H+BAC=?

TROUBLE!
[H+BAC stands for Home + Birth After Caesarean]

I have written about births after caesarean from time to time on this and other blogs. Last August I focused briefly on 'A scarred uterus', in the context of guidelines that had been hastily put together by ACM, and which were subsequently adopted by the National Board as its regulatory position on homebirth [link].

Yes, according to this statement homebirth is contraindicated for the 'scarred uterus'. Just to put the 'scarred uterus' in perspective, the Australia-wide rate of caesarean birth is more than 30% of all births [See Australia's Mothers and Babies 2009 report, published Dec 2011]. That's a lot of scarred uteruses.

Q. When a woman who has one of those scarred uteruses wants to have another baby, and she wants to optimise her chances of vaginal birth (vbac), to whom does she turn for professional help?
A. An experienced midwife who is committed to working with each woman, protecting promoting and supporting healthy physiologically normal processes in pregnancy and childbirth.

Q. Where do you find a midwife like that?
A. A midwife in private practice is able to make a personal commitment to the individual woman, and work professionally with her as her primary carer.

Q. Where does the midwife work?
A. The midwife's work is limited to the home, because (except in a few cases) midwives in private practice are unable to be recognised as a woman's midwife once admitted to hospital.

Q. What does the woman with the scarred uterus need to do in order to plan vbac?
A. The woman who is healthy with a healthy fetus at Term, who experiences spontaneous onset of labour, and who progresses in labour under the natural hormonal environment without medical assistance (augmentation or analgesia), is most likely to give birth spontaneously without complication.

Q. So, coming into spontaneous labour - that happens best at home?
A. Correct.

Q. And progressing without medical assistance - that happens best at home?
A. Correct.

Q. And that's where the midwife is experienced and competent?
 A. Correct.

Q. So, why is homebirth contraindicated?

[But there's a hole in the bucket, dear Eliza ...]

Of course this little Q&A sequence is overly simplistic.

But the point I am trying to make is that 'home' is not the key issue.  The central issue is that a midwife is the most appropriate and expert primary professional care provider for any woman who intends to give birth under normal physiological conditions, using natural oxytocin, natural adrenalin and catecolamines, natural endorphins, natural anti-diuretic hormone, and all the other amazing substances that work together in the healthy body to bring a woman to safely and proudly give birth to her baby.  The woman who is able to proceed in labour with the confidence that her midwife is protecting the birthing space, and that her midwife will identify and act appropriately to protect the wellbeing of both mother and child if needed, is able to look forward to BAC, whether they are at home or in a supportive hospital environment.

Achieving vaginal BAC is core business of midwifery.  It's where the midwife's skill is most needed, and where an experienced midwife is confident and in her element.

Yet, BAC is 'contraindicated' in the one place where the woman is most able to proceed well, and the one place where the midwife is able to work without restrictions.

Midwives who are facing up to this dilemma that has come about as a result of hasty bureaucratic processes that failed to consult with the midwives or the women it affects most, do not have many choices.  Either we continue to attend women with scarred uteruses professionally, or we refuse to do so.  The latter alternative is likely to result in some women facing unnecessary repeat caesarean surgery, with the inherent compounding risks of abnormal placental implantation and severe haemorrhage; and some will take the other extreme pathway - freebirth.

The central issue is not about the big 'H' - homebirth.  The central issue is the midwife's right to engage in professional practice.  A midwife who is attending a woman in labour, with or without a scarred uterus or any other of the listed contraindications, or complication, is professionally able to work with the woman to make appropriate decisions.  In some cases that may mean going to hospital; in others it means staying at home.  At all times the wellbeing and safety of mother and baby guide the midwife's professional advice.  Home is only a setting.  Healthy mothers and babies are the outcome we desire.

safer and better systems of care

with my first baby 1973

Recently I have spent considerable time reflecting upon and writing about situations in which midwives face complaints of serious professional misconduct after attending home births.

See articles at the MiPP blog

Many of the complaints (notifications) that I am aware of relate to situations in which midwives attend women who have specific risk features of their pregnancy, such as having had caesarean surgery, or being classified as 'post mature', or having a breech birth or twins, for birth at home.

