SOuth America, claiming that the presence of two midwives makes the birth difficult. In Persia, they used to say: When there are two midwives, the baby's head is crooked". (p63)

A further comment in the context of people who have been introduced into the birthing room:

"The doula phenomenon is such a sudden international phenomenon that it must be analysed and interpreted in the context of the twenty-first century." (p 63),

and

As long as the studies [about doulas] were conducted in low-income Hispanic populations [in the US], the statistical results clearly confirmed the positive effects of the presence of a doula. The findings were different in the context of middle-class American populations, ... where the presence of a doula had no impact on the rates of caesarean deliverise and other operative deliveries." (p64)

I have not yet finished reading 'Childbirth in the age of plastics', but wanted to get these comments up on the blog pronto!


Thankyou for your comments