Alongside Midwifery Units Research Articles

Comparing birth experiences and satisfaction with midwifery care before and after the implementation of Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU).

Globally, midwifery-led birthing units are associated with favourable clinical outcomes and positive birth experiences. As part of our evaluation of Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU) at Markham Stouffville Hospital, we sought to explore and compare birth experiences and satisfaction among midwifery clients who gave birth on the AMU with midwifery clients who gave birth on the traditional obstetric unit prior to AMU implementation. We conducted a structured, online, cross-sectional survey of midwifery clients in the six months before, and up to 18 months after, opening of the AMU at Markham Stouffville Hospital, Ontario Canada. The survey contained validated measures of satisfaction including personal capacity and participation; perceived safety, control, and security; professional support; and satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and tests of significance were completed in SPSS. A total of 193 responses were included in our analyses (pre-AMU n = 47, post-AMU n = 146). All participants had positive experiences in the four domains assessed. Compared to those who gave birth with midwives on the Labour unit, those who gave birth on the AMU indicated more positive experiences for some measures. Perceptions pertaining to being an active participant in care, to security and sense of control were more positive among those who gave birth on the AMU. The AMU in Ontario is associated with high levels of satisfaction during birth, particularly the perception of being actively engaged in decision making, having a sense of control and safety, and having confidence in the care provider team. Care received on the AMU does not compromise birth experiences or satisfaction and may be associated with greater autonomy and agency for the person giving birth.

Postnatal care provided by UK midwifery units and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS)

BackgroundPostnatal care supports healthy transitions to parenthood, mother-infant relationships, and breastfeeding establishment. Highly valued by women and families, it is often an area where parents report low satisfaction compared with other areas of maternity care. Most research about postnatal care is hospital-focused. Little is known about postnatal services provided by midwifery units, and any changes to this provision since the COVID-19 pandemic. AimTo describe postnatal care services provided by UK midwifery units and examine the extent to which provision was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsWe carried out a national survey online between January–June 2022 using the United Kingdom Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS). We asked about postnatal care provision in alongside midwifery units (AMU) and freestanding midwifery units (FMU), before the COVID-19 pandemic (July–December 2019) and shortly after restrictions were eased (January–June 2022). FindingsOverall 131 (67 %) midwifery units responded to the survey, 76 (62 %) AMUs and 55 (75 %) FMUs, from 75 % of eligible NHS organisations. In 2022, 66 % of AMUs reported that women typically stayed for 6–24 h after a straightforward birth, while 70 % of FMUs reported typical postnatal stays of <6 h. For 2019, significantly more FMUs reported providing outpatient postnatal services compared with AMUs (98 % vs 57 %, p < 0.001). From 2019 to 2022 there were significant reductions in partners staying overnight in midwifery units (65 %–42 %, p < 0.001), and in the provision of outpatient postnatal breastfeeding groups (23 %–15 %, p < 0.01) and other postnatal groups (7 %–2 %, p = 0.02). ConclusionsThe findings document the ways in which postnatal care provision differs between AMUs and FMU, with potential consequences for choice and experience for women. They are also congruent with evidence that maternity care was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including a reduction in postnatal visiting for partners and in postnatal group support services.

The impact of transfer from an alongside midwifery unit to labor and delivery on birthing women: A qualitative study

ObjectiveTo explore laboring women's thoughts, feelings, and experiences of transferring from an Alongside Midwifery Unit or free-standing birth center to labor and delivery. DesignA qualitative online survey was used for this research. SettingAn Alongside Midwifery Unit in the southwestern United States. ParticipantsEight women over the age of eighteen who had transferred to labor and delivery from either the AMU or free-standing birth center. FindingsFive themes emerging from the women's transfer experiences. It was important for the women to maintain their physiologic birth ideals. The initiation of transfer, even a discussion, altered the atmosphere in the birthing room. Women experienced a range of emotions surrounding the transfer. The stories spoke to mourning the loss of physiologic birth experience. Some women expressed guilt about the potential effects on their infants. Post-birth women had realizations about their mental and physical capabilities and limitations. Key conclusionsThis pertinent study addressed the effect on women when a transfer needs to occur from an Alongside Midwifery Unit or free-standing Birth Center to the Labor and Delivery Unit. Regardless of the reason, a transfer affected all participants. The psychological impact can have significant consequences on mother and baby's wellbeing. Women need an opportunity to share their story. The fifth theme of learning about themselves mentally and physically is new and not identified in other studies. Implications for practiceClinical recommendations are proposed to improve understanding and integrate into one's mindset, care processes, and clinical practice. Post-birth care should continue for these women until they completely process and come to a resolution of their experience of transferring to labor and delivery.

