The language of birth.

Our language both reflects and influences our attitudes and behavior. This Roundtable Discussion explores the language used in obstetrics and in the interactions between caregivers and women or their families: What do practitioners say to mothers and families during labor? At birth? In consultations? To describe what is happening? To encourage a woman's efforts? To lighten the atmosphere? When advising about possible interventions? Medical terminology in perinatal care can often be deceptive or confusing, not only for mothers but for caregivers. The authors of this Roundtable, representing health professionals from different specialties and interests in the field, have examined some examples of such language use, misuse, and abuse in perinatal care. (BIRTH 39:2 June 2012).

Labor pain management other than neuraxial: what do we know and where do we go next?

Analgesia and coping with labor pain can prevent suffering during childbirth. Nonpharmacologic methods help women manage labor pain. Strong evidence is available for the efficacy of continuous one-to-one support from a woman trained to provide nonmedical care during labor, immersion in warm water during first-stage labor, and sterile water injected intracutaneously or subcutaneously at locations near a woman's lumbosacral spine to reduce back-labor pain. Sterile water injections also reduce the incidence of cesarean deliveries. Nitrous oxide labor analgesia is not potent, but helps women relax, gives them a sense of control, and reduces and distracts their perception of pain. It is inexpensive; can be administered and discontinued safely, simply, and quickly; has no adverse effects on the normal physiology and progress of labor; and does not require intensive monitoring or co-interventions. Parenteral opioids provide mild-to-moderate labor pain relief, but cause side effects. Although observational studies have found associations between maternal use of opioids and neonatal complications, little higher level evidence is available except that meperidine is associated with low Apgar scores. Patient-controlled intravenous administration of remifentanil provides better analgesia and satisfaction than other opioids, but can cause severe side effects; continuous monitoring of arterial oxygen saturation, anesthesia supervision, one-to-one nursing, and availability of oxygen are recommended. The demand for inexpensive, simple, safe but effective labor pain management for women will undoubtedly increase in places that lack wide access to it now.

Safety and risks of nitrous oxide labor analgesia: a review.

INTRODUCTION: This review of the safety and risks of nitrous oxide (N(2) O) labor analgesia presents results of a search for evidence of its effects on labor, the mother, the fetus, the neonate, breastfeeding, and maternal-infant bonding. Concerns about apoptotic damage to the brains of immature mammals exposed to high doses of N(2) O during late gestation, possible cardiovascular risks from hyperhomocysteinemia caused by N(2) O, a hypothesis that children exposed to N(2) O during birth are more likely to become addicted to amphetamine drugs as adults, and possible occupational risks for those who provide care to women using N(2) O/O(2) labor analgesia are discussed in detail. METHODS: Research relevant to the 4 special concerns and to the effects of N(2) O analgesia on labor and the mother-child dyad were examined in depth. Three recent reviews of the biologic, toxicologic, anesthetic, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects of N(2) O; 3 reviews of the safety of 50% N(2) O/oxygen (O(2) ) in providing analgesia in a variety of health care settings; and a 2002 systematic review of N(2) O/O(2) labor analgesia were used. RESULTS: Nitrous oxide analgesia is safe for mothers, neonates, and those who care for women during childbirth if the N(2) O is delivered as a 50% blend with O(2) , is self-administered, and good occupational hygiene is practiced. Because of the strong correlation between dose and harm from exposure to N(2) O, concerns based on effects of long exposure to high anesthetic-level doses of N(2) O have only tenuous, hypothetical pertinence to the safety of N(2) O/O(2) labor analgesia. DISCUSSION: Nitrous oxide labor analgesia is safe for the mother, fetus, and neonate and can be made safe for caregivers. It is simple to administer, does not interfere with the release and function of endogenous oxytocin, and has no adverse effects on the normal physiology and progress of labor.

Oxytocin as a "high alert medication": a multilayered challenge to the status quo.

Oxytocin is the drug most commonly associated with preventable adverse perinatal outcomes. In 2007 it was added to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices short list of medications "bearing a heightened risk of harm," which may "require special safeguards to reduce the risk of error." In January 2009 the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a Clinical Opinion paper about oxytocin's inclusion on the list and how the obstetrics profession in the United States should respond. The authors call for the development of specific evidence-based guidelines to reduce the likelihood of patient harm by limiting elective use of oxytocin, decreasing the need for indicated use, reducing dosages during necessary use, giving more responsibility and authority for the patient's safety to the professional who is "at the bedside administering and monitoring the oxytocin infusion" (i.e., the nurse), and accepting that "more time rather than more oxytocin is generally preferable" once adequate uterine activity has been achieved. It is unfortunate that this important paper discounted the risk of harm from cesarean sections and did not mention the strong linkage between epidural analgesia and use of oxytocin. Physicians, midwives, nurses, and others should examine and discuss these issues further in view of increased alertness to the risk of harm from unsafe use of oxytocin.

