Midwives speaking out on COVID-19: The international confederation of midwives global survey.

BACKGROUND: Maternity services around the world have been disrupted since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) representing one hundred and forty-three professional midwifery associations across the world sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on women and midwives. AIM: The aim of this study was to understand the global impact of COVID-19 from the point of view of midwives' associations. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey using an on-line questionnaire was sent via email to every midwives' association member of ICM. SURVEY INSTRUMENT: The survey was developed and tested by a small global team of midwife researchers and clinicians. It consisted of 106 questions divided into seven discreet sections. Each member association was invited to make one response in either English, French or Spanish. RESULTS: Data were collected between July 2020 and April 2021. All respondents fulfilling the inclusion criteria irrespective of whether they completed all questions in the survey were eligible for analysis. All data collected was anonymous. There were 101 surveys returned from the 143 member associations across the world. Many countries reported being caught unaware of the severity of the infection and in some places, midwives were forced to make their own PPE, or reuse single use PPE. Disruption to maternity services meant women had to change their plans for place of birth; and in many countries maternity facilities were closed to become COVID-19 centres. Half of all respondents stated that women were afraid to give birth in hospitals during the pandemic resulting in increased demand for home birth and community midwifery. Midwifery students were denied access to practical or clinical placements and their registration as midwives has been delayed in many countries. More than 50% of the associations reported that governments did not consult them, and they have little or no say in policy at government levels. These poor outcomes were not exclusive to high-, middle- or low-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations that stem from this research include the need to include midwifery representation on key government committees and a need to increase the support for planned out of hospital birth. Both these recommendations stand to enhance the effectiveness of midwives in a world that continues to face and may face future catastrophic pandemics.

Experiences and outcomes of women with bleeding in early pregnancy presenting to the Emergency Department: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy occurs in approximately a quarter of all pregnancies and is a common reason for presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). This review combined current knowledge about experiences, interventions, outcomes and frequency of women presenting to the ED with per vaginal (PV) bleeding in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. METHODS: This integrative literature review was conducted using electronic database and hand searching methods for primary research published from 2000; followed by screening and appraisal. Articles were compared and grouped to identify characteristics and patterns that guided the synthesis of categories. RESULTS: Forty-two primary research articles met inclusion criteria. Four main categories related to experiences and outcomes of women with bleeding in early pregnancy presenting to the ED were identified: presentation frequency and characteristics; women and their partners' experiences in the ED; interventions and treatments; patient and health service outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Negative and often frustrating experiences are reported by women experiencing PV bleeding, their partners and ED healthcare providers. While strategies such as early pregnancy assessment services contribute to improved outcomes, the availability of these services vary. Further research is needed to identify specific needs of this group of women and their partners, and the staff providing their care in the ED, to inform strategies for improved quality of care.

Women's unmet needs in early labour: Qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses in the M@NGO trial of caseload midwifery.

OBJECTIVE: to analyse women's experiences of early labour care in caseload midwifery in Australia. DESIGN: this study sits within a multi-site randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery versus standard care. Participant surveys were conducted at 6-weeks and 6-months after birth. Free-text responses about experiences of care were subject to critical thematic analysis in NVivo 11 software. SETTING: two urban Australian hospitals in different states. PARTICIPANTS: women 18 years and over, with a singleton pregnancy, less than 24 weeks' pregnant, not planning a caesarean section or already booked with a care provider; were eligible to participate in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: participants were randomised to caseload midwifery or standard care for antenatal, labour and birth and postpartum care. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: The 6-week survey response rate was 58% (n = 1,019). The survey included five open questions about women's experiences of pregnancy, labour and birth, and postnatal care. Nine-hundred and one respondents (88%) provided free text comments which were coded to generate 10 categories. The category of early labour contained data from 84 individual participants (caseload care n = 44; standard care n = 40). Descriptive themes were: (1) needing permission; (2) doing the 'wrong' thing; and (3) being dismissed. Analytic themes were: (1) Seeking: women wanting to be "close to those who know what's going on"; and (2) Shielding: midwives defending resources and normal birth. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of model of care, early labour care was primarily described in negative terms. This could be attributed to reporting bias, because women who were neutral about early labour care may not comment. Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate a gap in knowledge about early labour care in caseload midwifery models. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Maternity services that offer caseload midwifery are ideally placed to evaluate how early labour home visiting impacts women's experiences of early labour.

