New study showing homebirth increases risk of nenonatal death. Thoughts? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 01:49 PM
 
*MamaJen*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've read the full study and posted my thoughts about it. (I'm not a professional statistician, but I am studying it at the graduate level.) There were 12 studies amounting to 342,056 homebirths. Most of those came from a recent large-scale Dutch study. A very large portion of the data, when you eliminate the large Dutch study, came from two outdated and/or badly designed studies -- rural western Australia in the 1980s, and birth certificates in Washington state. They also didn't include the north American midwife study.
They also used a very small portion of the data, just five percent, to break out that triple neonatal mortality rate. I believe that they did it this way because some studies expressed the mortality rate as perinatal deaths and some of the other studies expressed it as neonatal deaths. The Dutch study had 300,000 + homebirths, and the perinatal death rate in this study (which showed similar safety to hospital births) had 300,000+ homebirths it pulled from. The neonatal death rate came from just 15,000 births.
So I'm assuming -- and they never actually say which studies were used to generate the neonatal deaths, so this is just an assumption -- I'm assuming that they pulled the perinatal death rate from the Dutch study and a few others, and the neonatal death rate from the remainder of the studies. But we don't know which studies. The way they aggregated their data is exceptionally murky.
If it shows that births in rural Australia in the 1980s had a high neonatal mortality rate, I don't find that relevant to our current situation in the UK, Canada or most of the U.S.
Here's my thoughts on it: It is a tragedy when any baby dies, and it is especially a tragedy when a baby dies from malpractice, at home or in the hospital. I want American midwifery to be legalized, regulated and monitored, because I think that produces the best safety outcomes. I believe American midwifery could be safer, both in the states where it's not yet legislated, and in the states where it is legal. But I believe that overall, knowing that birth anywhere always carries risk, homebirth with a qualified provider, in a low risk pregnancy, and with systems in place in case of transfer, is relatively safe. I believe it carries a different set of risks than hospital birth.
I also believe that there are so many things that are deeply wrong and non-evidence based with the way babies are born in hospitals today. Mothers are put through a huge amount of unnecessary morbidity, injury and trauma because so many practices are not evidence based. I truly, in my heart, believe that the state of obstetrics in America today is a violation of human rights.
Would less babies die if we gave every single pregnant woman a C-section at 38 or 39 weeks? Possibly. You could make a case that doing that would actually reduce the total rate of infant mortality. However, you would wind up with a whole lot of other costs -- actual financial costs to taxpayers and insurers, as well as health costs to the mother, and emotional costs. Is it worth it to give 5,000 women unnecessary C-sections to save one baby? That's the way that you have to think about it if you're looking at it from a true public health perspective.

Jen, journalist, policy wonk, and formerly a proud single mama to my sweet little man Cyrus, born at home Dec. 2007 . Now married to my Incredibly Nice Guy and new mama to baby Arthur.
*MamaJen* is offline  
#62 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 01:58 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by *MamaJen* View Post
Here's my thoughts on it: It is a tragedy when any baby dies, and it is especially a tragedy when a baby dies from malpractice, at home or in the hospital. I want American midwifery to be legalized, regulated and monitored, because I think that produces the best safety outcomes. I believe American midwifery could be safer, both in the states where it's not yet legislated, and in the states where it is legal. But I believe that overall, knowing that birth anywhere always carries risk, homebirth with a qualified provider, in a low risk pregnancy, and with systems in place in case of transfer, is relatively safe. I believe it carries a different set of risks than hospital birth.
re: the bold. Does that mean you also support forcing high-risk women into hospital-based care with an OB? That seems to a sentiments that's popping up here a lot, and I want to make sure I'm reading it right.

The only thing that made me high-risk was the fact that an OB cut me open, after I'd said "no" when I was 24 years old. That was it. I've never had a single health problem during pregnancy - not once, not ever. Even the death of Aaron was more complicated than it would look in studies (contributing factors included the fact that my labour stalled when CPS* intake worker showed up at my front door while I was naked in a birth pool in my living room). So, because I'd been...well, basically assaulted...by an OB once, I should have no legal choices, except to subject myself to that again, or not have any more kids?

