Home and Birth Center Birth in the United States: Time for Greater Collaboration Across Models of Care

Parity Moderates the Socioeconomic Predictors of Birth Setting Choice

BACKGROUND

The increase in the number of people choosing community birth has raised interest in understanding the factors that influence birth setting choices. This study investigates how parity influences the association between maternal socioeconomic factors and choice of community versus hospital birth.

METHODS

We used 2009-2021 US birth certificate data to identify community births (planned home or birth center births), parity, and maternal characteristics, including Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program participation, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, body mass index (BMI), and age. Parity was interacted with each covariate in a multivariable logistic regression model of birth setting.

RESULTS

Among 26,526,010 eligible births, 58% were to multiparous mothers, with 1.9% occurring in a birth center or at home. For most maternal characteristics, associations with community birth were stronger in the multiparous group compared to the nulliparous group. For example, being married was associated with greater odds of community birth in both groups, but the strength of this association was greater within the multiparous group (odds ratio 4.00 vs. 1.94, interaction p < 0.001). The same pattern (stronger association with community birth in the multiparous group than in the primiparous group) was observed for race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and WIC participation, all of which were associated with lower odds of community birth.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that parity significantly moderates associations between maternal socioeconomic characteristics and birth setting, implying studies of decision-making in this context should purposively stratify samples and analyses by parity.

Midwife-Led Versus Obstetrician-Led Perinatal Care for Low-Risk Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Pregnancies

Background: The optimum model of perinatal care for low-risk pregnancies has been a topic of debate. Obstetrician-led care tends to perform unnecessary interventions, whereas the quality of midwife-led care has been subject to debate. This review aimed to assess whether midwife-led care reduces childbirth intervention and whether this comes at the expense of maternal and neonatal wellbeing. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant studies. Studies were checked for eligibility by screening the titles, abstracts, and full texts. We performed meta-analyses using the inverse variance method using RevMan software version 5.3. We pooled data using the risk ratio and mean difference with the 95% confidence interval. Results: This review included 44 studies with 1,397,320 women enrolled. Midwife-led care carried a lower risk of unplanned cesarean and instrumental vaginal deliveries, augmentation of labor, epidural/spinal analgesia, episiotomy, and active management of labor third stage. Women who received midwife-led care had shorter hospital stays and lower risks of infection, manual removal of the placenta, blood transfusion, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Furthermore, neonates delivered under midwife-led care had lower risks of acidosis, asphyxia, transfer to specialist care, and ICU admission. Postpartum hemorrhage, perineal tears, APGAR score < 7, and other outcomes were comparable between the two models of management. Conclusions: Midwife-led care reduced childbirth interventions with favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes in most cases. We recommend assigning low-risk pregnancies to midwife-led perinatal care in health systems with infrastructure allowing for smooth transfer when complications arise. Further research is needed to reflect the situation in low-resource countries.

Listening to Black Women's Perspectives of Birth Centers and Midwifery Care: Advocacy, Protection, and Empowerment

INTRODUCTION

Black women in Texas experience high rates of adverse maternal outcomes that have been linked to health inequities and structural racism in the maternal care system. Birth centers and midwifery care are highlighted in the literature as contributing to improved perinatal care experiences and decreased adverse outcomes for Black women. However, compared with White women, Black women underuse birth centers and midwifery care. Black women's perceptions in Texas of birth center and midwifery care are underrepresented in research. Thus, this study aimed to highlight the views of Black women residing in Texas on birth centers and midwifery care to identify their needs and explore ways to increasing access to perinatal care.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 pregnant and postpartum Black women residing in Texas. Questions focused on the women's access, knowledge, and use of birth centers and midwifery care in the context of their lived maternal care experiences. Interview transcripts were reviewed and analyzed using inductive, qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The Black women interviewed all shared experiences of discrimination and bias while receiving obstetric care that affected their interest in and overall perceptions of birth center and midwifery care. Participants also discussed financial and institutional barriers that impacted their ease of access to birth center and midwifery care services. Additionally, participants highlighted the need for culturally sensitive and respectful perinatal health care.