Evaluation of an Australian Aboriginal model of maternity care: The Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service.

BACKGROUND: The urban-based Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service integrates multidisciplinary wrap-around services along-side continuity of midwifery care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers and babies. AIM: To evaluate the Malabar Service from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2014. METHODS: A mixed method design. Outcomes for mothers of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander babies cared for at an urban Australian referral hospital by the Malabar Service were compared to mainstream. Primary outcomes are rates of low birth weight; smoking >20 weeks gestation; preterm birth; and breastfeeding at discharge. Malabar outcomes are also compared to national and state perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: The Malabar Service (n = 505) demonstrated similar rates of preterm birth (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 0.96-4.97); breastfeeding at discharge (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 0.61-1.86); and a higher rate of low birth weight babies (aOR 3.6, 95% CI 1.02-12.9) than the comparison group (n = 201). There was a 25% reduction in smoking rates from 38.9% to 29.1%. Compared to national and state populations, Malabar outcomes were better. Women experienced greater psychosocial complexity but were well supported. Malabar Mothers (n = 9) experienced: accessibility, preparedness for birth and cultural safety. Staff (n = 13) identified going 'above and beyond' and teamwork to provide culturally safe care counterbalanced with concerns around funding and cultural support. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated integrated continuity of midwifery care with wrap-around services for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander mothers is highly valued and is culturally safe. The service is as safe as main stream services and promotes better clinical outcomes compared to national and state outcomes.

The impact of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care, on women's perceptions of antenatal care quality: Survey results from the M@NGO randomized controlled trial for women of any risk.

BACKGROUND: The measurement and interpretation of patient experience is a distinct dimension of health care quality. The Midwives @ New Group practice Options (M@NGO) randomized control trial of caseload midwifery compared with standard care among women regardless of risk reported both clinical and cost benefits. This study reports participants' perceptions of the quality of antenatal care within caseload midwifery, compared with standard care for women of any risk within that trial. METHODS: A trial conducted at two Australian tertiary hospitals randomly assigned participants (1:1) to caseload midwifery or standard care regardless of risk. Women were sent an 89-question survey at 6 weeks postpartum that included 12 questions relating to pregnancy care. Ten survey questions (including 7-point Likert scales) were analyzed by intention to treat and illustrated by participant quotes from two free-text open-response items. RESULTS: From the 1748 women recruited to the trial, 58% (n = 1017) completed the 6-week survey. Of those allocated to caseload midwifery, 66% (n = 573) responded, compared with 51% (n = 444) of those allocated to standard care. The survey found women allocated to caseload midwifery perceived a higher level of quality care across every antenatal measure. Notably, those women with identified risk factors reported higher levels of emotional support (aOR 2.52 [95% CI 1.87-3.39]), quality care (2.94 [2.28-3.79]), and feeling actively involved in decision-making (3.21 [2.35-4.37]). CONCLUSIONS: Results from the study show that in addition to the benefits to clinical care and cost demonstrated in the M@NGO trial, caseload midwifery outperforms standard care in perceived quality of pregnancy care regardless of risk.

Newborn self-inflating manual resuscitators: precision robotic testing of safety and reliability.

