breech

For several years now there has been a growing movement of consumer and professional opinion about the 'best' way to give birth to babies presenting breech. [See Breech Birth ANZ website]  This has come as a small pendulum swing away from the prevailing policy of elective caesarean for breech babies, which was quickly adopted after the Hannah et al (2000) paper on the Term Breech Trial, published in the Lancett.

Another historical grab, before I tell my breech story.

Please see the attached picture of the midwifery exam which I undertook in 1973.   Midwives then were required to have a basic understanding of breech presentations.   I don't want readers to imagine that the work of a midwife (or mother giving birth) was somehow ideal back then - in fact the medicalisation of childbirth, and the dominance of medical 'men' over the more subservient female nursing profession (which included midwifery) was entrenched, as can be seen in the previous post I wrote about this midwifery exam.

click to enlarge

I have always held that if for no other reason than the surprise breech, a midwife attending births needs to be competent in vaginal breech birth (vbb).   My involvement in workshops and education about vaginal breech births, and in the few vbbs I have attended, there has been an emphasis on having obstetricians who lead the cause of promoting vbb.  I have felt uncomfortable with this.  Obstetricians are surgeons.  Midwives need to claim breech births as being well within their scope of practice, as well as the identification of those for whom a vaginal birth is not likely to lead to good outcomes, and being able to refer to and collaborate with obstetricians.

Recently I have had the privilege of attending a birth at home, which turned out to be a surprise (undiagnosed) breech.  As the mother rested with her baby in her arms, she asked me to be sure to write a story about this birth.

Without identifying her, I am pleased to record the birth - through a midwife's eyes, with a midwife's knowledge and decision-making.  I don't consider myself an expert in breech or any other type of birth.  In fact, the only births that I take professional responsibility for are the ones that are very likely to proceed under the mother's and baby's own power, driven by an amazing natural physiological process.  My job is to work in harmony with those natural processes, and to protect, promote and support the natural processes, with the intention to intervene only if illness or complication arise in the birth and nurture of the baby.   In the case of breech births, the most critical period can be the birth of the baby's arms and head, and it is important that all midwives and doctors who take professional responsibility for birth are skilled in the decision making and simple manoeuvers. 

Working as I do, attending births privately usually in the home of the woman giving birth, I have a background knowledge of a mother before she tells me her labour has started.  In this case, I had been midwife for the birth of another child in this family, five years ago, also at home.  Reflections on the previous birth had also been tenderly preserved in my blog.

The first clear indication that this baby was presenting breech was the information that the waters had broken, and were "clear, with a bit of blood, and a black blob."  Labour was strong when I arrived.

I quickly set up my gear: the baby resuscitation box, and oxytocic, syringe and needle, and procedure gloves within reach; the oxygen cylinder connected up and ready if needed; a few clean bath towels to keep baby warm after the birth.   The 'nest' had been prepared - the couch draped with a waterproof cloth, so that the mother could kneel on the couch, facing away from me: an ideal upright position for a breech birth! (and a very reasonable position for an older midwife)

I saw more meconium, and asked the mother if I could examine her internally to confirm the presenting part.  The baby's bottom was 'at spines' - well on the way to being birthed.

I had a decision to make: I spoke simply to the mother and the father.  "The baby is coming, and it will be born bottom first."  I advised them that I did not expect any problems with the birth, but as an extra precaution I would like an ambulance to be called, in case we needed to transfer to hospital.

I would now like to describe each part of the birth as it proceeded.  Contractions were approximately every five minutes. 

As the baby's rump came on view a purple, swollen scrotum also appeared, and a stream of urine was passed from a swollen little penis.  I didn't mention these facts - the mother had work to do, and she would be able to discover her baby's gender in her own time.  From that moment it must have been 10-15 minutes until the birth was completed.  At some stage the 'first response' paramedic arrived, and I confirmed that the birth was going well.  He stood back.