DISCUSSION

The Black women interviewed in this study emphasized the prevalence of racism and discrimination in perinatal health care encounters, a reflection consistent with current literature. Black women also expressed a desire to use birth centers and midwifery care but identified the barriers in Texas that impede access. Study findings highlight the need to address barriers to promote equitable perinatal health care access for Black women.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with breech presentation in planned community (home and birth center) births in the United States: A prospective observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with breech presentation in planned community births in the United States, including outcomes associated with types of breech presentation (i.e., frank, complete, footling/kneeling).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of prospective cohort data from a national perinatal data registry (MANA Stats).

SETTING

Planned community birth (homes and birth centers), United States.

SAMPLE

Individuals with a term, singleton gestation (N = 71,943) planning community birth at labor onset.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics to calculate associations between types of breech presentation and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Maternal: intrapartum/postpartum transfer, hospitalization, cesarean, hemorrhage, severe perineal laceration, duration of labor stages and membrane rupture Neonatal: transfer, hospitalization, NICU admission, congenital anomalies, umbilical cord prolapse, birth injury, intrapartum/neonatal death.

RESULTS

One percent (n = 695) of individuals experienced breech birth (n = 401, 57.6% vaginally). Most fetuses presented frank breech (57%), with 19% complete, 18% footling/kneeling, and 5% unknown type of breech presentation. Among all breech labors, there were high rates of intrapartum transfer and cesarean birth compared to cephalic presentation (OR 9.0, 95% CI 7.7-10.4 and OR 18.6, 95% CI 15.9-21.7, respectively), with no substantive difference based on parity, planned site of birth, or level of care integration into the health system. For all types of breech presentations, there was increased risk for nearly all assessed neonatal outcomes including hospital transfer, NICU admission, birth injury, and umbilical cord prolapse. Breech presentation was also associated with increased risk of intrapartum/neonatal death (OR 8.5, 95% CI 4.4-16.3), even after congenital anomalies were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

All types of breech presentations in community birth settings are associated with increased risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. These research findings contribute to informed decision-making and reinforce the need for breech training and research and an increase in accessible, high-quality care for planned vaginal breech birth in US hospitals.

Experience of decision-making for home breech birth: An interpretive description

Despite research and recommendations supporting shared decision-making and vaginal birth as a reasonable option for appropriately screened candidates with a term breech pregnancy, cesarean remains the only mode of birth available in most hospitals in the United States. Unable to find care for planned vaginal birth in a hospital setting, some individuals choose to pursue breech birth at home, potentially placing themselves and their infants at increased risk. Through this analysis of qualitative data gathered from a mixed methods study, we explored the experience of decision-making of 25 individuals who left the US hospital system to pursue a home breech birth. Data were gathered through open-ended survey responses (n = 25) and subsequent in-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 23) and analyzed using an interpretive description approach informed by situational analysis. Five interwoven and dynamic themes were identified in this complex decision-making process: valuing and trusting in normal birth, being "backed into a corner," asserting agency, making an informed choice, and drawing strength from the experience. This study provides a foundation for understanding the experience of decision-making and can inform future research and clinical practice to improve the provision of safe and respectful, person-centered care for breech pregnancy and birth.

"I had no choice": A mixed-methods study on access to care for vaginal breech birth

INTRODUCTION

Although current recommendations support vaginal breech birth as a reasonable option, access to breech birth in US hospitals is limited. This study explored the experiences of decision-making and perceptions of access to care in people who transferred out of the hospital system to pursue home breech birth.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study of people with a singleton, term breech fetus who transferred out of the US hospital system to pursue home breech birth. Twenty-five people completed an online demographic and psychosocial survey, and 23 (92%) participated in semi-structured interviews. We used an interpretive description approach informed by situational analysis to analyze qualitative data about participants' experiences and perceived access to care.

RESULTS

Of 25 individuals who left the hospital system to pursue a home breech birth, most felt denied informed choice (64%) and threatened or coerced into cesarean (68%). The majority reported low or very low autonomy in decision-making (n = 20, 80%) and high decisional satisfaction using validated measures. Many participants felt safer in a hospital setting but were not able to access care for planned vaginal breech hospital birth, despite extensive efforts. Participants felt "backed into a corner" and "forced into homebirth," perceiving a lack of access to safe and respectful care in the hospital system.

