European Association of Perinatal Medicine (EAPM), European Board and College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (EBCOG), European Midwives Association (EMA). Joint position statement: Substandard and disrespectful care in labour - because words matter.

Substandard or disrespectful care during labour should be of serious concern for healthcare professionals, as it can affect one of the most important events in a woman's life. Substandard care refers to the use of interventions that are not considered best-practice, to the inadequate execution of interventions, to situations where best-practice interventions are withheld from patients, or there is lack of adequate informed consent. Disrespectful care refers to forms of verbal and non-verbal communication that affect patients' dignity, individuality, privacy, intimacy, or personal beliefs. There are many possible underlying causes for substandard and disrespectful care in labour, including difficulties in modifying behaviours, judgmental or paternalistic attitudes, personal interests and individualism, and a human tendency to make less arduous, less difficult, or less stressful clinical decisions. The term "obstetric violence" is used in some parts of the world to describe various forms of substandard and disrespectful care in labour, but suggests that it is mainly carried out by obstetricians and is a serious form of aggression, carried out with the intent to cause harm. We believe that this term should not be used, as it does not help to identify the underlying problem, its causes, or its correction. In addition, it is generally seen by obstetricians and other healthcare professionals as an unjust and offensive term, generating a defensive and less collaborative mindset. We reach out to all individuals and institutions sharing the common goal of improving women's experience during labour, to work together to address the underlying causes of substandard and disrespectful care, and to develop common strategies to deal with this problem, based on mutual comprehension, trust and respect.

EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF PERINATAL MEDICINE (EAPM) EUROPEAN MIDWIVES ASSOCIATION (EMA) Joint position statement: Caesarean delivery rates at a country level should be in the 15-20 % range.

While cesarean deliveries performed for health indications can save lives, unnecessary cesareans cause unjustifiable health risks for the mother, newborn, and for future pregnancies. Previous recommendations for cesarean delivery rates at a country level in the 10-15% range are currently unrealistic, and the proposed concept that striving to achieve specific rates is not important has resulted in a confusing message reaching healthcare professionals and the public. It is important to have a clear understanding of when cesarean delivery rates are deviating from internationally acceptable ranges, to trigger the implementation of healthcare policies needed to correct this problem. Based on currently existing scientific evidence, we recommend that cesarean delivery rates at a country level should be in the 15-20% range. This advice is based on the demonstration of decreased maternal and neonatal mortalities when national cesarean delivery rates rise to circa 15%, but values exceeding 20% are not associated with further benefits. It is also based on real-world experiences from northern European countries, where cesarean delivery rates in the 15-20% range are associated with some of the best maternal and perinatal quality indicators in the world. With the increase in cesarean delivery rates projected for the coming years, experience in provision of intrapartum care may come under threat in many hospitals, and recovering from this situation is likely to be a major challenge. Professional and scientific societies, together with healthcare authorities and governments need to prioritize actions to reverse the upward trend in cesarean delivery rates observed in many countries, and to strive to achieve values as close as possible to the recommended range.

Midwives' perception of the intrapartum risk of healthy nulliparae in spontaneous labour, in The Flanders, Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: to explore midwives' perception of intrapartum risk for healthy nulliparous women in spontaneous labour at term of a healthy singleton pregnancy, in the Belgian Flanders, and to compare these results with those of a previous study undertaken in England. DESIGN: survey of the care midwives would advocate and their perception of intrapartum risk using a standardised scenario. This study replicates part of a survey undertaken with British midwives (Mead & Kornbrot 2004b). With an added section to capture the particulars of the Belgian situation and explore the likelihood of midwives being fully responsible for the whole intrapartum care of healthy women, including their delivery. The questionnaire was translated into Dutch by MR and distributed by the Flemish Midwives' Association (Vlaamse Organisatie van Vroedvrouwen-VLOV). PARTICIPANTS: all 845 midwives and 143 student midwives who were members of VLOV were sent a questionnaire with their invitation to take part in their annual conference. Two hundred and seventy-five midwives and 107 students attended the conference, and 128 questionnaires were returned at the conference: 99 midwives (36% of the attendees), 26 students (24% of attendees), with three unidentified respondents. This convenience sample represented 12% of all midwives and 18% of all students. ANALYSIS: SPSS for Windows was used for the statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were used and differences between categorical variables were analysed using chi(2) and Fisher's Exact tests, and differences between continuous variables were analysed by analysis of variance. FINDINGS: midwives generally described a more medicalised approach to intrapartum care on admission and during the first stage of labour than their British counterparts, but were much more optimistic about the chances of healthy women in spontaneous labour achieving a normal delivery within 12 hours. However, Belgian midwives had only a limited ability to undertake normal deliveries because of the high proportion of obstetricians who fulfil this responsibility. This contravenes the European Union (EU) directive on the activities of the midwife. KEY CONCLUSIONS: despite much greater involvement of obstetricians in the care, of women suitable for full midwifery care, and a more medicalised approach to intrapartum care, the Belgian Flanders have a significantly lower caesarean section rate than the UK. The inability of Belgian midwives to fulfil the activities of the midwives as identified by the EU directives raises questions about the migration of midwives trained in Belgium to other EU member states.