Freestanding Midwifery Unit Research Articles

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.

Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes in Women Planning Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) at Home in England: Secondary Analysis of the Birthplace National Prospective Cohort Study

(BJOG. 2016;123:1123–1132) Some women in England who have undergone a cesarean section (CS) in an earlier pregnancy prefer a planned vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in a midwifery-led setting, such as at home, in a freestanding midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit which resides in the same facility as a hospital obstetric unit (OU). However, present national guidelines suggest that women with a previous CS plan subsequent births in an OU to avoid maternal and fetal complications. This study aimed to compare vaginal birth rates in women planning VBAC at home to those planning VBAC in an OU, and to determine transfer rates for those planning VBAC at home. In addition, analysis of maternal and perinatal outcomes for these groups was undertaken.

What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a \u2018best fit\u2019 framework approach

BackgroundEnglish maternity care policy has supported offering women choice of birth setting for over twenty years, but only 13% of women in England currently give birth in settings other than obstetric units (OUs). It is unclear why uptake of non-OU settings for birth remains relatively low. This paper presents a synthesis of qualitative evidence which explores influences on women’s experiences of birth place choice, preference and decision-making from the perspectives of women using maternity services.MethodsQualitative evidence synthesis of UK research published January 1992-March 2015, using a ‘best-fit’ framework approach. Searches were run in seven electronic data bases applying a comprehensive search strategy. Thematic framework analysis was used to synthesise extracted data from included studies.ResultsTwenty-four papers drawing on twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis identified support for the key framework themes. Women’s experiences of choosing or deciding where to give birth were influenced by whether they received information about available options and about the right to choose, women’s preferences for different services and their attributes, previous birth experiences, views of family, friends and health care professionals and women’s beliefs about risk and safety. The synthesis additionally identified that women’s access to choice of place of birth during the antenatal period varied. Planning to give birth in OU was straightforward, but although women considering birth in a setting other than hospital OU were sometimes well-supported, they also encountered obstacles and described needing to ‘counter the negativity’ surrounding home birth or birth in midwife-led settings.ConclusionsOver the period covered by the review, it was straightforward for low risk women to opt for hospital birth in the UK. Accessing home birth was more complex and contested. The evidence on freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) is more limited, but suggests that women wanting to opt for an FMU birth experienced similar barriers. The extent to which women experienced similar problems accessing alongside midwifery units (AMUs) is unclear.Women’s preferences for different birth options, particularly for ‘hospital’ vs non-hospital settings, are shaped by their pre-existing values, beliefs and experience, and not all women are open to all birth settings.

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.

First-time mothers' choice of birthplace: influencing factors, expectations of the midwife's role and perceived safety.

To explore first-time pregnant women's expectations and factors influencing their choice of birthplace. Although outcomes and advantages for low-risk childbearing women giving birth in midwifery-led units and home compared with obstetric units have been investigated previously, there is little information on the factors that influence women's choice of place of birth. A qualitative Straussian grounded theory methodology was adopted. Fourteen women expecting their first baby were recruited from three large National Health Service organizations that provided maternity services free at the point of care. The three organizations offered the following birthplace options: home, freestanding midwifery unit and obstetric unit. Ethical approvals were obtained and informed consent was gained from each participant. Data collection was undertaken in 2013-2014. One tape-recorded face-to-face semistructured interview was conducted with each woman in the third trimester of pregnancy. Findings are presented as three main themes: (i) influencing factors on the choice of birthplace; (ii) expectations on the midwife's 'being' and 'doing' roles; (iii) perceptions of safety. Midwives should consider each woman's expectations and approach to birth beyond the planned birthplace, as these are often influenced by the intersection of various influencing factors. Several birthplace options should be made available to women in each maternity service and the alternatives should be shared with women by healthcare professionals during pregnancy to allow an informed choice. Virtual tours or visits to the birth units could also be offered to women to help them familiarize with the chosen setting.