CONCLUSION

Some service users believe that home birth is their only option when they cannot access hospital-based care for vaginal breech birth. Current barriers to care for breech birth limit birthing people's autonomy and may be placing them and their infants at increased risk.

Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Genetic Counselors and Genetic Testing Among Certified Professional Midwives in Vermont: A Modified Grounded Theory Study

Increasingly, pregnant people in the United States are choosing to give at birth at home, and certified professional midwives (CPMs) often attend these births. Care by midwives, including home birth midwives, has the potential to decrease unnecessary medical interventions and their associated health care costs, as well as to improve maternal satisfaction with care. However, lack of integration into the health care system affects the ability of CPMs to access standard medications and testing for their clients, including prenatal screening. Genetics and genomics are now a routine part of prenatal screening, and genetic testing can contribute to identifying candidates for planned home birth. However, research on genetics and midwifery care has not, to date, included the subset of midwives who attend the majority of planned home births, CPMs. The purpose of this study was to examine CPMs' access to, and perspectives on, one aspect of prenatal care, genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. Using semi-structured interviews and a modified grounded theory approach to narrative analysis, we identified three key themes: (1) systems-level issues with accessing information about genetic counseling and genetic testing; (2) practice-level patterns in information delivery and self-awareness about knowledge limitations; and (3) client-level concerns about the value of genetic testing relative to difficulties with access and stress caused by the information. The results of this study can be used to develop decision aids that include information about genetic testing and genetic counseling access for pregnant people intending home births in the United States.

Predictors of planned home birth before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To determine how demographic and clinical predictors of home birth have changed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.

METHODS

Using National Vital Statistics birth certificate data, a retrospective population-based cohort study was performed with planned home births and hospital births among women age ≥18 years during calendar years 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2021 (pandemic-era). Birth location (planned home birth vs. hospital birth) was analyzed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression, systematically examining the interaction of each demographic and clinical covariate with study year.

RESULTS

After exclusions, a total of 6,087,768 birth records were retained for analysis, with the proportion of home births increasing from 0.82 % in 2019 to 1.24 % in 2021 (p<0.001). In the final multivariable logistic regression model of planned home birth, five demographic variables retained a statistically significant interaction with year: race and ethnicity, age, educational attainment, parity, and WIC participation. In each case, demographic differences between those having planned home births and hospital births became smaller (odds ratios closer to 1) in 2021 compared to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Planned home births increased by more than 50 % during the pandemic, with greater socioeconomic diversity in the pandemic-era home birth cohort. The presence of clinical risk factors remained a strong predictor of hospital birth, with no evidence that pandemic-era home births had a higher clinical risk profile as compared to the pre-pandemic period.

The impact of birth settings on pregnancy outcomes in the United States

In the United States, 98.3% of patients give birth in hospitals, 1.1% give birth at home, and 0.5% give birth in freestanding birth centers. This review investigated the impact of birth settings on birth outcomes in the United States. Presently, there are insufficient data to evaluate levels of maternal mortality and severe morbidity according to place of birth. Out-of-hospital births are associated with fewer interventions such as episiotomies, epidural anesthesia, operative deliveries, and cesarean deliveries. When compared with hospital births, there are increased rates of avoidable adverse perinatal outcomes in out-of-hospital births in the United States, both for those with and without risk factors. In one recent study, the neonatal mortality rates were significantly elevated for all planned home births: 13.66 per 10,000 live births (242/177,156; odds ratio, 4.19; 95% confidence interval, 3.62-4.84; P<.0001) vs 3.27 per 10,000 live births for in-hospital Certified Nurse-Midwife-attended births (745/2,280,044; odds ratio, 1). These differences increased further when patients were stratified by recognized risk factors such as breech presentation, multiple gestations, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, and postterm pregnancy. Causes of the increased perinatal morbidity and mortality include deliveries of patients with increased risks, absence of standardized criteria to exclude high-risk deliveries, and that most midwives attending out-of-hospital births in the United States do not meet the gold standard for midwifery regulation, the International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education. As part of the informed consent process, pregnant patients interested in out-of-hospital births should be informed of its increased perinatal risks. Hospital births should be supported for all patients, especially those with increased risks.

