Search

'Medical iatrogenesis' was first defined by Illich as injuries 'done to patients by ineffective, unsafe, and erroneous treatments'. Following Lokumage's original usage of the term, this paper explores 'obstetric iatrogenesis' along a spectrum ranging from unintentional harm (UH) to overt disrespect, violence, and abuse (DVA), employing the acronym 'UHDVA' for this spectrum. This paper draws attention to the systemic maltreatment rooted in the technocratic model of birth, which includes UH normalized forms of mistreatment that childbearers and providers may not recognize as abusive. Equally, this paper assesses how obstetric iatrogenesis disproportionately impacts Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), contributing to worse perinatal outcomes for BIPOC childbearers. Much of the work on 'obstetric violence' that documents the most detrimental end of the UHDVA spectrum has focused on low-to-middle income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Based on a dataset of 62 interviews and on our personal observations, this paper shows that significant UHDVA also occurs in the high-income U.S., provide concrete examples, and suggest humanistic solutions.

Background: Fetal macrosomia is associated with negative outcomes, although less is known about how severities of macrosomia influence these outcomes. Planned community births in the United States have higher rates of gestational age-adjusted macrosomia than planned hospital births, providing a novel population to examine macrosomia morbidity., Methods: Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with grade 1 (4000-4499 g), grade 2 (4500-4999 g), and grade 3 (≥5000 g) macrosomia were compared to normal birthweight newborns (2500-3999 g), using data from the MANA Statistics Project-a registry of planned community births, 2012-2018 (n = 68 966). Outcomes included perineal trauma, postpartum hemorrhage, cesarean birth, neonatal birth injury, shoulder dystocia, neonatal respiratory distress, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay >24 hours, and perinatal death. Logistic regressions controlled for parity and mode of birth, obesity, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia., Results: Sixteen percent of the sample were grade 1 macrosomic, 3.3% were grade 2 macrosomic, and 0.4% were grade 3 macrosomic. Macrosomia grades 1-3 were associated in a dose-response fashion with higher odds of all outcomes, compared to non-macrosomia. The adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for postpartum hemorrhage for grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 macrosomia vs normal birthweight were 1.75 (1.56-1.96), 2.12 (1.70-2.63), and 5.18 (3.47-7.74), respectively. Other outcomes had similar patterns., Discussion: The adjusted odds of negative outcomes increase as grade of macrosomia increases in planned community births; results are comparable with the published literature. Pre-birth fetal weight estimation is imprecise; prenatal supports and shared decision-making processes should reflect these complexities., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

There has been a small, but significant, increase in community births (home and birth-center births) in the United States in recent years. The rate increased by 20% from 2004 to 2008, and another 59% from 2008 to 2012, though the overall rate is still low at less than 2%. Although the United States is not the only country with a large majority of births occurring in the hospital, there are other high-resource countries where home and birth-center birth are far more common and where community midwives (those attending births at home and in birth centers) are far more central to the provision of care. In many such countries, the differences in perinatal outcomes between hospital and community births are small, and there are lower rates of maternal morbidity in the community setting. In the United States, perinatal mortality appears to be higher for community births, though there has yet to be a national study comparing outcomes across settings that controls for planned place of birth. Rates of intervention, including cesarean delivery, are significantly higher in hospital births in the United States. Compared with the United States, countries that have higher rates of community births have better integrated systems with clearer national guidelines governing risk criteria and planned birth location, as well as transfer to higher levels of care. Differences in outcomes, systems, approaches, and client motivations are important to understand, because they are critical to the processes of person-centered care and to risk reduction across all birth settings.

Background: Approximately 22% of women in the United States live in rural areas with limited access to obstetric care. Despite declines in hospital-based obstetric services in many rural communities, midwifery care at home and in free standing birth centers is available in many rural communities. This study examines maternal and neonatal outcomes among planned home and birth center births attended by midwives, comparing outcomes for rural and nonrural women., Methods: Using the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 dataset of 18 723 low-risk, planned home, and birth center births, rural women (n = 3737) were compared to nonrural women. Maternal outcomes included mode of delivery (cesarean and instrumental delivery), blood transfusions, severe events, perineal lacerations, or transfer to hospital and a composite (any of the above). The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of early neonatal intensive care unit or hospital admissions (longer than 1 day), and intrapartum or neonatal deaths. Analysis involved multivariable logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographics, antepartum, and intrapartum risk factors., Results: Rural women had different risk profiles relative to nonrural women and reduced risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in bivariable analyses. However, after adjusting for risk factors and confounders, there were no significant differences for a composite of maternal (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.05 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.93-1.19]) or neonatal (aOR 1.13 [95% CI 0.87-1.46]) outcomes between rural and nonrural pregnancies., Conclusion: Among this sample of low-risk women who planned midwife-led community births, no increased risk was detected by rural vs nonrural status., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Data on the safety of waterbirth in the United States are lacking., Methods: We used data from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, birth years 2004 to 2009. We compared outcomes of neonates born underwater waterbirth (n = 6534), neonates not born underwater nonwaterbirth (n = 10,290), and neonates whose mothers intended a waterbirth but did not have one intended waterbirth (n = 1573). Neonatal outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 7, neonatal hospital transfer, and hospitalization or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the first 6 weeks. Maternal outcomes included genital tract trauma, postpartum hospital transfer, and hospitalization or infection (uterine, endometrial, perineal) in the first 6 weeks. We used logistic regression for all analyses, controlling for primiparity., Results: Waterbirth neonates experienced fewer negative outcomes than nonwaterbirth neonates: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hospital transfer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68; P < .001); the aOR for infant hospitalization in the first 6 weeks was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P < .001); and the aOR for NICU admission was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001). By comparison, neonates in the intended waterbirth group experienced more negative outcomes than the nonwaterbirth group, although only 5-minute Apgar score was significant (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.93; P < 0001). For women, waterbirth (compared to nonwaterbirth) was associated with fewer postpartum transfers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P = .001) and hospitalizations in the first 6 weeks (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P < 0.001) but with an increased odds of genital tract trauma (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P = .002). Waterbirth was not associated with maternal infection. Women in the intended waterbirth group had increased odds for all maternal outcomes compared to women in the nonwaterbirth group, although only genital tract trauma was significant (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87; P < .001)., Discussion: Waterbirth confers no additional risk to neonates; however, waterbirth may be associated with increased risk of genital tract trauma for women., (© 2016 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

