Safety of non-medically led primary maternity care models: a critical review of the international literature
Meredith J. McIntyre
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia. Email: meredith.mcintyre@monash.edu
Australian Health Review 36(2) 140-147 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11039
Submitted: 29 April 2011 Accepted: 16 August 2011 Published: 25 May 2012
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2012
Abstract
The Australian government has announced major reforms with the move to a primary maternity care model. The direction of the reforms remains contentious; with the Australian Medical Association warning that the introduction of non-medically led services will compromise current high standards in maternity services and threaten the safety of mothers and babies. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical review of the literature to determine whether there is convincing evidence to support the safety of non-medically led models of primary maternity care. Twenty-two non-randomised international studies were included representing midwifery-led care, birth centre care and home birth. Comparative outcome measurements included: perinatal mortality; perinatal morbidity; rates of medical intervention in labour; and antenatal and intrapartum referral and transfer rates. Findings support those of the three Cochrane reviews, that there is sufficient international evidence to support the conclusion of no difference in outcomes associated with low risk women in midwifery-led, birth centre and home birth models compared with standard hospital or obstetric care. These findings are limited to services involving qualified midwives working within rigorous exclusion, assessment and referral guidelines, limiting the number of urgent intrapartum transfers that come with increased risk of perinatal mortality.
What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews of maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with midwifery-led care when compared to conventional intrapartum hospital care concluded that these non-medically led models of care are associated with several benefits for low risk women and their babies with no identified adverse effects.
What does this paper add? The finding of no difference in outcomes associated with midwifery-led, birth centre and home birth compared with standard hospital or obstetric care is limited to international studies involving women in the care of qualified midwives working within rigorous guidelines for practice involving inter-professionally agreed exclusion, assessment and referral criteria.
What are the implications for practitioners? Midwives caring for women in non-medically led models are urged to be vigilant to the need for early detection and prompt action in the event of unforseen complications to avoid an over emphasis on normality. This decreases the likelihood of urgent intrapartum transfers that come with an increased risk of perinatal mortality.
Additional keywords: antenatal and intrapartum transfer rates, birth centre, home birth, midwifery-led, perinatal mortality and morbidity.
References
[1] Improving maternity services in Australia; the report of the maternity services review. Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Health and Ageing. 2009.[2] Clifford T, Key B, Trudgen M, Reibel T. Submission to National Review of Maternity Services. 2008. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/maternityservicesreview-submissions.
[3] SA Birth Matters. SA Birth Matters: Submission to National Review of Maternity Services. 2008.
[4] Maternity Coalition. Maternity Coalition: Submission to the National Review of Maternity Services. 2008.
[5] Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health. Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health: Submission to the National Review of Maternity Services. 2008.
[6] Australian Medical Association. AMA: Submission to the National Review of Maternity Services. 2008.
[7] McIntyre M, Francis K, Chapman Y. National review of maternity services 2008; women influencing change. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11 1–10.
| National review of maternity services 2008; women influencing change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Australian College of Midwives. Australian College of Midwives: Submission to the National Review of Maternity Services. 2008.
[9] Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. RANZCOG: Submission to the National Review of Maternity Services. 2008.
[10] Lindgren H, Erlandsson K. Women’s experiences of empowerment in a planned home birth: a Swedish population-based study. Birth 2010; 37 309–17.
| Women’s experiences of empowerment in a planned home birth: a Swedish population-based study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Brown DM, Bruinsma F. Women’s views and experiences of postnatal hospital care in the Victorian Survey of Recent Mothers 2000. Midwifery 2005; 21 109–26.
| Women’s views and experiences of postnatal hospital care in the Victorian Survey of Recent Mothers 2000.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Brown DM, Bruinsma F. Having a baby in Victoria 1989–2000: continuity and change in the decade following the Victorian Ministerial Review of Birthing Services. Aust N Z J Public Health 2002; 26 242–50.