I'm just trying to clarify if we're really saying that we want to protect women, babies and midwives, by forcing certain women into hospitals, because that's what it sounds like.



*They're not called CPS here, but I don't know the current name of the agency and I figure everyone here understands "CPS".

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#63 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 02:08 PM
 
*MamaJen*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
re: the bold. Does that mean you also support forcing high-risk women into hospital-based care with an OB? That seems to a sentiments that's popping up here a lot, and I want to make sure I'm reading it right.
Absolutely not. I believe in a woman's determination over her own body. But things like twins, breech, high blood pressure, HBAC/VBAC etc add additional risk to homebirth. I passionately believe in the concept of informed consent. I think women deserve to have an accurate assessment of those risks, and make their own decision. And of course, a midwife would choose or not choose to attend that birth.
The problem is that I really don't think we have clear information on what that risk is. Is it one in a hundred? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand? It's hard to do risk assessment when you don't have good information. 100 percent chance of a C-section in the hospital, with all the related risks or a ...what? chance of a bad outcome at home.
If I was carrying twins or a breech baby or something similar, I would spend a long time on the decision making process, and honestly I don't know which birth setting I would wind up choosing, but I would still want to have the right to make that decision.
I know the state does things to legislate safety. We have to wear seatbelts, only surgeons can perform surgery, etc. Depending on the level of risk, I think reasonable people could disagree on whether or not midwifes should be prohibited from attending "high risk births" (and just defining that would be a huge effort.) I personally don't think midwives should be prohibited from, say, delivering a breech baby, though there are reasonable arguments to be made for the other side.

Jen, journalist, policy wonk, and formerly a proud single mama to my sweet little man Cyrus, born at home Dec. 2007 . Now married to my Incredibly Nice Guy and new mama to baby Arthur.
*MamaJen* is offline  
#64 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 02:11 PM
 
triscuitsmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Between Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 1,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
Punching some stuff into a database sounds good...but I'd want to see some really serious measures in place to ensure accuracy.
I agree. Even if it were doable I don't think it's ever going to be truly accurate... and if it's not truly accurate then what is the point?

I have the long form birth certificate for my oldest son. It lists the "details" of birth. Here we fill out the form ourselves, and I did it online and I'm 100% sure that *I* didn't make any mistakes as I still have the print out confirmation. There is also the same information sent in by the care provider.

The doctor listed on his form as the delivering attendant I never even met. It is quite possible that it was one of the OBs on call that day, but I have the names written down of the attending OB, the resident who actually caught him, plus my own midwife and none of those people is on the birth certificate as the delivering attendant. So if we were doing statistics by care provider my statistics for his birth (vaginal, no episiotomy or tearing, healthy baby with good APGARs, no forceps etc etc) would be going under someone who was definitely not even in the room.

Plus his gestational length was wrong. He was born at 43 weeks, 2 days. It *is* possible that I ovulated a day or even a couple of days later as I wasn't tracking that. But there was *one* experience where I could've gotten pregnant. We're talking months before that if it wasn't then. And after he was born before I could've gotten pregnant after that one time. But his birth certificate says 40 weeks, 3 days. Why does it say that? Because a (non first trimester) ultrasound said I couldn't possibly be as far along as I was. Despite the fact that I was a sexual assault survivor who was not partnered. I'm not guessing what lead to his conception. And yet I had an OB look me in the eye and say "Sometimes women are wrong about these things, you just don't understand." And my hospital records say that "Patient presented thinking she was 43 weeks but she was wrong about her dates and they were adjusted to reflect 40 weeks". (not that exact wording but you get the point)

I have no confidence that you can get truly accurate statistics for stuff like this. There are just too many variables involved I think.

ETA: I meant to also say that he was a 43 weeker who was healthy. No breathing problems, APGARS were 8/9/9. Strong all through labour. There *are* risks to going to 43 weeks. But he is an example of a baby who was fine. Better than fine even. But he's not included in the statistics for truly postdates babies as a success because an OB that believes in an inexact science (ultrasound) above all else.

