Student-led antenatal classes: A partnership pilot project.

A pilot student-led antenatal classes project was developed in partnership with undergraduate midwifery students. The practice-based project was held at a local hospital, where students developed and facilitated programmes of antenatal education for the local community. The project improved the opportunity for lecturers to engage with students in the practice environment. Students valued being able to focus on normal midwifery in year two of the degree programme, by developing and leading antenatal classes. This paper is focused on the development of the project.

Exploration of preterm birth rates associated with different models of antenatal midwifery care in Scotland: Unmatched retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES: preterm birth represents a significant personal, clinical, organisational and financial burden. Strategies to reduce the preterm birth rate have had limited success. Limited evidence indicates that certain antenatal care models may offer some protection, although the causal mechanism is not understood. We sought to compare preterm birth rates for mixed-risk pregnant women accessing antenatal care organised at a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU) and mixed-risk pregnant women attending an obstetric unit (OU) with related community-based antenatal care. METHODS: unmatched retrospective 4-year Scottish cohort analysis (2008-2011) of mixed-risk pregnant women accessing (i) FMU antenatal care (n=1107); (ii) combined community-based and OU antenatal care (n=7567). Data were accessed via the Information and Statistics Division of the NHS in Scotland. Aggregates analysis and binary logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts׳ rates of preterm birth; and of spontaneous labour onset, use of pharmacological analgesia, unassisted vertex birth, and low birth weight. Odds ratios were adjusted for age, parity, deprivation score and smoking status in pregnancy. FINDINGS: after adjustment the 'mixed risk' FMU cohort had a statistically significantly reduced risk of preterm birth (5.1% [n=57] versus 7.7% [n=583]; AOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.55-0.98]; p=0.034). Differences in these secondary outcome measures were also statistically significant: spontaneous labour onset (FMU 83.9% versus OU 74.6%; AOR 1.74 [95% CI 1.46-2.08]; p<0.001); minimal intrapartum analgesia (FMU 53.7% versus OU 34.4%; AOR 2.17 [95% CI 1.90-2.49]; p<0.001); spontaneous vertex delivery (FMU 71.9% versus OU 63.5%; AOR 1.46 [95% CI 1.32-1.78]; p<0.001). Incidence of low birth weight was not statistically significant after adjustment for other variables. There was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal or neonatal death. CONCLUSIONS: given this study׳s methodological limitations, we can only claim associations between the care model and or chosen outcomes. Although both cohorts were mixed risk, differences in risk levels could have contributed to these findings. Nevertheless, the significant difference in preterm birth rates in this study resonates with other research, including the recent Cochrane review of midwife-led continuity models. Because of the multiplicity of risk factors for preterm birth we need to explore the salient features of the FMU model which may be contributing to this apparent protective effect. Because a randomised controlled trial would necessarily restrict choice to pregnant women, we feel that this option is problematic in exploring this further. We therefore plan to conduct a prospective matched cohort analysis together with a survey of unit practices and experiences.

Examining autonomy's boundaries: a follow-up review of perinatal mortality cases in UK independent midwifery.

BACKGROUND: An earlier matched cohort study in the United Kingdom found a significantly higher perinatal mortality rate for births booked under an independent midwife compared with births in National Health Service units (1.7% [25/1,508] vs 0.6% [45/7,366]). This study examined independent midwives' management and decision making in the 15 instances of perinatal death that occurred at term. METHODS: Thematic analysis of independent midwives' case notes was performed in instances of perinatal mortality. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the midwives concerned. RESULTS: Home birth was attempted in 13 of the 15 cases. Significant (often multiple) antenatal risk factors were identified in 13 cases, including twin pregnancy, planned vaginal births after cesarean section, breech presentations, and maternal illness. Several women had declined some or all routine antenatal screening. Three deaths occurred before labor onset. Postmortem results were known in only four cases; many causes of death remained unexplained. Professional consensus was that seven deaths were unpreventable; elective cesarean section may have changed the outcome in eight cases. However, the pregnant women had declined this option; some were reported to be avoiding National Health Service care because of previous bad experiences. Transfer to hospital care, when it occurred, was often problematic. Care management was judged to be clinically acceptable within the parameters set by the mothers' choices. CONCLUSIONS: Information about clinical processes (and outcomes) is essential if informed decisions are to be made. The women in this review had reportedly accepted the potential consequences of their high-risk situations. If reality is to match rhetoric about "patient" autonomy, such decision making in high-risk situations must be accepted.

Outcomes for births booked under an independent midwife and births in NHS maternity units: matched comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes between women employing an independent midwife and comparable pregnant women using NHS services. DESIGN: Anonymised matched cohort analysis. Cases from the database of the Independent Midwives' Association (IMA) matched up to 1:5 with Scottish National Health Service (NHS) records for age, parity, year of birth, and socioeconomic status. Multivariable logistic regression models used to explore the relation between explanatory variables and outcomes; analyses controlled for potential confounding factors and adjusted for stratification. SETTING: UK databases 2002-5. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymised records for 8676 women (7214 NHS; 1462 IMA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unassisted vertex delivery, live birth, perinatal death, onset of labour, gestation, use of analgesia, duration of labour, perineal trauma, Apgar scores, admission to neonatal intensive care, infant feeding. RESULTS: IMA cohort mothers were significantly more likely to achieve an unassisted vertex delivery than NHS cohort mothers (77.9% (1139) v 54.3% (3918); odds ratio 3.49, 95% confidence interval 2.99 to 4.07) but also significantly more likely to experience a stillbirth or a neonatal death (1.7% (25) v 0.6% (46); 5.91, 3.27 to 10.7). All odds ratios are adjusted for confounding factors. Exclusion of "high risk" cases from both cohorts showed a non-significant difference (0.5% (5) v 0.3% (18); 2.73, 0.87 to 8.55); the "low risk" IMA perinatal mortality rate is comparable with other studies of low risk births. Women in the IMA cohort had a higher incidence of pre-existing medical conditions (1.5% (22) v 1.0% (72) in the NHS cohort) and previous obstetric complications (21.0% (307) v 17.8% (1284)). The incidence of twin pregnancy was also higher (3.4% (50) v 3.1% (224)). In the IMA cohort, 66.0% of mothers (965/1462) had home births, compared with only 0.4% of NHS cohort mothers (27/7214). Spontaneous onset of labour was more common in the IMA group (96.6% (1405) v 74.5% (5365); 10.43, 7.74 to 14.0), and fewer mothers used pharmacological analgesia (40.2% (588) v 60.6% (4370); 0.42, 0.38 to 0.47). Mothers in the IMA cohort were much more likely to breast feed (88.0% (1286) v 64.0% (2759); 3.46, 2.84 to 4.20). Prematurity (4.3% (63) v 6.9% (498); 0.49, 0.35 to 0.69), low birth weight (4.0% (60) v 7.1%) (523); 0.93, 0.62 to 1.38), and rate of admission to neonatal intensive care (4.4% (65) v 9.3% (667); 0.43, 0.32 to 0.59) were all higher in the NHS dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare policy tries to direct patient choice towards clinically appropriate and practicable options; nevertheless, pregnant women are free to make decisions about birth preferences, including place of delivery and staff in attendance. While clinical outcomes across a range of variables were significantly better for women accessing an independent midwife, the significantly higher perinatal mortality rates for high risk cases in this group indicate an urgent need for a review of these cases. The significantly higher prematurity and admission rates to intensive care in the NHS cohort also indicate an urgent need for review.