I do not want to seem to be guiding midwives to encourage 'at risk' women to see home birth as their only option. In my experience, a woman with twins, or breech presentation, or birth after caesarean, who is clear that she intends to hold onto 'Plan A' unless a valid reason is given for intervention whether she is at home or goes to hospital (with her midwife) to give birth; this woman will make an informed decision that she believes is in the best interests of her baby, her family, and her own wellbeing. This woman is enabled to take responsibility for her family's social, emotional, and physical health in a new way, in a special partnership with her midwife.

My personal approach to twins and breech births, after appropriate discussion and consultation, is to try to arrange support for a physiologically normal, unmanaged birth in a public hospital that has capacity for emergency obstetric intervention, if the woman believes that is the best way at the time of labour.

 This is not a simple task. It opens the door to a clash of opinion - medical vs social - in each situation. I wrote about that a few years ago - "Why bother coming here if you won't let us manage you the way we think is best?" - when a mother with twins near term followed my advice, and presented at the antenatal clinic of a large public hospital. She was told she had no option other than elective (scheduled) caesarean. The first baby was presenting breech. It's probably no surprise to readers that that mother rejected the advice of the big, well-equipped and well-staffed, public maternity hospital. We were able to engage the services of a smaller suburban public maternity hospital, and the babies were born one morning without incident, and the family returned home that afternoon - see Drive through birthing.

Another mother in my care gave birth to her twins at home. It was only after the first baby had been born, and the mother told me she was having contractions again that she placed her hand on her belly and said to me "Joy there's a lump here. Could it be another baby?" Yes, it could, and it was. By the time I had changed my gloves the second baby was ready to be born - beautifully!

Another mother in my care gave birth to her twins in hospital. The labour was powerful; mother knelt on the bed, and the first baby slipped out into my hands, cried, and went into mother's welcoming arms. The cord was clamped and cut to prevent any twin-to-twin transfusion. The mother's contractions returned quickly and intensely, and she maintained her crouched position, and passed the first baby to his dad. With the next contraction the second baby was born, about 6 minutes after his brother, with the placenta. The placenta had separated from the uterus (abbrupted) after the first birth and the second twin's life was immediately in danger as he had no oxygen supply. He needed to be born quickly, and he was. He revived spontaneously, without difficulty.

In telling this story, I am highlighting a situation in which the urgency for birth can be escalated in an instant, and specific action needed to protect, in this instance, a baby's life. After the birth of the first baby it is usual for the midwife or doctor to palpate the mother's abdomen to check the position of the second twin, and listen to the heart beat of the second twin. The mother, in this instance, refused to go onto her back, and proceeded very quickly, under natural intuitive knowing, to 'eject' the second twin. Had she been a compliant 'patient', and done as asked, and I believe it is possible that her baby's birth may have been delayed, with obvious negative consequences.

On the other hand, had there been no internal pressure to get that baby born, we would possibly have heard the slowing heart rate as the baby's oxygen supply quickly depleted, and an obstetric intervention to extract the baby would have been attempted. It's not helpful to speculate or ask 'what would have happened if?'. In this case the mother's decision to refuse a managed birth, which would have included epidural, was probably the factor that saved her baby's life, because she was able to do the job spontaneously.

I am very distressed when women with twin pregnancies, or babies presenting breech, and their midwives, are so unable to trust hospital care that they see home as the only option. Home or hospital, spontaneous, managed, or surgical, there are no guarantees. The mother's choice of home or hospital for the birth of her babies is her choice, and she will face different challenges with each pathway.

“... We must stop blaming individuals and put much greater effort into making our systems of care safer and better” (ACSQHC National Action Plan, 2001). 

The National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (ACM 2008) (the Guidelines) categorise women with twins and breeches as being ‘C’ (transfer). It is important to understand the place of the Guidelines in contemporary midwifery, and why after appropriate consultation, a woman and her midwife may chose to continue with the plan for homebirth.

The Guidelines were designed primarily for use across mainstream maternity services, outlining a risk management process by which midwives could act either autonomously, or in professional consultation with other maternity care providers, or by initiating transfer of care to a more appropriate maternity service. The Guidelines do not deal with situations in which women make an informed decision to seek out private midwifery services for home birth. The Guidelines do not deal with situations in which women choose care which is outside that which is recommended by the Guidelines, or by individual maternity care providers.