Alison
Mama to Toad (08/06), Frog (01/09)... and new baby Newt born on his due date, Sep. 8, 2010
triscuitsmom is offline  
#65 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 02:12 PM
 
*MamaJen*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, yeah. I've mentioned this before, but I want to stress again that this study showed a 9.3 percent C-section rate.
In America nowadays, it's what, 32.5 percent?
I think that's just another indication of how this study doesn't portray our current reality.

Jen, journalist, policy wonk, and formerly a proud single mama to my sweet little man Cyrus, born at home Dec. 2007 . Now married to my Incredibly Nice Guy and new mama to baby Arthur.
*MamaJen* is offline  
#66 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 02:30 PM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by *MamaJen* View Post
Oh, yeah. I've mentioned this before, but I want to stress again that this study showed a 9.3 percent C-section rate.
In America nowadays, it's what, 32.5 percent?
I think that's just another indication of how this study doesn't portray our current reality.
Exactly. And here it's at over 39% just at the local hospital. I just want to give a big to you, Jen. This study is seriously flawed in every way. And everyone keeps concentrating on homebirth mortality but ignoring the tripling of neonatal and maternal death rates from c-sections which happen in hospital and the many many deaths and complications from hospital births. My son was one of those (he luckily lived, but no thanks to the hospital which made the complications). Everything has risks in life-I just wish that American midwives were covered by insurance, regulated and certified, and made more available for women both in hospital and in home.

Storm Bride, I agree with you, too. I did not have a c-section, though they tried their hardest to force me-thank the gods for parents who threaten litigation when you're too exhausted to think and surgeons who are decent human beings and not the "cut em open no matter what" type. But since I had a myomectomy, I have had to fight literally tooth and nail for a decade now because of our screwed up system. I've been mistreated, assaulted during birth even after refusing things...for me the only safe place,except for arising complications, obviously, is out of hospital. Because I know what it's like to be treated less than human otherwise.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#67 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 02:42 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by *MamaJen* View Post
Absolutely not. I believe in a woman's determination over her own body. But things like twins, breech, high blood pressure, HBAC/VBAC etc add additional risk to homebirth. I passionately believe in the concept of informed consent. I think women deserve to have an accurate assessment of those risks, and make their own decision. And of course, a midwife would choose or not choose to attend that birth.
The problem is that I really don't think we have clear information on what that risk is. Is it one in a hundred? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand? It's hard to do risk assessment when you don't have good information. 100 percent chance of a C-section in the hospital, with all the related risks or a ...what? chance of a bad outcome at home.
If I was carrying twins or a breech baby or something similar, I would spend a long time on the decision making process, and honestly I don't know which birth setting I would wind up choosing, but I would still want to have the right to make that decision.
Okay. Fair enough. The mantra of "low risk" women is just getting to me a bit.

Quote:
I know the state does things to legislate safety. We have to wear seatbelts, only surgeons can perform surgery, etc. Depending on the level of risk, I think reasonable people could disagree on whether or not midwifes should be prohibited from attending "high risk births" (and just defining that would be a huge effort.) I personally don't think midwives should be prohibited from, say, delivering a breech baby, though there are reasonable arguments to be made for the other side.
I'm not actually a big fan of legislation for one's own safety (eg. seatbelts) as opposed to legislation to protect third parties (eg. having to prove you can do surgery before you're allowed to do surgery).

In the case of birth, it's even more complicated than that, because defining risk is really slippery. I know that coping with doctors caused me a huge amount of prenatal stress. I actually put off seeing the GP about an OB referral with dd2 for months, because I just couldn't face it...and that was knowing that I was going to have a c-section in the end. Every visit was just a huge ball of stress. (You know...the only high blood pressure reading I've ever had during a pregnancy was while the GP was talking about how she would "manage" my labour when I was intending to VBA2C. The doctor commented herself that my bp was high, while talking about this, and took a new reading - it was normal - at the end of the visit, because of that. If just talking about all the restrictions and "requirements" could affect my blood pressure, what would the actual experience have done for me??)

The "pure numbers" approach to all this really worries me. I know we need quantifiable data, but...it's only part of the picture. The impact on quality of life (for both moms and babies) gets lost in the shuffle when we focus on the numbers.