AIM: A controlled bench test was undertaken to determine the performance variability among a range of neonatal self-inflating bags (SIB) compliant with current International Standards Organisation (ISO). INTRODUCTION: Use of SIB to provide positive pressure ventilation during newborn resuscitation is a common emergency procedure. The United Nations programmes advocate increasing availability of SIB in low-income and middle-income nations and recommend devices compliant with ISO. No systematic study has evaluated variance in different models of neonatal SIB. METHODS: 20 models of SIB were incrementally compressed by an automated robotic device simulating the geometry and force of a human hand across a range of precise distances in a newborn lung model. Significance was calculated using analysis of variance repeated measures to determine the relationship between distance of SIB compression and delivered ventilation. A pass/fail was derived from a composite score comprising: minimum tidal volume; coefficient of variation (across all compression distances); peak pressures generated and functional compression distance. RESULTS: Ten out of the 20 models of SIB failed our testing methodology. Two models could not provide safe minimum tidal volumes (2.5-5 mL); six models exceeded safety inflation pressure limit >45 cm H2O, representing 6% of their inflations; five models had excessive coefficient of variation (>30% averaged across compression distances) and three models did not deliver inflation volumes >2.5 mL until approximately 50% of maximum bag compression distance was reached. The study also found significant intrabatch variability and forward leakage. CONCLUSION: Compliance of SIBs with ISO standards may not guarantee acceptable or safe performance to resuscitate newborn infants.

Evaluating Maternity Units: a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units in New Zealand-clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in a freestanding primary level midwife-led maternity unit (PMU) or tertiary level obstetric-led maternity hospital (TMH) in Canterbury, Aotearoa/New Zealand. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 407 women who intended to give birth in a PMU and 285 women who intended to give birth at the TMH in 2010-2011. All of the women planning a TMH birth were 'low risk', and 29 of the PMU cohort had identified risk factors. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Mode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and neonatal unit admission. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: labour onset, analgesia, blood loss, third stage of labour management, perineal trauma, non-pharmacological pain relief, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Women who planned a PMU birth were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.9%vs62.3%, adjusted OR (AOR) 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.39), and significantly less likely to have an instrumental assisted vaginal birth (10.3%vs20.4%, AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93). The emergency and elective caesarean section rates were not significantly different (emergency: PMU 11.6% vs TMH 17.5%, AOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; elective: PMU 0.7% vs TMH 2.1%, AOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.41). There were no significant differences between the cohorts in rates of 5 min Apgar score of <7 (2.0%vs2.1%, AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.52) and neonatal unit admission (5.9%vs4.9%, AOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.96). Planning to give birth in a primary unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar odds of all measured neonatal well-being indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support freestanding midwife-led primary-level maternity units as physically safe places for well women to plan to give birth, with these women having higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births and lower rates of interventions and their associated morbidities than those who planned a tertiary hospital birth, with no differences in neonatal outcomes.

Collective action for the development of national standards for midwifery education in Australia.

This article describes a sequence of events that led to the development of national standards for the accreditation of Australian midwifery education programmes for initial registration. This process occurred within a climate of polarised opinions about the value of the introduction of three-year degree programmes for midwives who are not nurses (known as the BMid in Australia) and concerns about the invisibility of midwifery within nursing regulation, education, policy and nomenclature. Concerted efforts to develop standards to inform the introduction of BMid programmes through a process of collective action are described. This involved arguing successfully for the positioning of midwifery as a separate profession from nursing, with a need for its own discreet regulation.

Freestanding midwifery units: Maternal and neonatal outcomes following transfer.

BACKGROUND: the viability of freestanding midwifery units in Australia is restricted, due to concerns over their safety, particularly for women and babies who, require transfer. AIM: to 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. METHODS: a 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 FINDINGS: the 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. DISCUSSION: these 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.

The presence of vaginal Lactobacillus species does not contribute to a measureable difference in amniotic fluid lactate levels collected from the vaginal tract of laboring women.