• Next contraction: a big push and one leg plopped out.
• Next contraction: a slight rotation of the baby's bottom, and the second leg came down, and a little 'cycling' action of the legs (as though he said, "Thanks Mum, that feels better! Now, what should I do?")
• Next contraction: the baby's body was born past the navel, then to the nipples, and a large, full blue and white umbilical cord was central.  The body hanging was unsupported - I had not touched him to this point (Hands off the breech!).  I was delighted to see the cord positioned beautifully in the little protected channel between the baby's two breasts that were squeezed together in the tightly stretched vaginal opening.  I gently checked the pulse - about 120, which is good.
• Next contraction: first arm popped out, a little rotation, then second arm.  Baby's colour reasonable.
• Next contraction: no progress.  I placed my thumb and fingers over the cord, close to its insertion.  Pulsing had slowed to about 80.  Time to get this little one out and breathing! 
• With mother in the kneeling position, I placed my right hand in over the baby's chin, and a finger into his mouth.  The left hand went behind the baby 's head to flex it, and the head was born with minimal effort on my part.
• Baby was initially pale as he lay on the birthing mat under his mother, with his cord intact, as mother turned to look at him, and ask how he was.  I dried him, checked the pulsing of the cord, blew on his face, and before the first minute was up, he had taken a gasp of air.  His colour began to improve.  A few more minutes before he was ready to cry, but all the time he was making the transition from womb to the outside world, there was no reason for me to interfere.
• By 5 minutes, he was in his mother's arms, pink and strong. 
• By the next day when I visited them, he had been breastfeeding strongly and effectively, and doing all the things newborn babies are expected to do. He weighed just over 4 kilograms.

Informed or mistaken?

Informed choice
Informed decision
Informed refusal
...

In my world the adjective 'informed' is often used in an attempt to declare that the person who is making the 'informed' choice/decision/refusal/whatever is intelligent, and has carefully considered options.  My question is, often, who's kidding whom?


A woman who wants to make an informed choice about who provides her care, and other aspects of the model of care, can only choose from what is available to her. 

A woman who wants to make an informed decision, particularly about an aspect of natural, physiological birth, may say she does not want to be treated as the next number on the production line.  She does not want standard care, whatever that is.  She wants to be treated as an individual.

A woman who wants to make an informed refusal of, for example, pre-labour caesarean surgery for a baby presenting breech, can find herself up against a system that does not support or understand her intentions.


In the often complex and demanding journey that a woman takes in giving birth to and nurturing her baby, the information available can be only marginally relevant to the individual situation: the choices and decisions can appear as shades of grey, rather than good and bad.  The constant juggling of the interests of the woman and her child, within the multiple contexts of a marriage, a family, a maternity service, and a community, can change the options for decisions in a moment.  In fact, a woman who considers herself well informed, and who is intentional about proceeding with an unmedicated physiological birth, has very little choice when some person with authority says "We need to get your baby delivered now."  A woman in labour who is confronted with even the suggestion that her baby's condition may be compromised, without whatever intervention is being offered, can suddenly find herself submitting to something that she would otherwise have avoided.


Health care, and especially maternity care, has changed in recent decades, from a "doctor-knows-best"-no-discussion model, with a hierarchical knowledge-based framework, to a system that attempts to include and respect the wishes and values of the patient/client.   This is, I believe, to be encouraged in principle.  But, in practice, I am often frustrated at the absence of an appropriate conversation about decisions or choices that need to be made.


At present the Melbourne Coroner's office is inquiring into the circumstances around the death of a baby whose mother intended to give birth at home.  Newspaper reports of this inquiry highlight the fact that the mother had refused caesarean surgery a few days before she came into labour.  In a news paper report of the proceedings, a medical specialist is reported to have said that: 

the "inadequate, incomplete and at times misleading information" available, particularly on the internet, made it difficult for women to make an informed decision about their birth plans.

There is little doubt from the reports that the mother believed she had made informed decisions.  Yet, in the tragedy of loss of the life of a baby, it's easy to argue that there were seriously mistaken decisions that led to the events of that day.


Women who have had previous caesarean birth(s) may make choices and decisions about their carers, and their planned place of birth, early in their pregnancies.  By way of contrast, women who find that their baby is presenting breech as they approach Term are suddenly confronted with a bewildering array of decisions.  As they obtain information they become aware that there is no right way (eg elective caesarean) and wrong way.  There is increased risk in breech birth, regardless of the actual method of birth. At each decision point, they can feel exposed and uninformed, even misled - but decisions must be made and there is no turning back.  Each decision places the participants in a new context, which may lead to more decision-making.