I don't want any of my children to ever lose a baby. I truly wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy. But...I also don't want my girls to go through what I went through in my pregnancies prior to that. And, according to the numbers, I went through four near-perfect "births"...healthy mom (hahahaha - but we're not talking about reality - we're talking about what's on paper or in a computer), healthy babies, great apgars, good recoveries - you name it. They were perfect...and I wouldn't wish them on anyone, either. Someone looking at the numbers wouldn't see a problem at all.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#68 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 02:54 PM
 
Surfacing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: stuck between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 6,690
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
subbing to come back later and read

wash.gif  Me  + bikenew.gif Dh =  broc1.gif  Dd1(9 yrs) + hearts.gif  Dd2(6 yrs) and blowkiss.gif Ds(3.5 yrs)
Surfacing is offline  
#69 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 03:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
loraxc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the Truffula Trees
Posts: 4,480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
It is a tragedy when any baby dies, and it is especially a tragedy when a baby dies from malpractice, at home or in the hospital. I want American midwifery to be legalized, regulated and monitored, because I think that produces the best safety outcomes. I believe American midwifery could be safer, both in the states where it's not yet legislated, and in the states where it is legal. But I believe that overall, knowing that birth anywhere always carries risk, homebirth with a qualified provider, in a low risk pregnancy, and with systems in place in case of transfer, is relatively safe. I believe it carries a different set of risks than hospital birth.
I also believe that there are so many things that are deeply wrong and non-evidence based with the way babies are born in hospitals today. Mothers are put through a huge amount of unnecessary morbidity, injury and trauma because so many practices are not evidence based. I truly, in my heart, believe that the state of obstetrics in America today is a violation of human rights.
I wish I could put this in my sig! ITTTTTA. Great post.

grateful mother to DD, 1/04, and DS, 2/08

loraxc is offline  
#70 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 03:50 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicyclingbethany View Post
Angela- Just FYI, CPMS can and do cut episiotomies here in Texas. I had one!

PP whose name I don't remember- Texas has released data more recent than 2004, and I posted the link to 2007 primary c/s data in my previous post.

Well, I guess we can all agree from this- no one is crunching enough numbers and no one is being transparent enough!
Fascinating! Last I read the regulations they were specifically forbidden from cutting episiotomies as they were considered surgery. When I read up on it they were actually forbidden basically from cutting anything but the cord. But it has been a few years since I read up on it.

And the problem is that now the only TX data being released is info that can't be used to extrapolate full C-section stats nor can it be compared with previous information

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#71 of 90 Old 07-05-2010, 08:19 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailefeliz View Post
Data (fetal death certificates, essential to assess outcome) from Oregon DHS, Vital Stats, is entirely flawed because of data input errors by the admission of the Director or DHS.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. So your Pubic Health Division is admitting to inputting flawed data?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bailefeliz View Post
Again, currently, at least in my State, there is no data on LDM/CPM/DEM outcomes. There is a high suspicion that rates are unacceptably high for perinatal death within OoH birth management.
All that I can find for your state's birth outcomes, as referenced in a post above, is whether women had cesarean or vaginal births....basically the same data that you provided earlier. So it isn't fair to say that there are "no data on LDM/CPM/DEM outcomes" because the data does account for planned home births and freestanding birth centers (the latter named by facility). So it looks like docs and mw's are getting pretty equal treatment.

I could find no facility-wide data for neonatal mortality, not for hospitals or OOH midwives. If you could link me to some that would be great. Otherwise, with regard to neonatal mortality rates with OOH midwives, "speculation" might be a better word than "suspicion." Forgive me for belaboring this topic, but I'm just not seeing how there's less transparency for OOH mw's than there is for in in-hospital maternity care providers.

I do agree with you that complaint-filing should become an easier process.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#72 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 09:46 AM
 
Climbergirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Storm Bride,

You are absolutely right about records being a mess. Mine are seriously off. My doula took notes and when you compare her notes to my medical records, none of it makes sense. So, either the nurse was lying (possible) or doing a poor job with her data. In my mind, either one should be against the law in my opinion.