INTRODUCTION: Amniotic fluid lactate research is based on the hypothesis that a relationship exists between fatigued uterine muscles and raised concentrations of the metabolite lactate, which is excreted into the amniotic fluid during labor. To assess potentially confounding effects of lactate-producing organisms on amniotic fluid lactate measurements, we aimed to determine if the presence of vaginal Lactobacillus species was associated with elevated levels of amniotic fluid lactate, measured from the vaginal tract of women in labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Results from this study contribute to a large prospective longitudinal study of amniotic fluid lactate at a teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. Amniotic fluid lactate measurement was assessed at the time of routine vaginal examination, after membranes had ruptured, using a hand-held lactate meter StatStripXPress (Nova Biomedical). Vaginal swab samples were collected at the time of the first amniotic fluid lactate measurement and stored for later detection and quantification of Lactobacillus species using a TaqMan real-time PCR assay. Swab sample and amniotic fluid lactate results were paired and analyzed. RESULTS: The PCR assay detected Lactobacillus species in 48 of 388 (12%) vaginal swab specimens (8% positive, 4% low positive) collected from women in labor after membranes had ruptured. There was no significant difference in median and mean (respectively) amniotic fluid lactate levels with (8.35 mmol/L; 8.95 mmol/L) or without (8.5 mmol/L; 9.08 mmol/L) Lactobacillus species detected. CONCLUSION: There was no association between the presence or level of vaginal Lactobacillus species and the measurement of amniotic fluid lactate collected from the vaginal tract of women during labor.

Women's experiences of transfer from primary maternity unit to tertiary hospital in New Zealand: part of the prospective cohort Evaluating Maternity Units study.

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide debate regarding the appropriateness and safety of different birthplaces for well women. The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study's primary objective was to compare clinical outcomes for well women intending to give birth in either a tertiary level maternity hospital or a freestanding primary level maternity unit. Little is known about how women experience having to change their birthplace plans during the antenatal period or before admission to a primary unit, or transfer following admission. This paper describes and explores women's experience of these changes-a secondary aim of the EMU study. METHODS: This paper utilised the six week postpartum survey data, from the 174 women from the primary unit cohort affected by birthplace plan change or transfer (response rate 73%). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The study was undertaken in Christchurch, New Zealand, which has an obstetric-led tertiary maternity hospital and four freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units (2010-2012). The 702 study participants were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these facilities, all of whom received continuity of midwifery care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: Of the women who had to change their planned place of birth or transfer the greatest proportion of women rated themselves on a Likert scale as unbothered by the move (38.6%); 8.8% were 'very unhappy' and 7.6% 'very happy' (quantitative analysis). Four themes were identified, using thematic analysis, from the open ended survey responses of those who experienced transfer: 'not to plan', control, communication and 'my midwife'. An interplay between the themes created a cumulatively positive or negative effect on their experience. Women's experience of transfer in labour was generally positive, and none expressed stress or trauma with transfer. CONCLUSIONS: The women knew of the potential for change or transfer, although it was not wanted or planned. When they maintained a sense control, experienced effective communication with caregivers, and support and information from their midwife, the transfer did not appear to be experienced negatively. The model of continuity of midwifery care in New Zealand appeared to mitigate the negative aspects of women's experience of transfer and facilitate positive birth experiences.