Introduction: This article describes the process of developing consensus on a definition of, and best practices for, normal physiologic birth in the United States. Evidence supports the use of physiologic birth practices, yet a working definition of this term has been elusive., Methods: We began by convening a task force of 21 individuals from 3 midwifery organizations and various childbirth advocacy and consumer groups. A modified Delphi approach was utilized to achieve consensus around 2 research questions: 1) What is normal physiologic birth? and 2) What practices most effectively support its achievement? Answers to these questions were collected anonymously from task force members during multiple phases that included a preliminary briefing, an initial face-to-face roundtable, 9 iterative Delphi rounds, and reciprocal feedback from a wider audience of stakeholders at national and international conferences. Content analysis identified specific statements and concepts in the first Delphi round, which were subsequently ranked in following rounds. An initial draft was constructed based on the priorities that emerged and presented for feedback to peers and childbirth advocates whose comments were incorporated into the final document., Results: Four key themes were identified from our initial questions; these provided the framework for the document: 1) definitions of normal physiologic birth, 2) mechanisms and outcomes of normal physiologic birth, 3) factors that influence normal physiologic birth, and 4) recommendations for increasing normal physiologic birth. These areas comprised the final sections in the multi-organizational consensus statement., Discussion: The modified Delphi approach we employed allowed for the development of a consensus statement that will serve as a template for education, practice, and future research in maternity care. The completion of this statement marks the beginning of a project to promote systemic changes that support normal physiologic birth, and thus, have the potential to improve outcomes for mothers and infants., (© 2015 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

Women's heightened interest in choice of birthplace and increased rates of planned home birth in the United States have been well documented, yet there remains significant public and professional debate about the ethics of planned home birth in jurisdictions where care is not clearly integrated across birth settings. Simultaneously, the quality of interprofessional interactions is recognized as a predictor of health outcomes during obstetric events. When care is transferred across birth settings, confusion and conflict among providers with respect to roles and responsibilities can adversely affect both outcomes and the experience of care for women and newborns. This article reviews findings of recent North American studies that examine provider attitudes toward planned home birth, differing concepts of safety of birthplace as reported by women and providers, and sources of conflict among maternity care providers during transfer from home to hospital. Emerging evidence and clinical exemplars can inform the development of systems for seamless transfer of women and newborns from planned home births to hospital and improve experience and perceptions of safety among families and providers. Three successful models in the United States that have enhanced multidisciplinary cooperation and coordination of care across birth settings are described. Finally, best practice guidelines for roles, communication, and mutual accommodation among all participating providers when transfer occurs are introduced. Research, health professional education, and policy recommendations for incorporation of key components into existing health care systems in the United States are included., (© 2014 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

Introduction: Between 2004 and 2010, the number of home births in the United States rose by 41%, increasing the need for accurate assessment of the safety of planned home birth. This study examines outcomes of planned home births in the United States between 2004 and 2009., Methods: We calculated descriptive statistics for maternal demographics, antenatal risk profiles, procedures, and outcomes of planned home births in the Midwives Alliance of North American Statistics Project (MANA Stats) 2.0 data registry. Data were analyzed according to intended and actual place of birth., Results: Among 16,924 women who planned home births at the onset of labor, 89.1% gave birth at home. The majority of intrapartum transfers were for failure to progress, and only 4.5% of the total sample required oxytocin augmentation and/or epidural analgesia. The rates of spontaneous vaginal birth, assisted vaginal birth, and cesarean were 93.6%, 1.2%, and 5.2%, respectively. Of the 1054 women who attempted a vaginal birth after cesarean, 87% were successful. Low Apgar scores (< 7) occurred in 1.5% of newborns. Postpartum maternal (1.5%) and neonatal (0.9%) transfers were infrequent. The majority (86%) of newborns were exclusively breastfeeding at 6 weeks of age. Excluding lethal anomalies, the intrapartum, early neonatal, and late neonatal mortality rates were 1.30, 0.41, and 0.35 per 1000, respectively., Discussion: For this large cohort of women who planned midwife-led home births in the United States, outcomes are congruent with the best available data from population-based, observational studies that evaluated outcomes by intended place of birth and perinatal risk factors. Low-risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes., (© 2014 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)