Strengthening Interprofessional Collaboration to Improve Transfers Between a Freestanding Birth Center and an Academic Medical Center

The number of individuals choosing to give birth in a freestanding birth center has doubled since 2004. As many as half of all pregnant persons planning for a birth center birth ultimately develop medical complications and are unable to give birth outside of the hospital. Integrating birth centers into their regional perinatal health care system optimizes outcomes by establishing predetermined pathways for antepartum and intrapartum transfers of care and facilitates ongoing communication and cooperation among clinicians. The Vanderbilt Birth Center is a freestanding birth center that is operated by an academic medical center and partners with a hospital-based midwifery practice that cares for patients transferring from the birth center. Since the inception of the birth center in 2015, the entire perinatal team has worked to improve the process and experience of patient transfer from birth center to hospital care. This article will present strategies implemented through the ongoing collaboration between birth center and hospital health care providers. These include adopting a shared electronic health record, clinical practice guidelines that align across birth sites, preparing birth center patients prenatally for the possibility hospital transfer, the presentation of a united team across birth sites, clear and widely disseminated communication pathways for hospital admission and patient handoff, and ongoing opportunities for interteam communication, collaboration, and education. These strategies may benefit similar midwifery practice models as they seek to partner with larger health care systems and improve the transfer experience for their patients.

Smooth Transitions: Enhancing Interprofessional Collaboration when Planned Community Births Transfer to Hospital Care

In Washington state, planned community births are attended by direct entry licensed midwives (LMs) and certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). The most recently published vital statistics data from 2018 reported that 3.6% of the 84,648 births in Washington occurred at home or in freestanding birthing centers. Approximately 16.2% of planned home birth and birth center clients experience intrapartum or early postpartum transfer to the hospital, while 1.8% of their newborns do. The safety of and satisfaction with these types of referrals depends on multisystem processes performed by a variety of health care professionals. Smooth Transitions is a quality improvement (QI) initiative in Washington state that was developed to enhance interprofessional collaboration between community-based midwives, emergency medical services (EMS), and hospital personnel to improve the quality of hospital transfers from planned community settings. Key interventions to date have included (1) information sharing to dispel misconceptions and provide context regarding community births and midwives; (2) co-creation of transfer guidelines; (3) regularly held interprofessional meetings to review transfers and build relationships; and (4) ongoing review of qualitative feedback that captures the perspectives of all involved. Responses on questionnaires and audits indicate that Smooth Transitions has had a positive impact on provider, staff, and patient experiences with hospital transfers. Future endeavors will include strengthening quantitative data collection processes to measure safety indicators, expanding relationships with EMS, and building a case review process that is legally protected. By engaging representatives of all stakeholder groups and addressing community-to-hospital transfers as a multisystems issue, replication of the Smooth Transitions QI Program nationally could promote increased community midwifery integration by enhancing the referral experience for both patients and caregivers.

Factors influencing birth setting decision making in the United States: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

The United States has the highest perinatal morbidity and mortality (M&M) rates among all high-resource countries in the world. Birth settings (birth center, home, or hospital) influence clinical outcomes, experience of care, and health care costs. Increasing use of low-intervention birth settings can reduce perinatal M&M. This integrative review evaluated factors influencing birth setting decision making among women and birthing people in the United States.

METHODS

A search strategy was implemented within the CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided the review, and the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model was used to evaluate methodological quality and appraisal of the evidence. The Whittemore and Knafl integrative review framework informed the extraction and analysis of the data and generation of findings.

RESULTS

We identified 23 articles that met inclusion criteria. Four analytical themes were generated that described factors that influence birth setting decision making in the United States: "Birth Setting Safety vs. Risk," "Influence of Media, Family, and Friends on Birth Setting Awareness," "Presence or Absence of Choice and Control," and "Access to Options."

DISCUSSION

Supporting women and birthing people to make informed decisions by providing information about birth setting options and variations in models of care by birth setting is a critical patient-centered strategy to ensure equitable access to low-intervention birth settings. Policies that expand affordable health insurance to cover midwifery care in all birth settings are needed to enable people to make informed choices about birth location that align with their values, individual pregnancy characteristics, and preferences.