Mediating expectations and experiences that influence birth experiences in Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit.

Globally, midwifery-led birthing units are associated with excellent maternal and neonatal outcomes, and positive childbirth experiences. However, little is known about what aspects of midwife-led units contribute to favorable experiences and overall satisfaction. Our aim was to explore and describe midwifery service user experiences at Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU). We used a qualitative, grounded theory approach using semi-structured interviews with recipients of midwifery care at the AMU. Data were collected from twenty-eight participants between September 2018 and March 2020. Our generated theory explains how birth experiences and satisfaction were influenced by how well the AMU aligned with expectations or desired experiences related to the following four themes: (1) maintaining the midwifery model of care, (2) emphasizing control and choice, (3) facilitating interprofessional relationships, and (4) appreciating the unique AMU birthing environment. Canada's first AMU met or exceeded service-user expectations, resulting in high levels of satisfaction with their birth experience. Maintaining core elements of the midwifery model of care, promoting high levels of autonomy, and facilitating positive interprofessional interactions are crucial elements contributing to childbirth satisfaction in the AMU environment.

Making Space for Midwifery in a Hospital: Exploring the Built Birth Environment of Canada's First Alongside Midwifery Unit.

Canada's first alongside midwifery unit (AMU) was intentionally informed by evidence-based birth environment design principals, building on the growing evidence that the built environment can shape experiences, satisfaction, and birth outcomes. To assess the impact of the built environment of the AMU for both service users and midwives. This study aimed to explore the meanings that individuals attribute to the built environment and how the built environment impacted people's experiences. We conducted a mixed-methods study using a grounded theory methodology for data collection and analysis. Our research question and data collection tools were underpinned by a sociospatial conceptual approach. All midwives and all those who received midwifery care at the unit were eligible to participate. Data were collected through a structured online survey, interviews, and focus group. Fifty-nine participants completed the survey, and interviews or focus group were completed with 28 service users and 14 midwives. Our findings demonstrate high levels of satisfaction with the birth environment. We developed a theoretical model, where "making space" for midwifery in the hospital contributed to positive birth experiences and overall satisfaction with the built environment. The core elements of this model include creating domestic space in an institutional setting, shifting the technological approach, and shared ownership of the unit. Our model for creating, shifting, and sharing as a way to make space for midwifery can serve as a template for how intentional design can be used to promote favorable outcomes and user satisfaction.

Outcomes for women admitted for labour care to alongside midwifery units in the UK following a postpartum haemorrhage in a previous pregnancy: A national population-based cohort and nested case-control study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS)

BackgroundWomen who have experienced a postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) ‘requiring treatment or transfusion’ are typically advised to plan birth in obstetric-led settings in subsequent pregnancies. Many UK alongside midwifery units (AMU) admit women for labour care following a previous PPH. We aimed to describe outcomes in women admitted for labour care to AMUs following a previous PPH, compare outcomes with other multiparous women admitted to the same AMUs, and explore risk factors for recurrence. MethodsA national cohort and nested case-control study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS), between August 2018 and April 2019. Multivariable Poisson regression and logistic regression were performed to compare outcomes and investigate risk factors for recurrence. FindingsWomen who experienced a previous PPH were significantly more likely than comparison women to: have a PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care (4·2% vs. 2·4%, aRR=1·65, 95% CI 1·14–2·38), be transferred to obstetric care for any reason (17·8% vs 11·9%; aRR=1·41; 95% CI 1·09–1·83), and have any PPH≥ 500 ml (22·7% vs 11·1%, aRR=1·86, 95% CI 1·49–2·32). Among women with a previous PPH, previous blood loss > 1500 ml; uterotonics for previous PPH; Caesarean associated with previous PPH; gestation at admission and higher birthweight were independent risk factors for PPH. ConclusionWomen considering birth in an AMU after a previous PPH should be advised that they are at increased risk of experiencing a subsequent PPH requiring transfer to obstetric care, compared with other multiparous women who have not had a PPH. The absolute risk of a subsequent PPH in this group is low and comparable to the overall risk of having a PPH among women having a spontaneous vaginal birth in England.