Freestanding midwifery units: Maternal and neonatal outcomes following transfer

Backgroundthe viability of freestanding midwifery units in Australia is restricted, due to concerns over their safety, particularly for women and babies who, require transfer. Aimto compare the maternal and neonatal birth outcomes of women who planned, to give birth at freestanding midwifery units and subsequently, transferred to a tertiary maternity unit to the maternal and neonatal, outcomes of a low-risk cohort of women who planned to give birth in, tertiary maternity unit. Methodsa descriptive study compared two groups of women with low-risk singleton, pregnancies who were less than 28 weeks pregnant at booking: women who, planned to give birth at a freestanding midwifery unit (n=494) who, transferred to a tertiary maternity unit during the antenatal, intrapartum or postnatal periods (n=260) and women who planned to give, birth at a tertiary maternity unit (n=3157). Primary outcomes were mode, of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5minutes and admission to, special care nursery or neonatal intensive care. Key findingsthe proportion of women who experienced a caesarean section was lower, among the freestanding midwifery unit women who transferred during the, intrapartum/postnatal period compared to women in the tertiary maternity, unit group (16.1% versus 24.8% respectively). Other outcomes were, comparable between the cohorts. Rates of primary outcomes in relation to, stage of transfer varied when stratified by parity. discussionthese descriptive results support the provision of care in freestanding, midwifery units as an alternative to tertiary maternity units for women, with low risk pregnancies at the time of booking. A larger study, powered, to determine statistical significance of any differences in outcomes, is, required.

Are freestanding midwifery units a safe alternative to obstetric units for low-risk, primiparous childbirth? An analysis of effect differences by parity in a matched cohort study

BackgroundIntrapartum complications and the use of obstetric interventions are more common in primiparous childbirth than in multiparous childbirth, leading to concern about out of hospital birth for primiparous women. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the effect of birthplace on perinatal and maternal morbidity and the use of obstetric interventions differed by parity among low-risk women intending to give birth in a freestanding midwifery unit or in an obstetric unit in the North Denmark Region.MethodsThe study is a secondary analysis of data from a matched cohort study including 839 low-risk women intending birth in a freestanding midwifery unit (primary participants) and 839 low-risk women intending birth in an obstetric unit (individually matched control group). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Conditional logistic regression analysis was applied to compute odds ratios and effect ratios with 95% confidence intervals for matched pairs stratified by parity.ResultsOn no outcome did the effect of birthplace differ significantly between primiparous and multiparous women. Compared with their counterparts intending birth in an obstetric unit, both primiparous and multiparous women intending birth in a freestanding midwifery unit were significantly more likely to have an uncomplicated, spontaneous birth with good outcomes for mother and infant and less likely to require caesarean section, instrumental delivery, augmented labour or epidural analgesia (although for caesarean section this trend did not attain statistical significance for multiparous women). Perinatal outcomes were comparable between the two birth settings irrespective of parity. Compared to multiparas, transfer rates were substantially higher for primiparas, but fell over time while rates for multiparas remained stable.ConclusionsFreestanding midwifery units appear to confer significant advantages over obstetric units to both primiparous and multiparous mothers, while their infants are equally safe in both settings. Our findings thus support the provision of care in freestanding midwifery units as an alternative to care in obstetric units for all low-risk women regardless of parity. In view of the global rise in caesarean section rates, we consider it an important finding that freestanding midwifery units show potential for reducing first-birth caesarean.

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 economic costs of intrapartum care in Tower Hamlets: A comparison between the cost of birth in a freestanding midwifery unit and hospital for women at low risk of obstetric complications

