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

TWO YEARS LATER

It's two years since November 2010, when the Australian government announced sweeping maternity reforms that promised to give women a better deal in their maternity care.  The Report of the Maternity Services Review acknowledged that:

"... in light of current evidence and consumer preference, there is a case to expand the range of models of maternity care."

There are several posts on this site addressing the 2008 Review, and the subsequent recommendations and legislative reform.  For example, go to March 2010 Maternity Reform Hijacked, parts 1, 2, and 3; and the September 2010 one on Medicare funding: carrot or poisoned chalice.

Many midwives around this country have accepted the challenge, jumped through all the hoops, and achieved notation as Medicare eligible.  Our invoices for antenatal and postnatal midwifery services include the Medicare item numbers, and women are able to obtain Medicare rebate.  Some midwives are offering certain services at the Medicare bulk bill rate, which involves the swipe of a Medicare card in a little EFTPOS machine; the entry of a few details using the numbers on the machine, and the bulk bill payment shows up in the midwife's nominated bank account the next day.

The other major change that was brought about by the reform package was the ability of midwives to prescribe certain scheduled drugs: drugs that at present only a doctor can prescribe.  The first group of students in the Graduate Diploma of Midwifery from Flinders University are soon to receive their final scores for the Pharmacology exam paper, which we sat last Thursday, and which accounts for 50% of the mark.  For my journal as a student, go to this and subsequent entries.

On the positive side of the 2-year report of the 'reform' process we can record Medicare.  For example, Item number 82115, with a scheduled fee of $313.05 is

Professional attendance by a participating midwife, lasting at least 90 minutes, for assessment and preparation of a maternity care plan for a patient whose pregnancy has progressed beyond 20 weeks,...

[Health Insurance (Midwife and Nurse Practitioner) Determination 2011 - F2011L02162

]
The Medicare statistics website reveals that, in the 12 months October 2011 to October 2012, a total of $325,005 was paid out by Medicare for Item #82115.
The breakdown of amounts is (in order of magnitude):

Queensland $114,010
Victoria $63,944
South Australia $55,081
NSW $44,308
WA $40,720
ACT $3,241
Tas $2,912
NT $788

This is only one item number.  Other reports can be generated at the Medicare Item Reports site.


On the negative side of the leger, there are several points to note.  This list is my personal one, made from my experience.

1. Medicare Collaboration:
   It is becoming increasingly difficult in some areas to obtain collaborative arrangements that meet the requirements for midwives to provide Medicare rebates for women.
   
2. Access to practising in public hospitals: Despite expert multi-disciplinary committees and meetings and reports, it's clear that public hospitals do not welcome the idea of midwives practising privately within their confines.
3.  Access to practising in private hospitals: Are you kidding?
4. The homebirth problem: Midwives attending homebirth are doing so without indemnity insurance.  Surely the time of birth, regardless of place, is the very time when insurance may be useful. 
5. The future of private midwifery practice: I believe it is becoming more difficult over time to sustain private midwifery practice.  I believe some (probably well meaning) captains of the industry have an agenda to rid our society of homebirth.

Two years on, and the private midwifery profession is more restricted than it was previously.  There has been no expansion of the "range of models of maternity care" - the stated purpose of the maternity reforms.

*****

In conclusion, today I sat in a court room in Melbourne, as the case of complaints into the professional practice of a colleague was commenced by AHPRA.  The law under which the complaints are being heard prevents publication of the name of the complainant, and in this case the names of the women who employed the midwife have also been suppressed.

The legal inquiries and arguments will proceed over the coming days, and the midwife will eventually be told what findings have been made against her, and what conditions may be placed on her ability to practise her profession. [see MidwivesVictoria]

The issue that will, I believe, be at the centre of the case is whether a midwife is *allowed* to attend birth at home for a woman who has recognised risk factors.  The other side of that same coin is whether a woman who has risk factors, such as post maturity, previous caesarean, or twins, is *allowed* to give birth at home.  I have written *allowed* this way to highlight the statutory process that is being employed here, using the regulation of the profession to either permit or prevent certain activities, that are seen - rightly or wrongly - as 'operating on the fringe'.

I am not able in a blog to explore these issues fully.  I would like to make a clear statement that I consider the duty of care of the midwife who agrees to provide primary care for any woman, regardless of the risk status of that woman, to include the promotion of the wellbeing of mother and child, and where reasonable, the protection of spontaneous natural life processes.  The woman is the one who has the final choice on accepting or refusing any intervention.

The midwife practising privately brings skill and knowledge that may not be accessible or reliable in the hospital, where ad-hoc staffing issues often take precedence over the interests of the individual woman.

What progress have we made in the two years since the Maternity reform package was enacted?  Very little.  The only place most midwives are able to practise is the home.  The only way a woman can rely on a midwife is if she plans home birth.

hospitals and independent midwives

When a midwife walks into a hospital with a woman for whom she is providing private midwifery services, that midwife faces a complex and often challenging work environment.

Recently I went to hospital with a woman who I will call Melissa, who was planning VBAC.  Melissa's first child had been delivered by emergency caesarean, after induction of labour at 42 weeks.  This time Melissa was well informed, and intentional about all her decisions.