Why are women deciding against birth in alongside midwifery units? A prospective single-center study from Germany.

For healthy women entering labor after an uneventful pregnancy, advantages of birth in midwife-led models of care have been demonstrated. We aimed to study the level of awareness regarding care in alongside midwifery units (AMU), factors involved in the decision for birth in obstetrician-led units (OLU), and wishes for care and concerns about birth in women registering for birth in OLU who would have been eligible for care in AMU. Healthy women with a term singleton cephalic fetus after an uneventful pregnancy course booking for birth in OLU were prospectively recruited. Data were collected by questionnaire. In total, 324 questionnaires were analyzed. One quarter (23.1%) of participants never had heard of care in AMU. Two thirds (64.2%) of women had made their choice regarding model of care before entering late pregnancy; only 16.4% indicated that health professionals had the biggest impact on their decision. One-to-one care and the availability of a pediatrician were most commonly quoted wishes (30.8 and 34.0%, respectively), and the occurrence of an adverse maternal or perinatal event the greatest concern (69.5%). Although the majority of respondents had some knowledge about care in AMU, expressed wishes for birth matching core features of AMU and concerns matching those of OLU, a decision for birth in OLU was taken. This finding may be a result of lack of knowledge about details of care in AMU; additionally, wishes and concerns may be put aside in favor of other criteria.

Promoting safety and role clarity among health professionals on Canada's First Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU): A mixed-methods evaluation

ObjectiveGlobally, midwife-led units are associated with improved clinical outcomes and childbirth satisfaction, but little is known about the impact of the model on health professionals themselves and interprofessional collaboration. The aim of this research was to describe the experiences of health professionals providing care in Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit. DesignA mixed-methods evaluation exploring healthcare provider's experiences using an online survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups. SettingCanada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit, opened at X in 2018. In the Ontario context, the model reorganizes the way in which midwifery services are integrated in the hospital. ParticipantsMidwives, obstetricians, nurses, pediatricians, anesthetists, and other healthcare providers participated. Measurements & findings82 online surveys, 17 semi-structured interviews and one focus group were completed. Providers agreed that they perceived the Alongside Midwifery Unit was a success (89%) and perceived satisfaction among those receiving care on the unit(93%). The majority of providers were satisfied working on the unit (82%) and reported greater role clarity in the new model (85%) compared to the traditional model of midwifery services. Four main themes emerged from the health professionals' perspectives regarding how the unit impacted care: promoting safety, clarifying roles, facilitating collaboration, and managing change. Implications for practiceOverall, healthcare professionals had positive experiences working on the AMU, including improved role clarity and interprofessional relationships, and they perceived high levels of satisfaction among those giving birth on the unit. Our findings indicate the Alongside Midwifery Unit model can be beneficial for health professionals, women and birthing people.

Model of care and chance of spontaneous vaginal birth: a prospective, multicenter matched-pair analysis from North Rhine-Westphalia