Marginalization of midwives in the United States: new responses to an old story.

This column addresses issues raised by an intensive study of the circumstances and actions that resulted in the closure of two long-standing, successful nurse-midwifery services in a large United States city in 2003. Dr. Steffie Goodman of the School of Nursing, University of Colorado Health Science Center in Denver, USA, conducted 52 in-depth interviews with midwives, nurses, administrators, childbirth educators, policymakers, and physicians in an effort to understand how and why these two services were closed and what their closures revealed about the general underutilization of midwives in contemporary U.S. health care. Goodman concluded that economics, power, and authority converge in a way that allows persons in positions of institutional power and authority to make self-serving decisions that diminish access to midwifery services and that they can do so without any public accountability for their actions.

Why do women go along with this stuff?

PREFACE: Normal childbirth has become jeopardized by inexorably rising interventions around the world. In many countries and settings, cesarean surgery, labor induction, and epidural analgesia continue to increase beyond all precedent, and without convincing evidence that these actions result in improved outcomes (1,2). Use of electronic fetal monitoring is endemic, despite evidence of its ineffectiveness and consequences for most parturients (1,3); ultrasound examinations are too often done unnecessarily, redundantly, or for frivolous rather than indicated reasons (4); episiotomies are still routine in many settings despite clear evidence that this surgery results in more harm than good (5); and medical procedures, unphysiological positions, pubic shaving and enemas, intravenous lines, enforced fasting, drugs, and early mother-infant separation are used unnecessarily (1). Clinicians write and talk about the ideal of evidence-based obstetrics, but do not practice it consistently, if at all. Why do women go along with this stuff? In this Roundtable Discussion, Part 2, we asked some maternity care professionals and advocates to discuss this question.

Results of the national study of vaginal birth after cesarean in birth centers.

OBJECTIVE: Some women wish to avoid a repeat cesarean delivery and believe that a midwife-supported vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in a nonhospital setting represents their best chance to do so; there is a small, persistent demand for out-of-hospital VBACs. We conducted a study to obtain the data necessary to formulate an evidence-based policy on this practice. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on pregnancy outcomes of 1,913 women intending to attempt VBACs in 41 participating birth centers between 1990 and 2000. RESULTS: A total of 1,453 of the 1,913 women presented to the birth center in labor. Twenty-four percent of them were transferred to hospitals during labor; 87% of these had vaginal births. There were 6 uterine ruptures (0.4%), 1 hysterectomy (0.1%), 15 infants with 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7 (1.0%), and 7 fetal/neonatal deaths (0.5%). Most fetal deaths (5/7) occurred in women who did not have uterine ruptures. Half of uterine ruptures and 57% of perinatal deaths involved the 10% of women with more than 1 previous cesarean delivery or who had reached a gestational age of 42 weeks. Rates of uterine rupture and fetal/neonatal death were 0.2% each in women with neither of these risks. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of vaginal births and few uterine ruptures among women attempting VBACs in birth centers, a cesarean-scarred uterus was associated with increases in complications that require hospital management. Therefore, birth centers should refer women who have undergone previous cesarean deliveries to hospitals for delivery. Hospitals should increase access to in-hospital care provided by midwife/obstetrician teams during VBACs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The nature and management of labor pain: executive summary.

This report describes the background and process for a rigorous project to improve understanding of labor pain and its management, and summarizes the main results and their implications. Labor pain and methods to relieve it are major concerns of childbearing women, with considerable implications for the course, quality, outcome, and cost of intrapartum care. Although these issues affect many women and families and have major consequences for health care systems, both professional and public discourse reveal considerable uncertainty about many questions, including major areas of disagreement. An evidence-based framework, including commissioned papers prepared according to carefully specified scopes and guidelines for systematic review methods, was used to develop more definitive and authoritative answers to many questions in this field. The papers were presented at an invitational symposium jointly sponsored by the Maternity Center Association and the New York Academy of Medicine, were peer-reviewed, and are published in full in this issue of the journal. The results have implications for policy, practice, research, and the education of both health professionals and childbearing women.