QF2011: a protocol to study the effects of the Queensland flood on pregnant women, their pregnancies, and their children's early development.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that maternal exposure to a severe stressor during pregnancy increases the fetus' risk for a variety of disorders in adulthood. Animal studies testing the fetal programming hypothesis find that maternal glucocorticoids pass through the placenta and alter fetal brain development, particularly the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. However, there are no prospective studies of pregnant women exposed to a sudden-onset independent stressor that elucidate the biopsychosocial mechanisms responsible for the wide variety of consequences of prenatal stress seen in human offspring. The aim of the QF2011 Queensland Flood Study is to fill this gap, and to test the buffering effects of Midwifery Group Practice, a form of continuity of maternity care. METHODS/DESIGN: In January 2011 Queensland, Australia had its worst flooding in 30 years. Simultaneously, researchers in Brisbane were collecting psychosocial data on pregnant women for a randomized control trial (the M@NGO Trial) comparing Midwifery Group Practice to standard care. We invited these and other pregnant women to participate in a prospective, longitudinal study of the effects of prenatal maternal stress from the floods on maternal, perinatal and early childhood outcomes. Data collection included assessment of objective hardship and subjective distress from the floods at recruitment and again 12 months post-flood. Biological samples included maternal bloods at 36 weeks pregnancy, umbilical cord, cord blood, and placental tissues at birth. Questionnaires assessing maternal and child outcomes were sent to women at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The protocol includes assessments at 16 months, 2½ and 4 years. Outcomes include maternal psychopathology, and the child's cognitive, behavioral, motor and physical development. Additional biological samples include maternal and child DNA, as well as child testosterone, diurnal and reactive cortisol. DISCUSSION: This prenatal stress study is the first of its kind, and will fill important gaps in the literature. Analyses will determine the extent to which flood exposure influences the maternal biological stress response which may then affect the maternal-placental-fetal axis at the biological, biochemical, and molecular levels, altering fetal development and influencing outcomes in the offspring. The role of Midwifery Group Practice in moderating effects of maternal stress will be tested.

Transfer from primary maternity unit to tertiary hospital in New Zealand - timing, frequency, reasons, urgency and outcomes: Part of the Evaluating Maternity Units study.

OBJECTIVES: to examine the transfers from primary maternity units to a tertiary hospital in New Zealand by describing the frequency, timing, reasons and outcomes of those who had antenatal or pre-admission birthplace plan changes, and transfers in labour or postnatally. DESIGN: mixed methods prospective (concurrent) cohort study, which analysed transfer and clinical outcome data (407 primary unit cohort, 285 tertiary hospital cohort), and data from the six week postpartum survey (571 respondents). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: well, pregnant women booked to give birth in a tertiary maternity hospital or primary maternity unit in one region in New Zealand (2010-2012). All women received midwifery continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: fewer than half of the women who planned a primary unit birth gave birth there (191 or 46.9%). A change of plan may have been made either antenatally or before admission in labour; and transfers were made after admission to the primary unit in labour or during the postnatal stay (about 48 hours). Of the 117 (28.5%) planning a primary unit birth who changed their planned birthplace type antenatally 73 (62.4%) were due to a clinical indication. Earthquakes accounted for 28.1% of birthplace change (during the research period major earthquakes occurred in the study region). Most (73.8%) labour changes occurred before admission in labour to the primary unit. For the 76 women who changed plan at this stage the most common reasons to do so were a rapid labour (25.0%) or prolonged rupture of membranes (23.7%). Transfers in labour from primary unit to tertiary hospital occurred for 27 women (12.6%) of whom 26 (96.3%) were having their first baby. "Slow progress" of labour accounted for 21 (77.8%) of these and 17 (62.9%) were classified as 'non-emergency'. The average transfer time for 'emergency' transfers was 58 minutes. The average time for all labour transfers from specialist consultation to birth was 4.5 hours. Nine postnatal transfers (maternal or neonatal) from a primary unit occurred (4.7%), making a total post-admission transfer rate of 17.3% for the primary unit cohort. KEY CONCLUSIONS: birthplace changes were not uncommon, with many women changing their birthplace plan antenatally or prior to admission in labour and some transferring between facilities during or soon after birth. Most changes were due to the development of complications or 'risk factors'. Most transfers were not urgent and took approximately one hour from the decision to arrival at the tertiary hospital. Despite the transfers the neonatal clinical outcomes were comparable between both primary and tertiary cohorts, and there was higher maternal morbidity in the tertiary cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: although the study size is relatively small, its comprehensive documentation of transfers has the potential to inform future research and the birthplace decision-making of childbearing women and midwives.