A woman who had planned to give birth naturally in a hospital birth centre found that her baby was frank breech a couple of days after her due date.  The special set of decision points that she encountered after the breech diagnosis were:

• attempt external cephalic version (ECV): the decision was made on Saturday that this baby was not suitable for ECV, and the mother was informed that she would be booked for a Caesarean on Monday.
• spontaneous onset of labour: Mother laboured at home Sunday night, and called her midwife for support around midnight.
• progress in labour: After several hours of established labour, the mother's cervix was dilated 6-7cm, and the presenting part was high.  The decision was made to go to hospital.  Labour continued strongly.  The obstetrics registrar at the hospital agreed that progress was good, but advised a caesarean birth.  The mother declined, and stated that she was intending to give birth vaginally.  All maternal and fetal observations were within normal range.
• review of progress in labour: After several more hours of labour, full dilation of the cervix was confirmed, but no progress of the presenting part.  Once again the mother was advised that she needed caesarean surgery, and this time she agreed.  Her baby was born in good condition, and the hospital staff facilitated early skin to skin contact and breastfeeding in the recovery area of the OT. 

In discussion a week after the birth, this woman commented to her midwife, "You know, it's a totally different outcome, having a caesarean birth after labour, knowing that I couldn't do any more myself, than if I had agreed to it the first or second time I was told I needed it."

The midwife agreed.  The decision making process included an ongoing review of the progress of mother and baby through uncharted terrain.  The decisions were made on the best information available.  There was ultimately only one *choice* - for the woman to do it herself, or not.  This is the only informed birth plan a woman can make, and follow through with.


related posts:
decision making for breech
breech vaginal birth
messages about breech births

hospital policy in the spotlight

Today as I write I have in mind a young midwife who is employed by a busy private hospital in Melbourne.  I hope that midwife comes to my blog, and reflects on the incident that I witnessed recently, and which I will briefly describe here.

The labouring woman had written a brief birth plan; the sort of plan that I call "Plan A".
Something like this:

I am intending to give birth under my own power, and will do all I can to achieve the best outcomes for myself and my baby.  At the time of birth, my baby’s cord should not be clamped or cut, and my baby must not be separated from me, except for clear medical reasons, and with my consent.  
I do not want any drugs to be administered to me or my baby without my consent. ...

"Yes, we do 'skin to skin', we do 'delayed cord clamping', and we keep babies with their mothers."
"But we can't do physiological third stage."
"The problem is," the young midwife said, "It's hospital policy that you have syntometrine.  I have checked with my manager, and we have to give you syntometrine for the placenta.  It's hospital policy."

The mother was labouring, wasn't saying much, so nothing was resolved.  The midwife brought the tray containing ampoules of the oxytocics into the room.

... fast forward  ...

A healthy baby made his grand entrance, and no drugs were used.  The woman birthed her placenta spontaneously about 30 minutes after the birth, with minimal blood loss.


I am recording this brief account because I want to comment on it.

• A midwife became the pusher and enforcer of a hospital policy to administer a particular drug preparation.  This is not midwifery.  There was no professional discussion offered as to the implications of the use of this drug for mother or baby.  The midwife simply acted as an agent of her employer, demanding compliance with this policy.  
• A midwife failed to recognise or uphold a woman's right to informed decision making, and ultimately her right of refusal.

I feel very concerned for this midwife, who is at the beginning of her career.   It seemed clear to me that the midwife considered it her job to enforce the policy.  The midwife gave no indication of any understanding of or interest in the physiology of birth.  Rather, she seemed set on carrying out a series of tasks that were, apparently, the essence of her professional practice. 

The midwife appeared to be ready to ignore a written statement by the woman, that she intended to give birth spontaneously, without drugs.  There seemed to be an assumption by the midwife that the woman's choice of working in harmony with physiological processes and avoiding unnecessary medications was a choice that could carry no weight in that particular hospital.   There was no discussion of the potential benefits or risks of either course of action.  'Hospital policy' was the big flashing light that apparently barred the woman from attempting her plan of action.

The prophylactic use of oxytocics in the third stage of labour, 'active management of third stage', is a process of routine intervention that comes under the banner of the 'evidence based practice' movement.  The uncritical adoption of active management by most hospitals, with the belief that it reduces blood loss and thereby reduces maternal morbidity, is rarely questioned.

In this birth, the mother was ideally suited to unmedicated, safe, physiological third stage because the following requirements had been met:

• a woman in good health
• at term
• spontaneous onset of labour
• good progress in labour
• uncomplicated, unmedicated first and second stages of labour.