Birth Outcomes for Planned Home and Licensed Freestanding Birth Center Births in Washington State

OBJECTIVE

To describe rates of maternal and perinatal birth outcomes for community births and to compare outcomes by planned place of birth (home vs state-licensed, freestanding birth center) in a Washington State birth cohort, where midwifery practice and integration mirrors international settings.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all births attended by members of a statewide midwifery professional association that were within professional association guidelines and met eligibility criteria for planned birth center birth (term gestation, singleton, vertex fetus with no known fluid abnormalities at term, no prior cesarean birth, no hypertensive disorders, no prepregnancy diabetes), from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020. Outcome rates were calculated for all planned community births in the cohort. Estimated relative risks were calculated comparing delivery and perinatal outcomes for planned births at home to state-licensed birth centers, adjusted for parity and other confounders.

RESULTS

The study population included 10,609 births: 40.9% planned home and 59.1% planned birth center births. Intrapartum transfers to hospital were more frequent among nulliparous individuals (30.5%; 95% CI 29.2-31.9) than multiparous individuals (4.2%; 95% CI 3.6-4.6). The cesarean delivery rate was 11.4% (95% CI 10.2-12.3) in nulliparous individuals and 0.87% (95% CI 0.7-1.1) in multiparous individuals. The perinatal mortality rate after the onset of labor (intrapartum and neonatal deaths through 7 days) was 0.57 (95% CI 0.19-1.04) per 1,000 births. Rates for other adverse outcomes were also low. Compared with planned birth center births, planned home births had similar risks in crude and adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

Rates of adverse outcomes for this cohort in a U.S. state with well-established and integrated community midwifery were low overall. Birth outcomes were similar for births planned at home or at a state-licensed, freestanding birth center.

Alternative Birth Plans and Unintended Maternal and Neonatal Consequences: A Review of the Literature

Importance

Birth plans are an important part of childbirth preparation for many women.

Objective

The aim of this review was to discuss some common requests, specifically home birth, water birth, placentophagy, lotus birth, vaccination refusal, and vaginal seeding, including evidence-based recommendations, perceived benefits, and potential maternal and neonatal consequences.

Evidence Acquisition

A literature search for each topic was undertaken using PubMed and Web of Science. For the home birth section, the MeSH terms home AND birth OR childbirth AND outcomes OR complications OR recommendations OR guidelines were used. For the vaccination section, birth OR childbirth OR maternal AND vaccination refusal were searched. For the remainder of the sections, umbilical cord AND nonseverance OR placentophagy OR vaginal seeding OR lotus birth were searched. A total of 523 articles were identified. The abstracts were reviewed by 2 authors (J.R.W. and J.A.R.); 60 of these articles were selected and used for this review.

Results

Home birth is currently not recommended in the United States. Immersion in water for labor is acceptable, but delivery should not occur in water. Placentophagy and lotus birth should be discouraged because of risk of neonatal infection. Vaccines should be administered in accordance with national guidelines. Vaginal seeding should be discouraged until more is known about the practice.

Conclusions and Relevance

These evidence-based recommendations provide clear guidance for physicians so that the birthing experience can be enhanced for both mother and neonate without compromising safety.

Relevance Statement

This is an evidence-based literature review of alternative birth plans and recommendations for directive counseling.

Maternity Care Preferences for Future Pregnancies Among United States Childbearers: The Impacts of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted maternity care decisions, including plans to change providers or delivery location due to pandemic-related restrictions and fears. A relatively unexplored question, however, is how the pandemic may shape future maternity care preferences post-pandemic. Here, we use data collected from an online convenience survey of 980 women living in the United States to evaluate how and why the pandemic has affected women's future care preferences. We hypothesize that while the majority of women will express a continued interest in hospital birth and OB/GYN care due to perceived safety of medicalized birth, a subset of women will express a new interest in out-of-hospital or "community" care in future pregnancies. However, factors such as local provider and facility availability, insurance coverage, and out-of-pocket cost could limit access to such future preferred care options. Among our predominately white, educated, and high-income sample, a total of 58 participants (5.9% of the sample) reported a novel preference for community care during future pregnancies. While the pandemic prompted the exploration of non-hospital options, the reasons women preferred community care were mostly consistent with factors described in pre-pandemic studies, (e.g. a preference for a natural birth model and a desire for more person-centered care). However, a relatively high percentage (34.5%) of participants with novel preference for community care indicated that they expected limitations in their ability to access these services. These findings highlight how the pandemic has potentially influenced maternity care preferences, with implications for how providers and policy makers should anticipate and respond to future care needs.