The Guidelines, in the preamble, indicate the purpose of these Guidelines, to address a significant gap that existed prior to their development, in helping “maternity services to meet national policy priorities aimed at improving the quality and safety of health care. When the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care launched its National Action Plan in 2001, its Chair Professor Bruce Barraclough argued that improving the safety and quality of patient care is one of the most important challenges facing health professionals: “... We must stop blaming individuals and put much greater effort into making our systems of care safer and better” (p 5) (emphasis added)

Systems of care that are safer and better than whatever Professor Barraclough referred to, and that are better than the system that told a mother "Why bother coming here if you won't let us manage you the way we think is best?", are systems that accept different levels of decision-making by different people.  A mother who values the spontaneous work of her own body in giving birth, unmedicated, to her babies, is a mother who the system needs to respect, and work hard to accommodate.

Systems of care that are safe and good for women and their babies will accept, at every level - not just the so-called 'low-risk' birth - that “Childbirth is a social and emotional event and is an essential part of family life. The care given should take into consideration the individual woman’s cultural and social needs." ICM Position Statement on Home Birth.

what will the students think?

A few weeks ago I wrote about the interim Position Statement on Homebirth that appeared , with endorsement, on the website of the statutory body. The Position Statement and associated documents had been prepared by the College of Midwives.

Today I attended a meeting of members of the College, at which I and other members took the opportunity to speak about our concerns around these documents.

Refining and redefining a midwife's boundaries

The release by the Australian College of Midwives (ACM) of an Interim Homebirth Position Statement and guidance document has prompted discussion and debate amongst those of us who are interested in the boundaries of a midwife's practice. Of immediate concern is the statement in the guidance that:

"There are some contraindications to a planned homebirth which women should be informed of at booking. These are: • Multiple pregnancy • Abnormal presentation (including breech presentation) • Preterm labour prior to 37 completed weeks of pregnancy • Post term pregnancy of more than 42 completed weeks • Scarred uterus"

[I have written about the 'Scarred uterus' at the MIPP blog]

The word 'contraindication' means 'NO!'.

There is little room for movement in the word ‘contraindication’ which in any medical setting means that there is a reason to avoid using a particular treatment. For example, Penicillin is contraindicated when a person has an allergy to penicillin. Many specific drugs are contraindicated in pregnancy because they may adversely affect the fetus.

When I spoke about this concern to a respected colleague she told me not to worry, that it just means we have to initiate ‘Appendix A’ [in the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (ACM 2008)]. Appendix A gives a process for the midwife to follow 'When a woman chooses care outside the recommended ACM National Midwifery Guidelines ...' . My colleague argued that once a midwife has signed off on Appendix A for whatever reason, the midwife just continues to provide care, confident that the woman is making an informed decision. "Put it to the woman when she inquires about homebirth that her previous caesarean means that you are not able to support homebirth because the guidelines say so, but if she still wants homebirth she can sign a statement ..."

As has been pointed out by a consumer activist, the ACM has generously speculated in the guidance document on the possibility that “In the event of a woman making her own decision/s ...” This statement made me stop and think – a woman making her own decision/s – isn’t that what usually happens??? Oh dear!

What ever happened to all the notions of woman-centred care, informed decision making, partnership, cultural safety, reciprocity, trust? Is ACM trying to protect midwives from those women who make their own decisions? I think that's the only sort of woman I can provide midwifery for!

I have been a member of ACM continuously since the 1980's when it was the Midwives Association of Victoria Inc, and I proudly received Fellowship (FACM) from the College in 1997. Professional bodies attempt to describe and define boundaries of that profession, and members must either go with the change or resist it.  In this matter, I am resisting.

The ACM has been funded in this project by the federal government, which has initiated major reforms across health, to refine and redefine the midwife's boundaries, especially in the context of private practice. The Australian people elected a Labor government. We are now experiencing centrally controlled social health policy that restricts the individual (consumer and practitioner) while claiming to bring benefits for everyone? That's how a socialist health policy works.  Why are we surprised?

Enough from me.
Your comments are very welcome.
Joy

Professional organisations and networks for midwives

Rally outside Julia Gillard's Werribee office 2009

In recent days I have had cause to reflect on the importance of various professional organisations and networks that are available for me as a midwife.  Here are a few:

• Australian College of Midwives - ACM, the peak body representing the midwifery profession in this country.
• Maternity Coalition - MC, advocating for consumers and midwives in maternity care
• Midwives in Private Practice - MiPP, a collective of midwives in Victoria, and a Participating Organisation in Maternity Coalition
• Australian Private Midwives' Association - APMA, representing private midwives nationally