In contrast, there are good reasons why one might seek to avoid use of Syntometrine. 
Syntometrine is a preparation that combines synthetic oxytocin with ergometrine.
Syntometrine is an S4 drug - restricted to prescription by a doctor or an authorised midwife prescriber.  The idea that a hospital would make policy requiring the use of a restricted medicine is in itself suggestive of a breach of the basic rules of prescribing. 

Follow the link above to read consumer information about Syntometrine.  One small sentence stands out:  

Tell your doctor if you plan to breast-feed after being given Syntometrine. One of the ingredients in this medicine secretes into breast milk. Your doctor will discuss the potential risks and benefits involved.  (http://www.mydr.com.au/medicines/cmis/syntometrine-solution-for-injection )

Breastfeeding is an intrinsic part of physiological birth.
 
Further information on the use of Syntometrine in lactation comes from MIMS, the widely used medicines reference resource:

Use in lactation Of the two components, only ergometrine is known to pass into breast milk. The use of Syntometrine during lactation is not generally recommended.
Ergometrine is secreted into milk and the inhibitory effect of ergometrine on prolactin can cause a reduction in milk secretion. Syntometrine has the potential to cause serious adverse drug reactions in breastfed newborns/ infants. Postpartum women receiving Syntometrine should avoid breastfeeding at least 12 hours after the administration. Milk secreted during this period should be discarded.  ...

How many mothers are given this information prior to administration of Syntometrine?  Very few, I think.

I hope readers see the point I am making.  Today we are advocating a return to spontaneous breech birth, returing to the woman and her baby their right to unmedicated physiological birth.   Perhaps we also need a group of intelligent, well motivated consumers, to become activists for umnedicated, uninterrupted birth, from the onset of labour to the completion of the expulsion of the placenta and membranes and cessation of bleeding.


Your comments are welcome

why breech births are important

I had a moment of clarity just the other day: Women who have breech babies, and for whom spontaneous vaginal breech birth (vbb) is an option, need MIDWIVES who are willing to be on call, and work with them to the full extent of midwifery as primary maternity care providers in their births.

But, I hear someone say, midwives have been deskilled in VBB,  Most breech babies in the past 20 years have been delivered by caesarean.  So how can a midwife consider herself competent?

And, I hear someone else say, surely the hospitals won't allow a midwife to 'manage' a breech birth.  Surely the senior obstetricians will take control?

Yes, these are valid points, but there's one other point - the point of my recent epiphany - that needs to be considered.  No matter how deskilled midwives and doctors are, the woman's body is, in many cases, ABLE to do the work.  Spontaneous birth, regardless of which pole is presenting, is just that: SPONTANEOUS.  Spontaneous means that the progress happens under the powers that are within the woman's body.

I don't want to sound ignorant or naive here, because I know there are specific complications with breech births that increase risk of neonatal morbidity.  An arm can impede progress: a midwife can manipulate the baby to free that arm.   A baby can be born with low Apgar scores: a midwife is able to provide resuscitation.   The knowledge that upright vbb works well has been circulated in midwifery circles for as long as I can remember.  I don't know when I first heard the old adages, "let the breech hang" and "hands off the breech".  One of the main questions in the exam I took in 1973, when I became a midwife, was all about breech births.  Yet the obstetric textbooks teach the lithotomy position; and the warmed towel to support the baby's body while the various manoeuvres which have the names of obstetricians (eg Lovesett, Mauriceau Smellie Veit ... - I haven't checked the spelling) are performed.

Since the publication of the Hannah (2001) Term Breech Trial, which had the almost immediate effect of channeling almost all breech babies to the operating theatre, midwives in my part of the world have had little experience with vbb.  Breech presentations occur at Term in about 4-5 of 100 births.  In my practice I have seen one or two most years, which is consistent with that rate.  I have followed the current best practice guidelines and sought out external cephalic version, which in at least half of the cases has done the trick.  I would be foolish to claim any special expertise in vbb.  Yet, with the information and drive I now have, I would now be prepared to discuss the option of spontaneous vbb at home in my care, or hospital, with any woman at Term with a breech baby on board. 