Women׳s birthplace decision-making, the role of confidence: Part of the Evaluating Maternity Units study, New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: to explore women׳s birthplace decision-making and identify the factors which enable women to plan to give birth in a freestanding midwifery-led primary level maternity unit rather than in an obstetric-led tertiary level maternity hospital in New Zealand. DESIGN: a mixed methods prospective cohort design. METHODS: data from eight focus groups (37 women) and a six week postpartum survey (571 women, 82%) were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. The qualitative data from the focus groups and survey were the primary data sources and were integrated at the analysis stage; and the secondary qualitative and quantitative data were integrated at the interpretation stage. SETTING: Christchurch, New Zealand, with one tertiary maternity hospital and four primary level maternity units (2010-2012). PARTICIPANTS: well (at 'low risk' of developing complications), pregnant women booked to give birth in one of the primary units or the tertiary hospital. All women received midwifery continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. FINDINGS: five core themes were identified: the birth process, women׳s self-belief in their ability to give birth, midwives, the health system and birth place. 'Confidence' was identified as the overarching concept influencing the themes. Women who chose to give birth in a primary maternity unit appeared to differ markedly in their beliefs regarding their optimal birthplace compared to women who chose to give birth in a tertiary maternity hospital. The women who planned a primary maternity unit birth expressed confidence in the birth process, their ability to give birth, their midwife, the maternity system and/or the primary unit itself. The women planning to give birth in a tertiary hospital did not express confidence in the birth process, their ability to give birth, the system for transfers and/or the primary unit as a birthplace, although they did express confidence in their midwife. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: birthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women׳s experience of childbirth. Birthplace decision-making is complex, in common with many other aspects of childbirth. A multiplicity of factors needs converge in order for all those involved to gain the confidence required to plan what, in this context, might be considered a 'countercultural' decision to give birth at a midwife-led primary maternity unit.

A validation study: assessing the reliability of the hand held StatStripXPress lactate meter to test lactate in amniotic fluid.

BACKGROUND: The level of lactate in amniotic fluid may provide useful clinical information when assessing whether a woman in labour is experiencing labour dystocia. If so, a rapid, reliable method to assess the concentration of amniotic fluid lactate at the bedside will be required in order to be clinically relevant. To assess efficacy, we compared the hand held StatStripXPreass lactate meter (Nova Biomedical) to the reference laboratory analyser ABX Pentra 400 (Horiba) in a controlled environment. Baseline biological lactate concentration was measured in triplicate and samples of a known quantity of thawed amniotic fluid spiked with lactate substrate (62 mmol/L) from the LDH12 kit (Roche, SUI) to yield a predetermined lactate concentration above baseline then measured in triplicate. Deming Regression was used to determine the linear agreement and a Bland Altman plot used to determine the paired agreement across the range of values. FINDINGS: The mean difference with Bland-Altman plot between hand held meter and lab instrument was -1.0 mmol/L (SD 3.0 mmol/L) with 95% CI limits of agreement between -6.9 mmol/L to 4.9 mmol/L. The Deming regression co-efficient or slope of agreement was 0.91 (SD of 0.21). CONCLUSION: The measurement of amniotic fluid lactate using the StatStripXPress hand held meter was reliable compared to reference laboratory methods for measuring lactate levels in amniotic fluid.

An exploration of influences on women's birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the Evaluating Maternity Units study.