Deciding on Home Birth

OBJECTIVE

To explore the decision-making processes of women who planned home births and to generate an emerging theoretical description of these processes.

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive study using grounded theory.

SETTING

A certified nurse-midwifery home birth practice in a midsized city in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven adult women who planned home births with certified nurse-midwives.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with participants to discuss their decision-making processes regarding planning for their home births. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used open, selective, and theoretical coding and constant comparison to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The core category in the decision-making process regarding home birth was Claiming Maternal Space. The three main themes under this core category were Awareness of home birth, Movement from conventional perinatal care, and Shelter Building for labor and birth.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that women who plan home births greatly value agency during perinatal care. The core category Claiming Maternal Space represented how participants solved the problem of decreased agency in conventional perinatal care. Further research is needed to validate the emerging theoretical description and explore the association between agency and perinatal outcomes.

The Impacts of COVID-19 on US Maternity Care Practices: A Followup Study

This article extends the findings of a rapid response article researched in April 2020 to illustrate how providers' practices and attitudes toward COVID-19 had shifted in response to better evidence, increased experience, and improved guidance on how SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 impacted maternity care in the United States. This article is based on a review of current labor and delivery guidelines in relation to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, and on an email survey of 28 community-based and hospital-based maternity care providers in the United State, who discuss their experiences and clients' needs in response to a rapidly shifting landscape of maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-third of our respondents are obstetricians, while the other two-thirds include midwives, doulas, and labor and delivery nurses. We present these providers' frustrations and coping mechanisms in shifting their practices in relation to COVID-19. The primary lessons learned relate to improved testing and accessing PPE for providers and clients; the need for better integration between community- and hospital-based providers; and changes in restrictive protocols concerning labor support persons, rooming-in with newborns, immediate skin-to-skin contact, and breastfeeding. We conclude by suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic offers a transformational moment to shift maternity care in the United States toward a more integrated and sustainable model that might improve provider and maternal experiences as well as maternal and newborn outcomes.

Maternal safety: recent advances and implications for the obstetric anesthesiologist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recognition of the increasing maternal mortality rate in the United States has been accompanied by intense efforts to improve maternal safety. This article reviews recent advances in maternal safety, highlighting those of particular relevance to anesthesiologists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiovascular and other chronic medical conditions contribute to an increasing number of maternal deaths. Anesthetic complications associated with general anesthesia are decreasing, but complications associated with neuraxial techniques persist. Obstetric early warning systems are evolving and hold promise in identifying women at risk for adverse intrapartum events. Postpartum hemorrhage rates are rising, and rigorous evaluation of existing protocols may reveal unrecognized deficiencies. Development of regionalized centers for high-risk maternity care is a promising strategy to match women at risk for adverse events with appropriate resources. Opioids are a growing threat to maternal safety. There is growing evidence for racial inequities and health disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists play an essential role in ensuring maternal safety. While continued intrapartum vigilance is appropriate, addressing the full spectrum of contributors to maternal mortality, including those with larger roles beyond the immediate peripartum time period, will be essential to ongoing efforts to improve maternal safety.

Home Birth in the Era of COVID-19: Counseling and Preparation for Pregnant Persons Living with HIV

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States, a majority of states have instituted "shelter-in-place" policies effectively quarantining individuals-including pregnant persons-in their homes. Given the concern for COVID-19 acquisition in health care settings, pregnant persons with high-risk pregnancies-such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV)-are increasingly investigating the option of a home birth. Although we strongly recommend hospital birth for PLHIV, we discuss our experience and recommendations for counseling and preparation of pregnant PLHIV who may be considering home birth or at risk for unintentional home birth due to the pandemic. We also discuss issues associated with implementing a risk mitigation strategy involving high-risk births occurring at home during a pandemic. KEY POINTS: · Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has increased interest in home birth.. · Women living with HIV are pursuing home birth.. · Safe planning is paramount for women living with HIV desiring home birth, despite recommending against the practice..