For example, my little c-section baby was also diagnosed as having shoulder dystocia. That really makes no sense (the baby is either in or partially out - and to put the baby back in is pretty risky). Or they seriously screwed up. I will never know.

Yes, it takes more effort and time to have accurate records. I worked for a medical device company and the cost and time we had to spend to accurately record every little thing was mind boggling. And yet, the place where our products were used are held to much less of a standard.

Maybe things will be better for my children. I certainly hope so!

winner.jpg, cloth diapering, babywearing, AP mama to Aiden (10/04/07) and Rylan (12/20/10)  hbac.gif
Climbergirl is offline  
#73 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 04:24 PM
 
MidwifeErika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,847
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by *MamaJen* View Post
Oh, yeah. I've mentioned this before, but I want to stress again that this study showed a 9.3 percent C-section rate.
In America nowadays, it's what, 32.5 percent?
I think that's just another indication of how this study doesn't portray our current reality.
I think this is really important to see. We are kind of running off in many different directions in these two posts about this topic instead of really discussing the actual meta analysis.

I appreciate everything you have posted MamaJen!

Erika, mama to three beautiful kids (plus one gestating), and wife to one fantastic man.

MidwifeErika is offline  
#74 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 04:54 PM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I agree it was a relief to read *MamaJen*'s posts before I was able to get my hands on the article and I could not put it better than she has after reading it-
thanks for all the work-
mwherbs is offline  
#75 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 07:34 PM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwifeErika View Post
I think this is really important to see. We are kind of running off in many different directions in these two posts about this topic instead of really discussing the actual meta analysis.

I appreciate everything you have posted MamaJen!
But it does make sense when you take into account that they took all the high-risk pregnancies out of both groups.

I don't know. I am not impressed by the meta-analysis, but the homebirth community's immediate dismissal doesn't make me any more comfortable about evidence-based medicine on either side.

~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#76 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 08:13 PM
 
laughingfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just went to the CDC website and looked up all infant births/deaths for 2003-2005 (the most current available), sorted by medical attendant and birthplace..
http://wonder.cdc.gov/lbd.html1 (such a huge amount of information available there, and you can group it in dozens of different ways)
MDs in hospital showed a death rate of 7.15 per thousand (OB's are lumped in with MDs, AFAIK)
CNMs in hospital: 2.88 per thousand
CNMs out of hospital: 2.70 per thousand
"Other Midwifes" out of hospital: 3.84 per thousand

The highest death rate shown, oddly enough (not counting the "unknown/not stated" category), is MDs out of hospital, at 29.36 per thousand.

Mama to a couple of full-moon caul-bearing rockstar girls:
9yo and brand new as of 4/28/10!
laughingfox is offline  
#77 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 08:25 PM
 
Twinklefae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 5,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughingfox View Post
I just went to the CDC website and looked up all infant births/deaths for 2003-2005 (the most current available), sorted by medical attendant and birthplace..
http://wonder.cdc.gov/lbd.html1 (such a huge amount of information available there, and you can group it in dozens of different ways)
MDs in hospital showed a death rate of 7.15 per thousand (OB's are lumped in with MDs, AFAIK)
CNMs in hospital: 2.88 per thousand
CNMs out of hospital: 2.70 per thousand
"Other Midwifes" out of hospital: 3.84 per thousand

The highest death rate shown, oddly enough (not counting the "unknown/not stated" category), is MDs out of hospital, at 29.36 per thousand.
No, that makes perfect sense - MD's out of hospital would mostly be unplanned, emergency type births, not excluding high risk mothers and without any equipment to help a lot of the time. Hurricanes, planes, black outs, etc.

Sarahknit.gifmarried to Kylehopmad.gif Mama to Orion  bouncy.gif08/07 and introducing Alice! babygirl.gif 02/11
DCP to 1 busy munchkin! and a CRST too!
 
Twinklefae is offline  
#78 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 09:16 PM
 
bicyclingbethany's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Laughingfox-

What search criteria did you use?