BackgroundAdvantages of midwife-led models of care have been reported; these include a higher vaginal birth rate and less interventions. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in obstetrician-led units. We compared the outcome of birth planned in alongside midwifery units (AMU) with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in obstetrician-led units.MethodsA prospective, controlled, multicenter study was conducted. Six of seven AMUs in North Rhine-Westphalia participated. Healthy women with a singleton term cephalic pregnancy booking for birth in AMU were eligible. For each woman in the study group a control was chosen who would have been eligible for birth in AMU but was booking for obstetrician-led care; matching for parity was performed.Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter. Secondary endpoints included a composite outcome of adverse outcome in the third stage and / or postpartum hemorrhage; higher-order obstetric lacerations; and for the neonate, a composite outcome (5-min Apgar < 7 and / or umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.10 and / or transfer to specialist neonatal care). Statistical analysis was by intention to treat. A non-inferiority analysis was performed.ResultsFive hundred eighty-nine case-control pairs were recruited, final analysis was performed with 391 case-control pairs. Nulliparous women constituted 56.0% of cases. For the primary endpoint vaginal birth superiority was established for the study group (5.66%, 95%-CI 0.42% – 10.88%). For the composite newborn outcome (1.28%, 95%-CI -1.86% - -4.47%) and for higher-order obstetric lacerations (2.33%, 95%-CI -0.45% - 5.37%) non-inferiority was established. Non-inferiority was not present for the composite maternal outcome (-1.56%, 95%-CI -6.69% - 3.57%). The epidural anesthesia rate was lower (22.9% vs. 41.1%), and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the study group (p < 0.001 for both).Transfer to obstetrician-led care occurred in 51.2% of cases, with a strong association to parity (p < 0.001). Request for regional anesthesia was the most common cause for transfer (47.1%).ConclusionOur comparison between care in AMU and obstetrician-led care with respect to mode of birth and other outcomes confirmed the superiority of this model of care for low-risk women. This pertains to AMU where admission and transfer criteria are in place and adhered to.

Alongside Midwifery Units Expand Access to the Birth-Center Model

The purpose for the program is to educate participants about the outcomes of the Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative and how the model can be expanded to improve maternity care outcomes in the United States. The Midwifery Center at Tucson Medical Center in Arizona will serve as the demonstration project for how hospitals can offer the birth-center model. The development of the program will be reviewed, as will the first year of outcome data.

Lessons learned from the implementation of Canada's first alongside midwifery unit: A qualitative explanatory study

BackgroundIn July 2018, Canada's first midwife-led alongside midwifery unit (AMU) opened at Markham Stouffville Hospital (MSH) in Markham, Ontario. Our objectives were to examine how the conditions at MSH made it possible for the hospital to create the first AMU in Canada and to identify lessons to inform spread by examining how characteristics of the intervention, the inner and outer settings, the individuals involved, and the processes used influenced the MSH-AMU implementation process. MethodsWe conducted key informant interviews and document analysis using Yin's research methods. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to conceptualize the study and develop semi-structured interview guides. We recruited key informants, including midwives and other health professionals, hospital leaders, leaders of midwifery organizations, and consumers, by email using both purposive and respondent driven sampling. Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. We identified documents through key informants and searches of Nexis Uni, Hansard, and Google databases. We analyzed the data using a coding framework based on Greenhalgh et al.’s evidence-informed theory of the diffusion of innovations. ResultsBetween November 2018 and February 2019, we conducted fifteen key informant interviews. We identified thirteen relevant documentary sources of evidence, including news media coverage, website content, Ontario parliamentary records, and hospital documents. Conditions that influenced implementation of the AMU fell within the following domains from Greenhalgh's diffusion of innovations theory: the innovation, the outer context, the inner context – system antecedents for innovation and system readiness for innovation, communication and influence, linkage – design phase and implementation stage, and the implementation process. While several unique features of MSH supported innovation, factors that could be adopted elsewhere include organizational investment in the development of midwifery leadership skills, intentional use of change management theory, broad stakeholder involvement in the design and implementation processes, and frequent, open communication. ConclusionsThe example of the MSH-AMU illustrates the value of utilizing best practices with respect to change management and system transformation and demonstrates the potential value of using implementation theory to drive the successful implementation of AMUs. Lessons learned from the MSH-AMU can inform successful spread of this innovative service model.

Neonatal admission and mortality in babies born in UK alongside midwifery units: a national population-based case-control study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS)

ObjectivesTo determine the incidence of and risk factors for neonatal unit admission, intrapartum stillbirth or neonatal death without admission, and describe outcomes, in babies born in an alongside midwifery unit...

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).

To describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women. National cross-sectional survey. All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019. Alignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women. Admission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies. The variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.