Objectiveto compare the economic costs of intrapartum maternity care in an inner city area for ‘low risk’ women opting to give birth in a freestanding midwifery unit compared with those who chose birth in hospital. Designmicro-costing of health service resources used in the intrapartum care of mothers and their babies during the period between admission and discharge, data extracted from clinical notes. Settingthe Barkantine Birth Centre, a freestanding midwifery unit and the Royal London Hospital's consultant-led obstetric unit, both run by the former Barts and the London NHS Trust in Tower Hamlets, a deprived inner city borough in east London, England, 2007–2010. Participantsmaternity records of 333 women who were resident in Tower Hamlets and who satisfied the Trust's eligibility criteria for using the Birth Centre. Of these, 167 women started their intrapartum care at the Birth Centre and 166 started care at the Royal London Hospital. Measurements and findingswomen who planned their birth at the Birth Centre experienced continuous intrapartum midwifery care, higher rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery, greater use of a birth pool, lower rates of epidural use, higher rates of established breastfeeding and a longer post-natal stay, compared with those who planned for care in the hospital. The total average cost per mother-baby dyad for care where mothers started their intrapartum care at the Birth Centre was £1296.23, approximately £850 per patient less than the average cost per mother and baby who received all their care at the Royal London Hospital. These costs reflect intrapartum throughput using bottom up costing per patient, from admission to discharge, including transfer, but excluding occupancy rates and the related running costs of the units. Key conclusions and implications for practicethe study showed that intrapartum throughput in the Birth Centre could be considered cost-minimising when compared to hospital. Modelling the financial viability of midwifery units at a local level is important because it can inform the appropriate provision of these services. This finding from this study contribute a local perspective and thus further weight to the evidence from the Birthplace Programme in support of freestanding midwifery unit care for women without obstetric complications.

The kaleidoscopic midwife: A conceptual metaphor illustrating first-time mothers' perspectives of a good midwife during childbirth. A grounded theory study

BackgroundThe literature review reveals general information about a good midwife from a range of perspectives and what childbearing women generally value in a midwife, but there is a lack of information around mothers’ perspectives of what makes a good midwife specifically during labour and birth, and even less in the context of different places of birth. AimTo conceptualise first-time mothers’ expectations and experiences of a good midwife during childbirth in the context of different birthplaces. DesignQualitative Straussian grounded theory methodology. SettingThree National Health Service Trusts in England providing maternity care that offered women the possibility of giving birth in different settings (home, freestanding midwifery unit and obstetric unit). ParticipantsFourteen first-time mothers in good general health with a straightforward singleton pregnancy anticipating a normal birth. MethodsEthical approval was gained. Data were collected through two semi-structured interviews for each participant (before and after birth). Data analysis included the processes of coding and conceptualising data, with constant comparison between data, literature and memos. FindingsThe model named ‘The kaleidoscopic midwife: a conceptual metaphor illustrating first-time mothers’ perspectives of a good midwife during childbirth’ was developed. The model is dynamic and woman-centred, and is operationalised as the midwife adapts to each woman's individual needs in the context of each specific labour. Four pillars of intrapartum care were identified for a good midwife in the labour continuum: promoting individuality; supporting embodied limbo; helping to go with the flow; providing information and guidance. The metaphor of a kaleidoscopic figure is used to describe a midwife who is ‘multi-coloured’ and ever changing in the light of the woman's individual needs, expectations and labour journey, in order to create an environment that enables her to move forward despite the uncertainty and the expectations-experiences gap. The following elements are harmonised by the kaleidoscopic midwife: relationship-mediated being; knowledgeable doing; physical presence; immediately available presence. ConclusionThe model presented has relevance to contemporary debates about quality of care and place of birth and can be used by midwives to pursue excellence in caring for labouring mothers. Independently from the place of birth, when the woman is cared for by a midwife demonstrating the above characteristics, she is likely to have an optimum experience of birth. Future research is necessary to tease out individual components of the model in a variety of practice settings.

Birth room images: What they tell us about childbirth. A discourse analysis of birth rooms in developed countries

Objectivethis study examined images of birth rooms in developed countries to analyse the messages and visual discourse being communicated through images. Designa small qualitative study using Kress and van Leeuwen׳s (2006) social semiotic theoretical framework for image analysis, a form of discourse analysis. Setting/participantsforty images of birth rooms were collected in 2013 from Google Images, Flickr, Wikimedia Commons and midwifery colleagues. The images were from obstetric units, alongside and freestanding midwifery units located in developed countries (Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States of America). Main findingsfindings demonstrated three kinds of birth room images; the technological, the ‘homelike’, and the hybrid domesticated birth room. The most dominant was the technological birth room, with a focus on the labour bed and medical equipment. The visual messages from images of the technological birth room reinforce the notion that the bed is the most appropriate place to give birth and the use of medical equipment is intrinsically involved in the birth process. Childbirth is thus construed as risky/dangerous. Key conclusions and implications for practiceas images on the Internet inform and persuade society about stereotypical behaviours, the trends of our time and sociocultural norms, it is important to recognise images of the technological birth room on the Internet may be influential in dictating women׳s attitudes, choices and behaviour, before they enter the birth room.