ETA: If you don't change the criteria, then you choose babies who died 20 weeks or less gestation to 364 days old. These extremes obviously have little if nothing to do with the birth attendant.

Try babies 37+ wks gestation to 23 hours old and see what you get.

Minimalist-living mama on an urban ecovillage with DH and DS- Jack (9/18/09)
bicyclingbethany is offline  
#79 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 09:20 PM
 
liz-hippymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: deep in the heart of texas!
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughingfox View Post
I just went to the CDC website and looked up all infant births/deaths for 2003-2005 (the most current available), sorted by medical attendant and birthplace..
http://wonder.cdc.gov/lbd.html1 (such a huge amount of information available there, and you can group it in dozens of different ways)
MDs in hospital showed a death rate of 7.15 per thousand (OB's are lumped in with MDs, AFAIK)
CNMs in hospital: 2.88 per thousand
CNMs out of hospital: 2.70 per thousand
"Other Midwifes" out of hospital: 3.84 per thousand

The highest death rate shown, oddly enough (not counting the "unknown/not stated" category), is MDs out of hospital, at 29.36 per thousand.
those rates don't shock anyone else?
Lay midwives have a much higher rate of death than CNMs in or out of the hospital. of course obs have the highest rate they are the ones with all the high risk patients, all the preterm babies, all the no prenatal care-show up to deliver mamas. but obviously- from these numbers- lay midwives are NOT as safe as they could be-
its the difference of getting a masters degree (cnms) or doing a modular based training and observing 100 births (texas standards).

mdcblog5.gif   Liz mama to DS 10, DSS 9, DD 6, DS 3, DD 2 , Aquila- dec 19th 2009 died at my homebirth, and....welcome Willow born 9-16-10 (9 weeks early)  nut.gif
liz-hippymom is offline  
#80 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 09:28 PM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn View Post
I don't know. I am not impressed by the meta-analysis, but the homebirth community's immediate dismissal doesn't make me any more comfortable about evidence-based medicine on either side.
Agreed.
CherryBomb is offline  
#81 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 09:38 PM
 
laughingfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinklefae View Post
No, that makes perfect sense - MD's out of hospital would mostly be unplanned, emergency type births, not excluding high risk mothers and without any equipment to help a lot of the time. Hurricanes, planes, black outs, etc.
There are homebirthing MDs who do it on purpose. I had one for DD1's birth.
I've known of 6 or so homebirthing MDs(counting my state and the one next to me) and there are MDs who work in birth centers, also. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell what's going on with those numbers without more specifics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicyclingbethany View Post
Laughingfox-
What search criteria did you use?
I looked at "Linked Birth / Infant Death Records for 2003-2005 with ICD 10 codes", then chose "Birthplace" from "Group Results By", and "Medical Attendant" in the first line that said "Or".
I left the other criteria set at "None" under the first part for grouping results, and I left everything else in its default "All" setting to show all results at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liz-hippymom View Post
those rates don't shock anyone else?
Lay midwives have a much higher rate of death than CNMs in or out of the hospital. of course obs have the highest rate they are the ones with all the high risk patients, all the preterm babies, all the no prenatal care-show up to deliver mamas. but obviously- from these numbers- lay midwives are NOT as safe as they could be-
its the difference of getting a masters degree (cnms) or doing a modular based training and observing 100 births (texas standards).
There are no records on the CDC website for CPMs specifically (which are not the same as "lay" midwives, since they are licensed). I'd like to see how/if the numbers would change if that bit of data was collected.
Anyone can check the "other midwife" box on a birth certificate in my state (and others as well, I imagine), so accurate numbers are not gathered for CPMs.

Mama to a couple of full-moon caul-bearing rockstar girls:
9yo and brand new as of 4/28/10!
laughingfox is offline  
#82 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 10:42 PM
 
MidwifeErika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,847
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn View Post

I don't know. I am not impressed by the meta-analysis, but the homebirth community's immediate dismissal doesn't make me any more comfortable about evidence-based medicine on either side.
I haven't seen anybody immediately dismiss it. Perhaps I am missing something? I have seen midwives discussing it amongst themselves on facebook or in forums or people discussing it here as well and trying to get a full picture of what was included for data and trying to understand it.