Maternal and neonatal outcome of births planned in alongside midwifery units: a cohort study from a tertiary center in Germany

BackgroundFor healthy women entering birth after uneventful pregnancy, midwife-led models of care have the potential to reduce interventions and increase the vaginal birth rate. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in consultant-led obstetric units. Alongside midwifery units (AMU) have been established in 2003. We compared the outcome of women registered for planned birth in the AMU at our hospital with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in standard obstetric care during the same period of time.MethodsWe used a retrospective cohort study design. The study group consisted of all women admitted to labor ward who had registered for birth in AMU from 2010 to 2017. For the control group, low-risk women were selected; additionally, matching was performed for parity. Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter for the mother. For the neonate, a composite primary outcome (5-min Apgar < 7 or umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.10 or transfer to specialist neonatal care) was defined. Secondary outcomes included epidural anesthesia, duration of the second stage of labor, episiotomy, obstetric injury, and postpartum hemorrhage. Non-inferiority was assessed, and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed.ResultsSix hundred twelve women were admitted for labor in AMU, the control group consisted of 612 women giving birth in standard obstetric care. Women in the study group were on average older and had a higher body mass index (BMI); birthweight was on average 95 g higher. Non-inferiority could be established for the primary outcome parameters. Epidural anesthesia and episiotomy rates were lower, and the mean duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the study group; second-degree perineal tears were less common, higher-order obstetric lacerations occurred more frequently.Overall, 50.3% of women were transferred to standard obstetric care. Regression analysis revealed effects of parity, age and birthweight on the chance of transfer.ConclusionCompared to births in our consultant-led obstetric unit, the outcome of births planned in the AMU was not inferior, and intervention rates were lower. Our results support the integration of AMU as a complementary model of care for low-risk women.

‘Keeping birth normal’: Exploratory evaluation of a training package for midwives in an inner-city, alongside midwifery unit

Objectivesto gain understanding about how participants perceived the value and effectiveness of ‘Keeping Birth Normal’ training, barriers to implementing it in an along-side midwifery unit, and how the training might be enhanced in future iterations. Designexploratory interpretive. Settinginner-city maternity service. Participants31 midwives attending a one-day training package on one of three occasions. Methodsdata were collected using semi-structured observation of the training, a short feedback form (23/31 participants), and focus groups (28/31 participants). Feedback form data were analysed using summative content analysis, following which all data sets were pooled and thematically analysed using a template agreed by the researchers. FindingsWe identified six themes contributing to the workshop's effectiveness as perceived by participants. Three related to the workshop design: (1) balanced content, (2) sharing stories and strategies and (3) ‘less is more.’ And three related to the workshop leaders: (4) inspiration and influence, (5) cultural safety and (6) managing expectations. Cultural focus on risk and low prioritisation of normal birth were identified as barriers to implementing evidence-based practice supporting normal birth. Building a community of practice and the role of consultant midwives were identified as potential opportunities. Key conclusions and implications for practicea review of evidence, local statistics and practical skills using active educational approaches was important to this training. Two factors not directly related to content appeared equally important: catalysing a community of practice and the perceived power of workshop leaders to influence organisational systems limiting the agency of individual midwives. Cyclic, interactive training involving consultant midwives, senior midwives and the multidisciplinary team may be recommended to be most effective.

Birthplace choices: what are the information needs of women when choosing where to give birth in England? A qualitative study using online and face to face focus groups

BackgroundCurrent clinical guidelines and national policy in England support offering ‘low risk’ women a choice of birth setting. Options include: home, free-standing midwifery unit (FMU), alongside midwifery unit (AMU) or obstetric unit (OU). This study, which is part of a broader project designed to inform policy on ‘choice’ in relation to childbirth, aimed to provide evidence on UK women’s experiences of choice and decision-making in the period since the publication of the Birthplace findings (2011) and new NICE guidelines (2014). This paper reports on findings relating to women’s information needs when making decisions about where to give birth.MethodsA qualitative focus group study including 69 women in the last trimester of pregnancy in England in 2015–16. Seven focus groups were conducted online via a bespoke web portal, and one was face-to-face. To explore different aspects of women’s experience, each group included women with specific characteristics or options; planning a home birth, living in areas with lots of choice, living in areas with limited choice, first time mothers, living close to a FMU, living in opt-out AMU areas, living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and planning to give birth in an OU. Focus group transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsWomen drew on multiple sources when making choices about where to give birth. Sources included; the Internet, friends’ recommendations and experiences, antenatal classes and their own personal experiences. Their midwife was not the main source of information. Women wanted the option to discuss and consider their birth preferences throughout their pregnancy, not at a fixed point.ConclusionsBirthplace choice is informed by many factors. Women may encounter fewer overt obstacles to exercising choice than in the past, but women do not consistently receive information about birthplace options from their midwife at a time and in a manner that they find helpful. Introducing options early in pregnancy, but deferring decision-making about birthplace until a woman has had time to consider and explore options and discuss these with her midwife, might facilitate choice.