There are just a few birthing situations today that potentially challenge the skill, knowledge, and courage of a midwife.  These may be unanticipated.  They may occur with little warning.  And they require the midwife present at the time to act decisively in interests of safety of the mother and/or her baby.


A breech birth can be a big surprise.  The midwife can either act in harmony with the natural processes, and support uncomplicated birth of a healthy baby, or interrupt the processes and mechanisms of birth due to ignorance and fear.

Spontaneous birthing is the terrain in which midwives work best.  We watch and wait, and hold a cocoon of safety around the woman-child unit.  We know the subtle behaviours that indicate progress, and we know how to minimise adrenaline and other fear-related hormones.  We know how to leave well alone; how not to fiddle.  We know how to stay quietly with the woman, physically and emotionally, as she progresses on the pathway to bringing her child into this world.

Spontaneous birthing for vbb must be upheld and protected by midwives and women in all communities.  Sure, some of the big teaching hospitals need to set up breech clinics and have specialists strutting their stuff.  But the reality of childbearing is that women in small towns, and in outer suburbs, and on farms, will also occasionally need to give birth to breech babies.  Many won't have the $15,000 needed for a private hospital booking with the heavily booked breech doctor.  Many won't be within the catchment of the public hospital breech clinic.  They will need a midwife in their community who can work in harmony with a spontaneous and life giving process, and who has the skill to recognise complications in a timely manner and manage referral and transfer of care when it is indicated.

Does anyone out there see what I have seen?

Does anyone else feel deep sorrow for all the breech births for which we have not provided the option of midwifery care?

Midwives who are willing, we need to provide breech education for other midwives, and get the word out in women's groups that breech births can be great births. 

And, btw, we know that the promotion of spontaneous birth for breech babies will not necessarily be easy.  Midwives may need to provide arguments about women making informed choices in professional conduct hearings.   This is the world in which we live.



For more consumer-focused breech information, go to BBANZ . 

BREECH

When I think about breech births the pictures that come to mind are women who I have attended for breech vaginal births, as well as a few other stories that have been preserved in my memory.

There's Sally, who gave birth unassisted to her 'feet first' baby one night in an ambulance.  I had palpated her abdomen that afternoon: head down, very mobile.  When she went to bed she felt a huge movement, and knew that baby had done a forward roll into a breech presentation.  She got up, went to the toilet, and as she sat down her waters broke, a foot and some umbilical cord presented.  Sally kept a cool head, gently put the loop of pulsing cord back into her vagina (to keep it warm), explained what had happened to her husband, who called the ambulance and me.  Sally's first baby had been born by emergency caesarean after finding that he was presenting breech.  Her second baby had been born (cephalic) at home in my care.  This was the third.

The paramedics arrived quickly, and they assisted Sally as she walked to the vehicle, pausing as she laboured strongly.  Sally told me later in detail how she waited for the head to be born, and supported her baby as he took his early breaths.  By the time I connected with them Sally and baby were resting at the nearby hospital emergency room.  After birthing the placenta, we went home again and had a cup of tea, with vegemite toast.

A few others of these mothers have already been written about in this blog.  [Thanks here to the blogger search function!]


In 2007 I wrote generally about vaginal breech birth, and the deskilling of midwives and obstetricians.  I noted that:

 The very real situation that presents itself today is the deskilling of midwives, and of obstetricians, in breech birth. A baby may be harmed or die simply because the midwife or doctor did not know what a more skilled person could have done to achieve the best outcomes.

In 2008 I wrote about The 'B'-Word, and told two breech birth stories, about one whose baby was born at home after ECV, and another mother whose baby developed a serious spastic brain injury from hypoxia, after abruption of the placenta some minutes before the birth.

In 2009 I wrote 'Thinking about vaginal breech births' in the leadup to the screening of a video 'breech in the system'.

In 2011 I wrote about normal birth for a breech baby, reflecting on the work of colleagues in bringing vaginal breech birth to the attention of the maternity professions and public.

In (March) 2012, reflecting on twin and breech births, I wrote about safer and better systems of care:

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).

Another memorable breech (first twin) birth took place in 2009, and has been noted in the post titled 'Why bother coming here if you won't let us manage you the way we think is best?' 
and the follow-up post 'Drive-through birthing'.


The purpose of today's essay is not just to collect stories, but to assert my belief that we can change, and put effort into making "our systems of care safer and better".  By "our systems of care", I include all aspects of professional maternity care, from the 'village midwife' primary carer, and the bush hospitals, to the big tertiary maternity units.