Neonatal mortality in the United States is related to location of birth (hospital versus home) rather than the type of birth attendant

BACKGROUND

Planned home births have leveled off in the United States in recent years after a significant rise starting in the mid-2000s. Planned home births in the United States are associated with increased patient-risk profiles. Multiple studies concluded that, compared with hospital births, absolute and relative risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity in US planned home births are significantly increased.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the safety of birth in the United States by comparing the neonatal mortality outcomes of 2 locations, hospital birth and home birth, by 4 types of attendants: hospital midwife; certified nurse-midwife at home; direct-entry ("other") midwife at home; and attendant at home not identified, using the most recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention natality data on neonatal mortality for planned home births in the United States. Outcomes are presented as absolute risks (neonatal mortality per 10,000 live births) and as relative risks of neonatal mortality (hospital-certified nurse-midwife odds ratio, 1) overall, and for recognized risk factors.

STUDY DESIGN

We used the most current US Centers for Disease and Prevention Control Linked Birth and Infant Death Records for 2010-2017 to assess neonatal mortality (neonatal death days 0-27 after birth) for single, term (37+ weeks), normal-weight ( >2499 g) infants for planned home births and hospital births by birth attendants: hospital-certified nurse-midwives, home-certified nurse-midwives, home other midwives (eg, lay or direct-entry midwives), and other home birth attendant not identified.

RESULTS

The neonatal mortality for US hospital midwife-attended births was 3.27 per 10,000 live births, 13.66 per 10,000 live births for all planned home births, and 27.98 per 10,000 live births for unintended/unplanned home births. Planned home births attended by direct-entry midwives and by certified nurse-midwives had a significantly elevated absolute and relative neonatal mortality risk compared with certified nurse-midwife-attended hospital births (hospital-certified nurse-midwife: 3.27/10,000 live births odds ratio, 1; home birth direct-entry midwives: neonatal mortality 12.44/10,000 live births, odds ratio, 3.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.12-4.65, P<.0001; home birth-certified nurse-midwife: neonatal mortality 9.48/10,000 live births, odds ratio, 2.90, 95% confidence interval, 2.90; P<.0001). These differences increased further when patients were stratified for recognized risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The safety of birth in the United States varies by location and attendant. Compared with US hospital births attended by a certified nurse-midwife, planned US home births for all types of attendants are a less safe setting of birth, especially when recognized risk factors are taken into account. The type of midwife attending US planned home birth appears to have no differential effect on decreasing the absolute and relative risk of neonatal mortality of planned home birth, because the difference in outcomes of US planned home births attended by direct-entry midwives or by certified nurse-midwives is not statistically significant.

Two decades of Birth Centre and midwifery-led care in South Australia, 1998-2016

BACKGROUND

Birth Centres (BC) are underpinned by a philosophy of woman- centred care and were pivotal in growing models of midwifery-led care in South Australia (SA).

AIM

To describe BC utilisation and the growth of midwifery-led care in SA over the past two decades.

METHODS

The SA Perinatal Statistics Collection was used to describe women birthing from 1998 to 2016. Number of births through midwifery-led services from 2004 to 2016 were obtained from unit managers. Analyses are descriptive.

FINDINGS

Women who birthed in BC in SA from 1998 to 2016 comprised approximately 6% of all births per year, and numbers have remained static. Three BC models operate in SA, all with different capacity. Proportionally, women not born in Australia are as likely to birth in BC as labour wards. The proportion of women who received midwifery-led care (whether affiliated with a BC or not), increased from 8.3% in 1998 to 19.2% of all births in 2016. Of the women who received midwifery-led care in 2016, 15.3% went on to birth in a midwifery-led model of care.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the overall number of BC births has not increased, women seeking midwifery-led care has more than doubled over the past two decades. BC encompass the midwifery philosophy, quality of care, and a physical home-like environment. The BC models in SA are managed through the three tertiary maternity units enabling women to access publicly funded midwifery care and should be more widely available.