Mapping midwifery and obstetric units in England

Objectiveto describe the configuration of midwifery units, both alongside&free-standing, and obstetric units in England. Designnational survey amongst Heads of Midwifery in English Maternity Services SettingNational Health Service (NHS) in England ParticipantsEnglish Maternity ServicesMeasurementsdescriptive statistics of Alongside Midwifery Units and Free-standing Midwifery Units and Obstetric Units and their annual births/year in English Maternity Services Findingsalongside midwifery units have nearly doubled since 2010 (n = 53–97); free-standing midwifery units have increased slightly (n = 58–61). There has been a significant reduction in maternity services without either an alongside or free-standing midwifery unit (75–32). The percentage of all births in midwifery units has trebled, now representing 14% of all births in England. This masks significant differences in percentage of all births in midwifery units between different maternity services with a spread of 4% to 31%. Key conclusionsIn some areas of England, women have no access to a local midwifery unit, despite the National Institute for Health&Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommending them as an important place of birth option for low risk women. The numbers of midwifery units have increased significantly in England since 2010 but this growth is almost exclusively in alongside midwifery units. The percentage of women giving birth in midwifery units varies significantly between maternity services suggesting that many midwifery units are underutilised. Implications for practiceBoth the availability and utilisation of midwifery units in England could be improved.

A comparison of intrapartum interventions and adverse outcomes by parity in planned freestanding midwifery unit and alongside midwifery unit births: secondary analysis of \u2018low risk\u2019 births in the birthplace in England cohort

BackgroundFor low risk women, there is good evidence that planned birth in a midwifery unit is associated with a reduced risk of maternal interventions compared with planned birth in an obstetric unit. Findings from the Birthplace cohort study have been interpreted by some as suggesting a reduced risk of interventions in planned births in freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) compared with planned births in alongside midwifery units (AMUs). However, possible differences have not been robustly investigated using individual-level Birthplace data.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of data on ‘low risk’ women with singleton, term, ‘booked’ pregnancies collected in the Birthplace national prospective cohort study. We used logistic regression to compare interventions and outcomes by parity in 11,265 planned FMU births and 16,673 planned AMU births, adjusted for potential confounders, using planned AMU birth as the reference group. Outcomes considered included adverse perinatal outcomes (Birthplace primary outcome measure), instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section, ‘straightforward vaginal birth’, third or fourth degree perineal trauma, blood transfusion and maternal admission for higher-level care. We used a significance level of 1% for all secondary outcomes.ResultsThere was no significant difference in adverse perinatal outcomes between planned AMU and FMU births. The odds of instrumental delivery were reduced in planned FMU births (nulliparous: aOR 0.63, 99% CI 0.46–0.86; multiparous: aOR 0.41, 99% CI 0.25–0.68) and the odds of having a ‘straightforward vaginal birth’ were increased in planned FMU births compared with planned AMU births (nulliparous: aOR 1.47, 99% CI 1.17–1.85; multiparous: 1.86, 99% CI 1.35–2.57). The odds of intrapartum caesarean section did not differ significantly between the two settings (nulliparous: p = 0.147; multiparous: p = 0.224). The overall pattern of findings suggested a trend towards lower intervention rates and fewer adverse maternal outcomes in planned FMU births compared with planned AMU births.ConclusionsThe findings support the recommendation that ‘low risk’ women can be informed that planned birth in an FMU is associated with a lower rate of instrumental delivery and a higher rate of ‘straightforward vaginal birth’ compared with planned birth in an AMU; and that outcomes for babies do not appear to differ between FMUs and AMUs.