| Having a baby in Victoria 1989–2000: continuity and change in the decade following the Victorian Ministerial Review of Birthing Services.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] McLachlan HL, Gold L, Forster DA, Yelland J, Rayner J, Rayner S. Women’s views of postnatal care in the context of the increasing pressure on postnatal beds in Australia. Women and Birth 2009; 22 128–33.
| Women’s views of postnatal care in the context of the increasing pressure on postnatal beds in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Williams K, Lago L, Lainchbury A, Eager M. Mothers views of caseload midwifery and the value of continuity of care at an Australian regional hospital. Midwifery 2010; 26 615–21.
| Mothers views of caseload midwifery and the value of continuity of care at an Australian regional hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Sutherland G, Yelland J, Wiebe J, Kelly J, Marlowe P, Brown S. Role of general practitioners in primary maternity care in South Australia and Victoria. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49 637–41.
| Role of general practitioners in primary maternity care in South Australia and Victoria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D, Soltani H, Gates S. Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; Issue 4. Art No: CD004667
| Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] McIntyre MJ, Francis K, Chapman Y. Hidden costs associated with the universal application of risk management in maternity care. Aust Health Rev 2011; 35 211–5.
[18] Tracy SK, Dahlen H, Caplice S, Laws P, Wang YA, Tracy MB, Sullivan E. Birth centers in Australia: a national population-based study of perinatal mortality associated with giving birth in a birth center. Birth 2007; 34 194–201.
| Birth centers in Australia: a national population-based study of perinatal mortality associated with giving birth in a birth center.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Keirse MJNC. Home birth: gone away, gone astray, and here to stay. Birth 2010; 37 341–6.
| Home birth: gone away, gone astray, and here to stay.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[20] Amelink-Verburg MP, Rijnders MEB, Buitendijk SE. A trend analysis in referrals during pregnancy and labour in Dutch midwifery care 1988–2004. BJOG. 2009; 116 923–32.
| A trend analysis in referrals during pregnancy and labour in Dutch midwifery care 1988–2004.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1Mvhsl2qtw%3D%3D&md5=1860773c712a113a2190392c00167d03CAS |
[21] Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S, Hunter M, Benn C, Wilson D, Dixon L, Herbison P. Planned place of birth in New Zealand: does it affect mode of birth and intervention rates among low-risk women? Birth 2011; 38 111–119.
| Planned place of birth in New Zealand: does it affect mode of birth and intervention rates among low-risk women?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[22] Evers A, Bouwers H, van Egmond-Linden A, Hillegersberg J, Snuif Y, Sterken-Hooisma S, et al Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2010; 341 5639
| Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Amelink-Verburg MP, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Hakkenberg RMA, Veldhuijzen IME, Bennebroek Gravenhorst J, Buitendijk SE. Evaluation of 280 000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study. BJOG 2008; 115 570–8.
| Evaluation of 280 000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c7nsVOjsw%3D%3D&md5=2a45bf3c9b55a2d65cfe47362bc50682CAS |
[24] Symon AG, Paul J, Butchart M, Carr V, Dugard P. Self-rated ‘no-’ and ‘low-’ risk pregnancy: a comparison of outcomes for women in obstetric-led and midwife-led units in England. Birth 2007; 34 323–30.
| Self-rated ‘no-’ and ‘low-’ risk pregnancy: a comparison of outcomes for women in obstetric-led and midwife-led units in England.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Scherman S, Smith J, Davidson M. The first year of a midwifery-led model of care in Far North Queensland. Med J Aust 2008; 188 85–8.