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide debate surrounding the safety and appropriateness of different birthplaces for well women. One of the primary objectives of the Evaluating Maternity Units prospective cohort study was to compare the clinical outcomes for well women, intending to give birth in either an obstetric-led tertiary hospital or a free-standing midwifery-led primary maternity unit. This paper addresses a secondary aim of the study--to describe and explore the influences on women's birthplace decision-making in New Zealand, which has a publicly funded, midwifery-led continuity of care maternity system. METHODS: This mixed method study utilised data from the six week postpartum survey and focus groups undertaken in the Christchurch area in New Zealand (2010-2012). Christchurch has a tertiary hospital and four primary maternity units. The survey was completed by 82% of the 702 study participants, who were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these places. All women received midwifery-led continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace. RESULTS: Almost all the respondents perceived themselves as the main birthplace decision-makers. Accessing a 'specialist facility' was the most important factor for the tertiary hospital group. The primary unit group identified several factors, including 'closeness to home', 'ease of access', the 'atmosphere' of the unit and avoidance of 'unnecessary intervention' as important. Both groups believed their chosen birthplace was the right and 'safe' place for them. The concept of 'safety' was integral and based on the participants' differing perception of safety in childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: Birthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women's experience of childbirth. This is the first published study reporting New Zealand women's perspectives on their birthplace decision-making. The groups' responses expressed different ideologies about childbirth. The tertiary hospital group identified with the 'medical model' of birth, and the primary unit group identified with the 'midwifery model' of birth. Research evidence affirming the 'clinical safety' of primary units addresses only one aspect of the beliefs influencing women's birthplace decision-making. In order for more women to give birth at a primary unit other aspects of women's beliefs need addressing, and much wider socio-political change is required.

Maternal morbidity of women receiving birth center care in New South Wales: a matched-pair analysis using linked health data.

BACKGROUND: Around 2 percent of women who give birth in Australia each year do so in a birth center. New South Wales, Australia's largest state, accounts for almost half of these births. Previous studies have highlighted the need for better quality data on maternal morbidity and mortality, to fully evaluate the safety of birth center care. AIMS: This study aimed to examine maternal morbidity related to birth center care for women in New South Wales. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with matched-pairs was conducted using linked health data for New South Wales. Maternal outcomes were compared for women who intended to give birth in a birth center, matched with women who intended to give birth in the co-located hospital labor ward. RESULTS: Rates of maternal outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, and postpartum infection, were significantly lower in the birth center group, after controlling for demographic and institutional factors. Interventions such as cesarean section and episiotomy were also significantly lower in these women, and the rate of breastfeeding at discharge was higher. There existed no difference in length of stay, admission to ICU, or maternal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Birth centers are a safe option for low-risk women; however, further research is required for some rare maternal outcomes.

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care. METHODS: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'. RESULTS: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care. CONCLUSIONS: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. METHODS: In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. FINDINGS: Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

A pilot study to determine the feasibility of collecting amniotic fluid samples from women during labour and measuring amniotic fluid lactate at point of care.

BACKGROUND: The level of lactate in amniotic fluid may provide useful clinical information when assessing progress of a woman's labour and if so, a rapid, reliable method to assess amniotic fluid lactate is required in order to be clinically relevant. However, measuring lactate levels in amniotic fluid, using portable, handheld lactate meters may be less accurate than reference laboratory instruments designed to measure lactate levels in aqueous solutions. Prior to conducting a large study, we assessed recruitment, consent and sampling procedures, and the accuracy of a handheld lactate meter to measure lactate in amniotic fluid. We compared amniotic fluid lactate results obtained using the hand held Lactate Pro (Arkray) to results obtained using reference laboratory methods ABX Pentra 400 (Horiba). RESULTS: We recruited 35 nulliparous women during their antenatal hospital visits and tested amniotic fluid samples collected from 20 labouring women. The handheld Lactate Pro meter was found accurate from 9-20 mmol/L with a Passing & Bablok regression of y = 0.18 + 0.97x (95% CI 0.76-1.45). Amniotic fluid lactate results remained reliable in the presence of potential contaminants commonly encountered during labour; obstetric lubricant, blood and meconium. CONCLUSION: The measurement of amniotic fluid lactate using the Lactate Pro meter was reliable compared to reference laboratory methods for measuring lactate levels in amniotic fluid. The pilot study enabled the refinement of information, recruitment, consenting and sampling procedures prior to commencing a large cohort study.