Outcomes of care at ‘Føderiket Midwifery Unit’ 2007–2011, a freestanding midwifery-led unit in Oslo, Norway: A prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to provide a description and evaluation of birth outcomes for women who started care at Føderiket Midwifery Unit (FMU), a freestanding midwifery unit in Oslo. FMU opened in 2007 as a five-year project. It was closed in 2011 for economic reasons, and the planned evaluations were never performed. Data from 495 women who started care at FMU were prospectively collected. Socio-demographic characteristics, transfers to hospital, maternal and neonatal outcomes were described. The findings showed that 115 (23%) of the women were primiparous and 380 (77%) multiparous. A total of 408 women (82%) had no complications and no need for additional medical treatment during labour and birth. There were 73 (15%) transfers before birth, and 14 (3%) after birth. Nine women (2%) were delivered by caesarean section and 19 (4%) by vacuum extraction. Thirty women (6%) had postpartum haemorrhage >500 ml and five (1%) received blood transfusions. Five babies (1%) were transferred to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, all were discharged to their homes within a week. There were no cases of deaths, or serious morbidity. Our conclusions are that the results after four years management were comparable to other freestanding midwifery-led units in Western countries.

Womenʼs experiences of childbirth care in freestanding and alongside midwifery units: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol

Womenʼs experiences of childbirth care in freestanding and alongside midwifery units: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol

Women's experiences of childbirth care in freestanding and alongside midwifery units: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION / OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to identify the best available evidence related to how women experience birth care provided in freestanding midwifery units and in alongside midwifery units. INCLUSION CRITERIA Types of participants This review will consider studies that include women (of any age) who have given birth, regardless of parity, from any cultural background. Women who have suffered brain disorders, spine injuries or mental/cognitive deficiencies will be excluded from the review. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest This review will consider studies that describe the experiences of childbirth and childbirth care by women who have given birth in freestanding midwifery units and/or alongside midwifery units. Types of outcomes This review will consider studies conducted in various social and cultural settings. All experiences of childbirth and childbirth care of the women will be considered, independent of the location of the freestanding midwifery units and/or alongside midwifery units they attend.

The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study: further analyses to enhance policy and service delivery decision-making for planned place of birth