I believe this is happening.  Women's Healthcare Australasia and the University of New South Wales, Sydney have advertised a program 'Hands off the breech'[click here for speaker' profiles] to be held 30 November and 1 December.  Several of these speakers will be presenting their talks in Melbourne and Warrnambool in Victoria, also in early December - click here for program.  I plan to attend the session hosted by Monash Medical Centre - one of the 'big 3' maternity hospitals in Melbourne, and a strategic place to get the discussion about vaginal breech birth happening.

Social media is active in this regard, and many messages are being posted on a facebook site linked to the Breech Birth ANZ site.

For some, the changes are too little, too late.  Mothers have told me that they agreed to caesarean births for their breech babies because they were afraid.  Fear works against the protective intuitive forces in spontaneous birth.

Mothers have said to me, "Are you willing to attend breech births at home?"  That is a question that I can not give an immediate answer to.  I am committed to doing all in my power to protect the wellbeing and safety of mother and baby.  There are times when a breech birth (or twin) at home could come into that scope.  Other times there will be discussion and the decision may be made to go to hospital.

That's enough from me for today.  Thankyou for your comments.

PS
The following comment was left today (14 Nov 2012) on an earlier post about breech birthing.  I have included it here as it is relevant to the discussion:


motherwho (http://motherwho.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "THE ‘B’ WORD Breech. A woman today whose baby is...":

Hi Joy, thanks for writing this post! I enjoy reading your blog although this is my first comment.

My second baby was born last month (in Melbourne). My midwife first detected she was presenting breech at 29 weeks which was not a concern at the time, but as the weeks went on she stayed in the same position. At 36 and a bit weeks after much stress, acupuncture, moxibustion, massage, swimming, hypno-tracks, spinning babies.com, etc, etc, the little bub was still breech.

The hospital I had a [back up] booking at were most likely only giving me the option of an 'elective' caesarean (not really elective when it is the only option you are given?), so we went to another hospital and had a successful ECV. I went into labour spontaneously and had my baby girl at home last month.

I feel so lucky to have escaped the knife and terrified that it seemed to be the only option, had my baby remained breech, as we had decided we would prefer not to go ahead with our plan for a homebirth if she stayed in that position.

I still feel confused about the system we had to navigate and realise that if we had have been less educated we would not have questioned it. I can only imagine my recovery and the distress I would have felt now with a 5 week old baby and a toddler running around had things have been different.

My youngest sister is now a graduate midwife and I don't think she has ever seen a vaginal breech birth, nor has she been taught how to support a woman/baby should one arise under her care.

Definitely cause for great concern, in my opinion. 

Thankyou 'motherwho' for sharing your journey.

Understanding what's behind an adverse outcome

Today I am recording a few of my personal thoughts in relation to the (lengthy) Coroner's report that was released this past week, in Adelaide.  I have written about it from the perspective of Australian Private Midwives Association (APMA) at the privatemidwives blog.

Principles of accountability and transparency must be applied to professional practice.  When something goes wrong in birth, our society wants to know, and has a right to know what happened.  It's easy for me to say that the safety and wellbeing of mother and baby guide my professional advice and actions, but what about the times when things aren't clear?  How must I act when a woman in my care understands her personal risk differently from the mainstream?

A considerable proportion of my practice in the past 20 years has been with women who would not be graded 'low' risk, yet they want to give birth spontaneously, without drugs to stimulate their labours, or to ameliorate pain.  The most usual 'risk factors' that these women have include previous caesarean surgery, a previous large baby, a previous post partum haemorrhage, and grand-multiparity.  So, when I read in the SA Coroner's report that 

"All three infants died after complications that were experienced in the course of their deliveries. These were complications of a kind that from time to time occur in deliveries of the types involved in these cases, and were therefore not entirely unpredictable."

I wonder if a similar judgment is being made of my practice, as though a midwife who agrees to attend women with recognised risk profiles is playing a version of Russian Roulette, and the midwife in South Australia was just unlucky?