Low-Risk Planned Out-of-Hospital Births: Characteristics and Perinatal Outcomes in Different Italian Birth Settings

BACKGROUND

The present observational study aimed to describe women and delivery characteristics and early birth outcomes according to planned out-of-hospital delivery and to compare this information with comparable planned in-hospital deliveries.

METHODS

1099 healthy low-risk women who delivered out-of-hospital between 2014 to 2018, with a gestational age of 37-42 completed weeks of pregnancy, with single, vertex babies whose birth was expected to be vaginal and spontaneous were enrolled. Moreover, a case-control study was designed comparing characteristics of these births to a matched 1:5 sample.

RESULTS

living in a medium city (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19-2.74), being multiparous (RR 1.66, CI 1.09-2.51), having the first child at ≥35 years old (RR 1.84, CI 1.02-3.33), not working (RR 1.77, CI 1.06-2.96), not being omnivorous (RR 1.80, CI 1.08-3.00), and not smoking (RR 2.53, CI 1.06-6.07) were all related to an increased chance of delivering at home compared to in a freestanding midwifery unit. The significant factors in choosing to give birth out-of-hospital instead of in-hospital were living in a large or medium city (OR 2.20; 1.75-2.77; OR 2.41; 1.93-3.02) and having a secondary or higher level of education (OR > 2 for both parents). Within the first week of delivery, 6 of 1099 mothers and 19 of 1099 neonates were hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

out-of-hospital births in women with low-risk pregnancies is a possible option that needs to be planned, monitored, regulated, and evaluated according to healthcare control systems in order to work, as in hospitals, for the safest and most effective care to a mother and her neonate(s).

Planned home births: The role of the primary care NP

Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady resurgence of planned home births in the US. Multiple factors may impact health outcomes for mother and baby. NPs have the opportunity to provide reliable information to women to help ensure a safe delivery and to optimize care for the neonate.

The Experience of Land and Water Birth Within the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, 2012-2017

Consumer demand for water birth has grown within an environment of professional controversy. Access to nonpharmacologic pain relief through water immersion is limited within hospital settings across the United States due to concerns over safety. The study is a secondary analysis of prospective observational Perinatal Data Registry (PDR) used by American Association of Birth Center members (AABC PDR). All births occurring between 2012 and 2017 in the community setting (home and birth center) were included in the analysis. Descriptive, correlational, and relative risk statistics were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes. Of 26 684 women, those giving birth in water had more favorable outcomes including fewer prolonged first- or second-stage labors, fetal heart rate abnormalities, shoulder dystocias, genital lacerations, episiotomies, hemorrhage, or postpartum transfers. Cord avulsion occurred rarely, but it was more common among water births. Newborns born in water were less likely to require transfer to a higher level of care, be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit, or experience respiratory complication. Among childbearing women of low medical risk, personal preference should drive utilization of nonpharmacologic care practices including water birth. Both land and water births have similar good outcomes within the community setting.

Improving the Experience of Care: Results of the American Association of Birth Centers Strong Start Client Experience of Care Registry Pilot Program, 2015-2016

In 2018, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in the United States (US) released report demonstrating birth centers as the appropriate level of care for most Medicaid beneficiaries. A pilot project conducted at 34 American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) Strong Start sites included 553 beneficiaries between 2015 and 2016 to explore client perceptions of high impact components of care. Participants used the AABC client experience of care registry to report knowledge, values, and experiences of care. Data were linked to more than 300 process and outcome measures within the AABC Perinatal Data Registry™. Descriptive statistics, t tests, χ analysis, and analysis of variance were conducted. Participants demonstrated high engagement with care and trust in pregnancy, birth, and parenting. Beneficiaries achieved their preference for vaginal birth (89.9%) and breastfeeding at discharge through 6 weeks postpartum (91.7% and 87.6%). Beneficiaries reported having time for questions, felt listened to, spoken to in a way they understood, being involved in decision making, and treated with respect. There were no variations in experience of care, cesarean birth, or breastfeeding by race. Medicaid beneficiaries receiving prenatal care at AABC Strong Start sites demonstrated high levels of desired engagement and reported receiving respectful, accessible care and high-quality outcomes. More investment and research using client-reported data registries are warranted as the US works to improve the experience of perinatal care nationwide.