BackgroundEvidence from the Birthplace in England Research Programme supported a policy of offering ‘low risk’ women a choice of birth setting, but a number of unanswered questions remained.AimsThis project aimed to provide further evidence to support the development and delivery of maternity services and inform women’s choice of birth setting: specifically, to explore maternal and organisational factors associated with intervention, transfer and other outcomes in each birth setting in ‘low risk’ and ‘higher risk’ women.DesignFive component studies using secondary analysis of the Birthplace prospective cohort study (studies 2–5) and ecological analysis of unit/NHS trust-level data (studies 1 and 5).SettingObstetric units (OUs), alongside midwifery units (AMUs), freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) and planned home births in England.ParticipantsStudies 1–4 focused on ‘low risk’ women with ‘term’ pregnancies planning vaginal birth in 43 AMUs (n = 16,573), in 53 FMUs (n = 11,210), at home in 147 NHS trusts (n = 16,632) and in a stratified, random sample of 36 OUs (n = 19,379) in 2008–10. Study 5 focused on women with pre-existing medical and obstetric risk factors (‘higher risk’ women).Main outcome measuresInterventions (instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section), a measure of low intervention (‘normal birth’), a measure of spontaneous vaginal birth without complications (‘straightforward birth’), transfer during labour and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcome (‘intrapartum-related mortality and morbidity’ or neonatal admission within 48 hours for > 48 hours). In studies 1 and 3, rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer were adjusted for maternal characteristics.AnalysisWe used (a) funnel plots to explore variation in rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer between units/trusts, (b) simple, weighted linear regression to evaluate associations between unit/trust characteristics and rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer, (c) multivariable Poisson regression to evaluate associations between planned place of birth, maternal characteristics and study outcomes, and (d) logistic regression to investigate associations between time of day/day of the week and study outcomes.ResultsStudy 1 – unit-/trust-level variations in rates of interventions, transfer and maternal outcomes were not explained by differences in maternal characteristics. The magnitude of identified associations between unit/trust characteristics and intervention, transfer and outcome rates was generally small, but some aspects of configuration were associated with rates of transfer and intervention. Study 2 – ‘low risk’ women planning non-OU birth had a reduced risk of intervention irrespective of ethnicity or area deprivation score. In nulliparous women planning non-OU birth the risk of intervention increased with increasing age, but women of all ages planning non-OU birth experienced a reduced risk of intervention. Study 3 – parity, maternal age, gestational age and ‘complicating conditions’ identified at the start of care in labour were independently associated with variation in the risk of transfer in ‘low risk’ women planning non-OU birth. Transfers did not vary by time of day/day of the week in any meaningful way. The duration of transfer from planned FMU and home births was around 50–60 minutes; transfers for ‘potentially urgent’ reasons were quicker than transfers for ‘non-urgent’ reasons. Study 4 – the occurrence of some interventions varied by time of the day/day of the week in ‘low risk’ women planning OU birth. Study 5 – ‘higher risk’ women planning birth in a non-OU setting had fewer risk factors than ‘higher risk’ women planning OU birth and these risk factors were different. Compared with ‘low risk’ women planning home birth, ‘higher risk’ women planning home birth had a significantly increased risk of our composite adverse perinatal outcome measure. However, in ‘higher risk’ women, the risk of this outcome was lower in planned home births than in planned OU births, even after adjustment for clinical risk factors.ConclusionsExpansion in the capacity of non-OU intrapartum care could reduce intervention rates in ‘low risk’ women, and the benefits of midwifery-led intrapartum care apply to all ‘low risk’ women irrespective of age, ethnicity or area deprivation score. Intervention rates differ considerably between units, however, for reasons that are not understood. The impact of major changes in the configuration of maternity care on outcomes should be monitored and evaluated. The impact of non-clinical factors, including labour ward practices, staffing and skill mix and women’s preferences and expectations, on intervention requires further investigation. All women planning non-OU birth should be informed of their chances of transfer and, in particular, older nulliparous women and those more than 1 week past their due date should be advised of their increased chances of transfer. No change in the guidance on planning place of birth for ‘higher risk’ women is recommended, but research is required to evaluate the safety of planned AMU birth for women with selected relatively common risk factors.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Exploration of preterm birth rates associated with different models of antenatal midwifery care in Scotland: Unmatched retrospective cohort analysis