Erika, mama to three beautiful kids (plus one gestating), and wife to one fantastic man.

MidwifeErika is offline  
#83 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 10:49 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughingfox View Post
"Other Midwifes" out of hospital: 3.84 per thousand
Do these rates control for the type and training of "other midwife?" I also wonder if unplanned and unassisted births get lumped into that number. Please, I'm not dismissing the data. Just seeking clarification.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#84 of 90 Old 07-06-2010, 11:48 PM
 
laughingfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Do these rates control for the type and training of "other midwife?" I also wonder if unplanned and unassisted births get lumped into that number. Please, I'm not dismissing the data. Just seeking clarification.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no controls in place for "other midwife"; I believe this info is largely gathered from birth certificates. With a limited number of boxes to check, it's probably somewhat open to interpretation when it's self-reported by folks who don't really "fit" into any of the boxes. I'd bet a lot of stuff gets lumped in with "other midwife".

I was just posting those numbers because the in hospital/out of hospital numbers for relevant scenarios showed a different picture than this study/analysis did.
Sorry for the tangent, OP!

Mama to a couple of full-moon caul-bearing rockstar girls:
9yo and brand new as of 4/28/10!
laughingfox is offline  
#85 of 90 Old 07-07-2010, 12:30 AM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
so I have been involved or attending births since the 80's and communicate with midwives all the time not just where I currently live but across the country- we have talked about deaths and complications and discuss what has happened in their region- so saying that mws have 3x the death rate did not make any sense to me and I knew that there had to be some other manipulated info going on sounded similar to the Pang study which was gleaned from Wash. State birth cert info so every birth that was documented as out side the hospital was atributed to midwife attendance- also very recently I had discussed transfer rates and death rates in 2 states with midwives who had looked at/compiled the raw data that their health departments had gathered- and they said the mortality rates were lower than the state rates-- I was looking specifically for any info related to vitamin K- which is what prompted my inquiry- so I have alot of reasons to doubt the info



looked at the references- they used the Pang study as their meta analysis data from the US---
mwherbs is offline  
#86 of 90 Old 07-07-2010, 09:06 AM
 
triscuitsmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Between Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 1,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwherbs View Post
so every birth that was documented as out side the hospital was atributed to midwife attendance
And this I think we can all probably agree is a huge problem.

I'm a UC supporter as a birth choice. That being said I think even a planned UC where something goes wrong would be safer with a trained attendant there most of the time. Usually nothing goes wrong, and when it does it can usually be handled fairly easily, but there are definitely times where having trained eyes and hands can make all the difference in safety.

And that is just planned UC. The difference in safety between unplanned UC and just about anything else is going to be huge. It's true that you get the babies that just come fast for well nourished, healthy Moms where babe is in a great position and it just happens. Even still who knows who is around to help that could do damage by their lack of knowledge (pulling on cord comes to mind immediately). It's also true you get the Moms who for whatever reason safety wise shouldn't plan a UC, or possibly even an out of hospital birth and they still sometimes for a myriad of reasons deliver outside of the hospital too.

That's not a true representation of having a midwife there to support and assist.

Alison
Mama to Toad (08/06), Frog (01/09)... and new baby Newt born on his due date, Sep. 8, 2010
triscuitsmom is offline  
#87 of 90 Old 07-07-2010, 04:32 PM
 
S.Elise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The Big Push just emailed this out:

International Expert Calls Study Deeply Flawed
and Politically Motivated


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 7, 2010) – As New York and Massachusetts moved to pass pro-midwife bills in the final weeks of their legislative sessions, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology fast-tracked publicity surrounding the results of an anti-home birth study that is not scheduled for publication until September. Described as unscientific and politically motivated, the study draws conclusions about home birth that stand in direct contradiction to the large body of research establishing the safety of home birth for low-risk women whose babies are delivered by professional midwives.