The recommendations made by the Coroner in this instance appear to be an [albeit superficial] attempt to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

This course of action - the statutory authority using its considerable muscle to regulate and control the practice of midwifery - would appear acceptable to the majority of maternity care providers and academics. The suggestion is that:

• if a baby is known to be large, the birth should be facilitated (presumably by repeat caesarean, because it's not safe to induce a BAC labour);  
• if the baby is known to be presenting breech, it would almost certainly be born alive by elective caesarean; 
• if a woman is known to have twins, the babies will probably be born alive in the care of an obstetrician (most of whom will strongly advise elective caesarean) 

That is a superficial, linear argument that fails to recognise the complexities of maternity care.  This suggested course of action ignores the increased risk that each caesarean places on the woman's reproductive future: a risk that does not really show up in the statistical reports.  It passes over the fact that many women who seek private midwifery care are consciously avoiding mainstream services.  It fails to notice that highly skilled, experienced midwives have been excluded from practising in any setting except the home.  And then there are all the issues of trust and continuity in providing optimal maternity care.

I cannot ignore the fact that some women in my practice who have agreed to go to hospital, following my advice, have told me how they suffered as a result.  The woman who gave birth spontaneously to twins in hospital told me she still grieved, several years later, that the first baby was taken from her, became chilled, and she deeply grieved that unnecessary separation.  She told me she felt exposed and a lack of respect when she realised that a gaggle of unknown extra people had quietly slipped into the room to watch her breech baby being 'delivered' by the obstetrician. [It could be argued here that public hospitals are training grounds, and doctors and midwives have become deskilled in breech vaginal births, so ...]

Another woman who agreed to have an IV cannula when she gave birth in hospital to her third baby after a previous caesarean experienced the shock of being treated, without any discussion or consent, for post partum haemorrhage immediately after the birth, despite the fact that her blood loss was not excessive.  The 'risk' factors - VBAC, multiparity, and large baby - seemed to precipitate an over-energetic response by the hospital midwives.  The emergency code had been rehearsed, prepared for, and was called into action.  Perhaps that group of midwives will be more ready and competent when it really is called for???

In each of these, and other situations, I have grieved my contribution to the 'harming' of women, even though what happened occurred as I tried to ensure wellbeing and safety.  I cannot control another person's actions.  I also cannot use these experiences as a reason to stay out of hospital in future situations.  The safety of mothers and babies in my care is linked in complex ways with my own attitude towards the hospitals, my own ability to facilitate a spirit of cooperation between hospital staff, myself, and my client.

I look forward to the day when midwives will be free to practise (midwifery) without restriction in any setting; home or hospital.
***********

The Coroner's recommendations are listed at the end of the 106-page report.  In this blog I am attempting to summarise the recommendations, for future reference:


1) legislation to outlaw unregulated midwifery services "without being a midwife or a medical practitioner registered pursuant to the National Law;"
2) legislation requiring reporting "the intention of any person under his or her care to undergo a homebirth in respect of deliveries that are attended by an enhanced risk of complication,"
3) That the woman who is reported in (2) will receive "advice to be tendered to that person from a senior consultant obstetrician as to the desirability or otherwise, ..."
4) "establishment of a position known as the Supervisor of Midwives"
5) "establishment of alternative birthing centres" [note: not one of the three mothers of babies who died would have been eligible to go to 'alternative birthing centres']
6) education for public distribution on homebirths and risks
7) revised policy for Planned Birth at Home in South Australia "with an addition that current risk factors for shoulder dystocia be specifically identified;"
8) "That in any case where it comes to the attention of clinicians in a public hospital that a patient intends to undergo a homebirth that is attended by an enhanced risk of complication, that appropriate advice be tendered to that person by a senior consultant obstetrician."

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.

Normal birth for a breech baby

From time to time a presentation becomes available via this wonderful www that is really worth sharing.

Today I would like to direct my readers to the blogs of two colleagues, midwives who are committed, as I am, to sharing the knowledge and skill of authentic midwifery. I would encourage you to follow these two links, then come back and read my comments. Please feel free to make any comment here, or on the other blogs too. (You know that comments are very much appreciated by bloggers.)

Lisa Barrett has written about the Mechanisms of unassisted normal breech birth, with a superb set of photos.

Carolyn Hastie has presented this You-Tube video, which is in Spanish, with her own comments.

Risk aversion

Midwives who attend women for homebirths have often been portrayed as having an affinity or fondness for risk, accepting and even encouraging situations that would not be considered suitable for midwife-led care in hospital.