Objectivespreterm birth represents a significant personal, clinical, organisational and financial burden. Strategies to reduce the preterm birth rate have had limited success. Limited evidence indicates that certain antenatal care models may offer some protection, although the causal mechanism is not understood. We sought to compare preterm birth rates for mixed-risk pregnant women accessing antenatal care organised at a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU) and mixed-risk pregnant women attending an obstetric unit (OU) with related community-based antenatal care. Methodsunmatched retrospective 4-year Scottish cohort analysis (2008–2011) of mixed-risk pregnant women accessing (i) FMU antenatal care (n=1107); (ii) combined community-based and OU antenatal care (n=7567). Data were accessed via the Information and Statistics Division of the NHS in Scotland. Aggregates analysis and binary logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts׳ rates of preterm birth; and of spontaneous labour onset, use of pharmacological analgesia, unassisted vertex birth, and low birth weight. Odds ratios were adjusted for age, parity, deprivation score and smoking status in pregnancy. Findingsafter adjustment the ‘mixed risk’ FMU cohort had a statistically significantly reduced risk of preterm birth (5.1% [n=57] versus 7.7% [n=583]; AOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.55–0.98]; p=0.034). Differences in these secondary outcome measures were also statistically significant: spontaneous labour onset (FMU 83.9% versus OU 74.6%; AOR 1.74 [95% CI 1.46–2.08]; p<0.001); minimal intrapartum analgesia (FMU 53.7% versus OU 34.4%; AOR 2.17 [95% CI 1.90–2.49]; p<0.001); spontaneous vertex delivery (FMU 71.9% versus OU 63.5%; AOR 1.46 [95% CI 1.32–1.78]; p<0.001). Incidence of low birth weight was not statistically significant after adjustment for other variables. There was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal or neonatal death. Conclusionsgiven this study׳s methodological limitations, we can only claim associations between the care model and or chosen outcomes. Although both cohorts were mixed risk, differences in risk levels could have contributed to these findings. Nevertheless, the significant difference in preterm birth rates in this study resonates with other research, including the recent Cochrane review of midwife-led continuity models. Because of the multiplicity of risk factors for preterm birth we need to explore the salient features of the FMU model which may be contributing to this apparent protective effect. Because a randomised controlled trial would necessarily restrict choice to pregnant women, we feel that this option is problematic in exploring this further. We therefore plan to conduct a prospective matched cohort analysis together with a survey of unit practices and experiences.

Evaluating Midwifery Units (EMU): a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwifery units in New South Wales, Australia

ObjectiveTo compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units and two tertiary-level maternity units in New South Wales,...

PD.05 Neonatal Outcomes for a large Freestanding Midwifery Unit (FMU)

AimsTo determine transfer rates, reasons for transfer and outcomes for babies born at our FMU with nearly 1000 births/year and compare this with available literature.MethodRetrospective analysis of neonatal transfers from...

Survey of women׳s experiences of care in a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area of London, England: 2. Specific aspects of care

Objectiveto describe and compare women׳s experiences of specific aspects of maternity care before and after the opening of the Barkantine Birth Centre, a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area. Designtelephone surveys undertaken in late pregnancy and about six weeks after birth. Two separate waves of interviews were conducted, Phase 1 before the birth centre opened and Phase 2 after it had opened. SettingTower Hamlets, a deprived inner city borough in east London, 2007–2010. Participants620 women who were resident in Tower Hamlets and who satisfied the Barts and the London Trust’s eligibility criteria for using the birth centre. Of these, 259 women were recruited to Phase 1 and 361 to Phase 2. Measurements and findingsthe replies women gave show marked differences between the model of care in the birth centre and that at the obstetric unit at the Royal London Hospital with respect to experiences of care and specific practices. Women who initially booked for birth centre care were more likely to attend antenatal classes and find them useful and were less likely to be induced. Women who started labour care at the birth centre in spontaneous labour were more likely to use non-pharmacological methods of pain relief, most notably water and less likely to use pethidine than women who started care at the hospital. They were more likely to be able to move around in labour and less likely to have their membranes ruptured or have continuous CTG. They were more likely to be told to push spontaneously when they needed to rather than under directed pushing and more likely to report that they had been able to choose their position for birth and deliver in places other than the bed, in contrast to the situation at the hospital. The majority of women who had a spontaneous onset of labour delivered vaginally, with 28.6 per cent of women at the birth centre but no one at the hospital delivering in water. Primiparous women who delivered at the birth centre were less likely to have an episiotomy. Most women who delivered at the birth centre reported that they had chosen whether or not to have a physiological third stage, whereas a worrying proportion at the hospital reported that they had not had a choice. A higher proportion of women at the birth centre reported skin to skin contact with their baby in the first two hours after birth. Key conclusions and implications for practicesignificant differences were reported between the hospital and the birth centre in practices and information given to the women, with lower rates of intervention, more choice and significant differences in women’s experiences. This case study of a single inner-city freestanding midwifery unit, linked to the Birthplace in England Research Programme, indicates that this model of care also leads to greater choice and a better experience for women who opted for it.