“Many of the studies from which the author’s conclusions are drawn are poor quality, out-of-date, and based on discredited methodology. Garbage in, garbage out.” said Michael C. Klein, MD, a University of British Columbia emeritus professor and senior scientist at The Child and Family Research Institute. “The conclusion that this study somehow confirms an increased risk for home birth is pure fiction. In fact, the study is so deeply flawed that the only real conclusion to draw is that the motive behind its publication has more to do with politics than with science.”

Advocates working to expand access to out-of-hospital maternity care questioned the timing of AJOG’s public relations efforts on behalf of a study that won’t be published until next fall.

“Given the fact that New York just passed a bill providing autonomous practice for all licensed midwives working in all settings, while Massachusetts is poised to do the same, the timing of this study could not be better for the physician groups that have been fighting so hard to defeat pro-midwife bills there and in other states,” said Susan M. Jenkins, Legal Counsel for The Big Push for Midwives Campaign. “Clearly the intent is to fuel fear-based myths about the safety of professional midwifery care in out-of-hospital settings. Their ultimate goal is obviously to defeat legislation that would both increase access to out-of-hospital maternity care for women and their families and increase competition for obstetricians.”

The United States recognizes two categories of midwives: Certified Nurse-Midwives, who are trained to practice in hospital settings and who also provide primary and well-woman care, and Certified Professional Midwives, who undergo specialized clinical training to provide maternity care in out-of-hospital settings. Research consistently shows that midwife outcomes in all settings are equivalent to those of physicians, but with far fewer costly and preventable interventions, including a significant reduction in pre-term and low birth weight births, and as much as a five-fold decrease in cesarean surgeries.

The Big Push for Midwives Campaign represents thousands of grassroots advocates in the United States who support expanding access to Certified Professional Midwives and out-of-hospital maternity care. The mission of The Big Push for Midwives includes educating state and national policymakers about the reduced costs and improved outcomes associated with births managed by CPMs in private homes and freestanding birth centers. Media inquiries: Katherine Prown (414) 550-8025, katie@thebigpushformidwives.org
S.Elise is offline  
#88 of 90 Old 07-07-2010, 05:08 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stella.rose View Post
The Big Push just emailed this out:

International Expert Calls Study Deeply Flawed
and Politically Motivated

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thanks for posting!

I wanted to share on Facebook, but the release is a PDF!

http://www.thebigpushformidwives.org...awed_Study.pdf

They really should have an HTML version for sharing.
MegBoz is offline  
#89 of 90 Old 07-07-2010, 07:40 PM
 
kprown@mac.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
See if either of these work, and thanks for spreading the word!

http://tinyurl.com/256gbwk
http://tinyurl.com/mx5zp5

The full headline is:

OB/GYN Journal Fast Tracks Anti-Home Birth Study in Advance of Pro-Midwife Legislation
International Expert Calls Study Deeply Flawed and Politically Motivated

Katie
kprown@mac.com is offline  
#90 of 90 Old 07-11-2010, 11:43 AM
 
bailefeliz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. So your Pubic Health Division is admitting to inputting flawed data? (
Sorry I am just now responding, Turquesa. Was internet free for a bit (blissful--I highly recommend it )

But, yes, the Public Health Division issued a statement of apology for erroneous numbers due to data input problems after an investigation was requested because of published numbers putting LDM fetal death rate at 4-10 X higher than all other providers. All data was thrown out as a result.

So we still do not have true data. We DO know number of fetal deaths, and we know # of TERM fetal deaths (48 total for my State for 2006---for an overall rate of 1:1000). This, of course, includes all cases of women presenting to their provider with an already demised neonate, and/or extremely sick mamas and babies. Much more concerning in my mind are cases of term intrapartum fetal death of otherwise healthy babies. It is so rare that it is hardly mentioned in the literature, that I can find. (Please share sources if you have any!) The only study I found puts rate of term intrapartum perinatal death overall at .3:1000--very rare. I am concerned that this rate is higher in OoH birth management in the US. And I believe that more conservative risk screening would diminish higher rates of term loss, as demonstrated in the BC and Dutch studies.

I continue to think mandatory data collection is the only way for us to discover true outcomes, critical for true informed consent. In my mind, nformed consent is a fallacy without provider specific regional data.
bailefeliz is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off