Place of Birth and Concepts of Wellbeing

AbstractThis article is based on analysis of a series of ethnographic case studies of midwifery units in England. Midwifery units1 are spaces that were developed to provide more home-like and less medically oriented care for birth that would support physiological processes of labour, women’s comfort and a positive experience of birth for women and their families. They are run by midwives, either on a hospital site alongside an obstetric unit (Alongside Midwifery Unit – AMU) or a freestanding unit away from an obstetric unit (Freestanding Midwifery Unit – FMU). Midwifery units have been designed and intended specifically as locations of wellbeing and although the meaning of the term is used very loosely in public discourse, this claim is supported by a large epidemiological study, which found that they provide safe care for babies while reducing use of medical interventions and with better health outcomes for the women. Our research indicated that midwifery units function as a protected space, one which uses domestic features as metaphors of home in order to promote a sense of wellbeing and to re-normalise concepts of birth, which had become inhabited by medical models and a preoccupation with risk. However, we argue that this protected space has a function for midwives as well as for birthing women. Midwifery units are intended to support midwives’ wellbeing following decades of professional struggles to maintain autonomy, midwife-led care2 and a professional identity founded on supporting normal, healthy birth. This development, which is focused on place of birth rather than other aspects of maternity care such as continuity, shows potential for restoring wellbeing on individual, professional and community levels, through improving rates of normal physiological birth and improving experiences of providing and receiving care. Nevertheless, this very focus also poses challenges for health service providers attempting to provide a ‘social model of care’ within an institutional context.1The term midwifery unit was adopted by the Birthplace research programme in place of the more popular term ‘birth centre’ to avoid ambiguity. In a midwifery unit care is not only provided by mid-wives but is also managed by midwives and does not normally include use of obstetric instruments or interventions. If a woman planning birth in a mid-wifery unit develops obstetric complications, or decides she wishes to have a medical intervention such as epidural pain relief, she is transferred for care to an obstetric unit. Some units called birth centres are not managed by midwives in this way.2Midwife-led care refers to care where the midwife, rather than an obstetrician or other professional is the lead professional, who takes responsibility for a woman’s maternity care through from pregnancy to postnatal. Following the Changing Childbirth report in 1993, this was re-established as the usual model for women classified as at low risk of pregnancy and birth complications.

The UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS): a programme of work to establish a research infrastructure to carry out national studies of uncommon conditions and events in midwifery units.

BackgroundMidwifery-led care during labour and birth in the UK is increasingly important given national commitments to choice of place of birth, reduction of unnecessary intervention and improving women’s experience of care, and evidence on safety and benefits for ‘low risk’ women. Further evidence is needed on safety and potential benefits of midwifery-led care for some groups of ‘higher risk’ women and about uncommon adverse outcomes or ‘near-miss’ events. Uncommon obstetric events and conditions have been investigated since 2005 using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System. This programme of research will establish the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) in all UK alongside midwifery units (AMUs) and carry out the first two UKMidSS studies investigating: (i) outcomes in severely obese women admitted to AMUs, and (ii) risk factors for neonatal unit admission following birth in an AMU.MethodsWe will carry out national cohort and case-control studies using UKMidSS, a national data collection platform which we will establish to collect anonymised information from all UK AMUs. Reporting midwives in each AMU will actively report cases or nil returns in response to monthly notification emails. Denominator data on the number of women admitted to and giving birth in each AMU will also be collected.Anonymised data on risk factors, management and outcomes for cases and controls/comparators as appropriate for each study, will be collected electronically using information from medical records.We will calculate incidence and prevalence with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), tabulate descriptive data using frequencies and proportions, and use logistic regression to estimate odds ratios with 95 % CIs comparing specific outcomes in case and comparison women and to investigate risk factors for conditions or outcomes.DiscussionAs the first national infrastructure facilitating research into uncommon events and conditions in women starting labour in midwifery-led settings, UKMidSS builds on the success of other national research systems. UKMidSS studies will extend the evidence base regarding the quality and safety of midwifery-led intrapartum care and investigate extending the benefits of midwifery-led care to more women. As a national collaboration of midwives contributing to high quality research, UKMidSS will provide an infrastructure to support midwifery research capacity development.