[26] Laws PJ, Tracy SK, Sullivan EA. Perinatal outcomes of women intending to give birth in birth centers in Australia. Birth 2010; 37 28–36.
| Perinatal outcomes of women intending to give birth in birth centers in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Wax JR, Lucas F, Lamont M, Pinette MG, Cartin A, Blackstone J. Maternal and newborn morbidity by birth facility among selected United States 2006 low-risk births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 152
[28] Malloy MH. Infant outcomes of certified midwife attended home births: United States 2000 to 2004. J Perinatol 2010; 30 622–7.
| Infant outcomes of certified midwife attended home births: United States 2000 to 2004.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3cjnvFWisQ%3D%3D&md5=82d65286190f01a873115b087e04525dCAS |
[29] Gottvall K, Grunewald C, Waldenström U. Safety of birth centre care: perinatal mortality over a 10-year period. BJOG 2004; 111 71–8.
| Safety of birth centre care: perinatal mortality over a 10-year period.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[30] Gottvall K, Waldenström U, Tingstig C, Grunewald C.. In-hospital birth center with the same medical guidelines as standard care: a comparative study of obstetric interventions and outcomes. Birth 2011; 38 120–128.
| In-hospital birth center with the same medical guidelines as standard care: a comparative study of obstetric interventions and outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[31] Rogers C, Pickersgill J, Broadbent M. Informing choices: outcomes for women at a stand-alone birth centre. British Journal of Midwifery 2010; 18 8–15.
[32] Ryan M, Roberts C. A retrospective cohort study comparing the clinical outcomes of a birth centre and labour ward in the same hospital. Australian Midwifery Journal 2005; 18 17–21.
| A retrospective cohort study comparing the clinical outcomes of a birth centre and labour ward in the same hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[33] Johnson KC, Daviss B-A. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ 2005; 330 1416
| Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page L, Klein M, Liston RM, Lee K. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ 2009; 181 377–83.
| Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[35] Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2009; 36 180–9.
| Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[36] Wax JR, Lucas FL, Lamont M, Pinette MG, Cartin A, Blackstone J. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 243
| Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[37] Kennare RM, Keirse MJ, Tucker GR, Chan AC. Planned home and hospital births in South Australia, 1991–2006: differences in outcomes. Med J Aust 2010; 192 76–80.
[38] Lindgren H, Radestad I, Christensson K, Hildingsson I. Outcome of planned home birth compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population-based register study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica 2008; 87 751–9.
| Outcome of planned home birth compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population-based register study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[39] de Jonge A, van der Goes B, Ravelli A, Amelink-Verburg M, Mol B, Nijhuis J, et al Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529 688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG 2009; 116 1177–84.
| Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529 688 low-risk planned home and hospital births.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1Mrgt1SqtA%3D%3D&md5=d43d37454b07cbfaa1140fbb7032b102CAS |
[40] Janssen PA, Ryan E, Etches D, Klein M, Reime B. Outcomes of planned hospital birth attended by midwives compared with physicians in British Columbia. Birth 2007; 34 140–7.
| Outcomes of planned hospital birth attended by midwives compared with physicians in British Columbia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[41] Sandall J, Hatem M, Devane D, Soltani H, Gates S. Discussions of findings from a Cochrane review of midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women: continuity, normality and safety. Midwifery 2009; 25 8–13.
| Discussions of findings from a Cochrane review of midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women: continuity, normality and safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[42] Davey M-A, King JF. Perinatal outcomes in birth centers. Birth 2008; 35 85–6.
| Perinatal outcomes in birth centers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[43] Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D, Weston J. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; Issue 9. Art No: CD000012
| Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[44] Olsen O, Jewell D.. Home versus hospital birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; Issue 3. Art No: CD000352
| Home versus hospital birth.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[45] Laws P, Li Z, Sullivan E. Australia’s mothers and babies 2008. Canberra: AIHW; 2010. Perinatal statistic series no. 24. Cat. No. PER 50.
[46] Wax JR, Pinette MG, Cartin A. Home versus hospital birth—process and outcome. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 2010; 65 132–140.
| Home versus hospital birth—process and outcome.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[47] van Weel C, van der Velden K, Lagro-Janssen T. Home births revisited: the continuing search for better evidence. BJOG 2009; 116 1149–50.
| Home births revisited: the continuing search for better evidence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1Mrgt1Sqtw%3D%3D&md5=8278d268ad49950aaaa1e28757d94fe6CAS |
