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

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

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

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

Analysis of cesarean section rates in two German hospitals applying the 10-Group Classification System.

OBJECTIVES: In Germany, cesarean section (CS) rates more than doubled within the past two decades. For analysis, auditing and inter-hospital comparison, the 10-Group Classification System (TGCS) is recommended. We used the TGCS to analyze CS rates in two German hospitals of different levels of care. METHODS: From October 2017 to September 2018, data were prospectively collected. Unit A is a level three university hospital, unit B a level one district hospital. The German birth registry was used for comparison with national data. We performed two-sample Z tests and bootstrapping to compare aggregated (unit A + B) with national data and unit A with unit B. RESULTS: In both datasets (national data and aggregated data unit A + B), Robson group (RG) 5 was the largest contributor to the overall CS rate. Compared to national data, group sizes in RG 1 and 3 were significantly smaller in the units under investigation, RG 8 and 10 significantly larger. Total CS rates between the two units differed (40.7 vs. 28.4%, p<0.001). The CS rate in RG 5 and RG 10 was different (p<0.01 for both). The most relative frequent RG in both units consisted of group 5, followed by group 10 and 2a. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis allowed us to explain different CS rates with differences in the study population and with differences in the clinical practice. These results serve as a starting point for audits, inter-hospital comparisons and for interventions aiming to reduce CS rates.