Melissa had experienced a difficult week 39-40 in her pregnancy.  There were several nights without much sleep, and she had a cold.  A couple of days after her expected due date, Melissa asked me to assess her internally, and consider a 'stretch and sweep' of the membranes at her cervix.  I was pleased to report a well applied head, a very thin cervix, and about 1.5cm dilation.  With very gentle stretching of the cervix, I felt confident that the labour was imminent.

Sure enough, Melissa called me a few hours later, and I went with her as she was admitted to the hospital birth suite.  Melissa laboured strongly, and together we considered any decisions that needed to be made, following 'Plan A'.  I continued 'with woman' through the labour and birth, and afterwards.

There is nothing remarkable about this little account.  However, the matter that has prompted me to write about hospitals and independent midwives is the question of what to call a midwife who goes to hospital with a woman in her care.

I call that midwife a midwife.

Others call that midwife a 'support person', or a 'birth support person', or even 'only support'!

Why?

Because the independent midwife does not have visiting access/ clinical privileges/ credentialling in that hospital.

This is true - Victorian public maternity hospitals have dragged their feet on this matter.  Despite government-supported indemnity insurance for private midwives providing intrapartum care in hospital, there is no likelihood of hospital visiting access in the near future.

So does a midwife cease to be a midwife, just because the hospital refuses to roll out the red carpet?  Of course not!  A midwife is 'with woman': not with a setting for birth.  The midwife's registration is with the regulatory body, which is not under the management of the hospital.  And, let's remember that if a midwife acted in a way that was considered unprofessional, she or he would expect to be reported to the regulatory authority as a midwife, not as a 'support person'.

The ICM definition of the Midwife
declares that the midwife's Scope of Practice is:

The midwife is recognised as a responsible and accountable professional who works in partnership with women to give the necessary support, care and advice during pregnancy, labour and the postpartum period, to conduct births on the midwife’s own responsibility and to provide care for the newborn and the infant. This care includes preventative measures, the promotion of normal birth, the detection of complications in mother and child, the accessing of medical care or other appropriate assistance and the carrying out of emergency measures.

'Support' is listed in the definition as one of the elements of midwifery.  I do not want to seem to devalue support.  But the point I want to make is that support is a part of the midwife's scope of practice: not an alternative to midwifery practice, and definitely not an alternative to the title 'midwife'.

Thankyou for your comments.

CULTURAL HYSTERIA?

Readers of this blog are probably familiar with the historical roots of 'hysteria'; the Greek word ὑστέρα (hystera) meaning womb, the condition of the wandering womb, and recommended treatments.

"Galen, a prominent physician from the 2nd century, wrote that hysteria was a disease caused by sexual deprivation in particularly passionate women: hysteria was noted quite often in virgins, nuns, widows and, occasionally, married women. The prescription in medieval and renaissance medicine was intercourse if married, marriage if single, or vaginal massage (pelvic massage) by a midwife as a last recourse.[1]" [Wikipedia]

The Medical Dictionary that my computer's online dictionary led me to offers this information:

hysteria hys·ter·i·a (hĭ-stěr'ē-ə, -stēr'-) n.

A neurosis characterized by the presentation of a physical ailment without an organic cause, such as amnesia.

Excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear.[Link]

I wish to contend here that there is a cultural hysteria in response to midwifery.  A cultural neurosis that leads to excessive and uncontrollable fear about that highly contested terrain, childbirth.

While midwives are recognised internationally as essential providers of primary maternity care, Australian midwives (and our sisters in many other developed countries) face exclusion and restriction when simply practising our profession.

Cultural hysteria with regard to midwifery depicts the midwife as someone who lacks skill in management of obstetric emergencies, events that are bound to happen, leading to a mass fear reaction.  Cultural hysteria sets up a fearful scenario, and uses that scenario to prove its point.

I don't have answers to every possible scenario, but I do know that in the State of Victoria, where I live and work, data from privately attended planned homebirth have been collected and reported on for many years, demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of planned homebirth in the care of a midwife.

The mothers who planned to give birth at home have not been uniformly 'low risk': they include births after Caesarean, mothers who are older, or who have had more births, or whose babies are bigger than average.  They are ordinary women, who just want to give birth to their babies.

The midwives have not undertaken any special courses of study: they are simply competent midwives, who seek to work in harmony with physiological processes, and who, generally, refer women appropriately when complications are suspected. 

The Victorian government’s Perinatal Data Collection (PDC) unit within the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity (CCOPMM) publishes an annual profile that captures all planned homebirths in the state, and puts the data alongside cumulative data from hospitals and statewide totals. These reports, although retrospective, carry a high degree of reliability.

The reports over the past 20+ years have shown planned homebirth in the care of a midwife as a safe option in terms of maternal and perinatal morbidity, with many features that are considered protective of the mother’s and baby’s wellbeing and safety. 

For example, in 2008, the most recent set of published data in this series:
• 91.5% of women planning homebirth had unassisted cephalic births, compared with 55.4% state-wide.
• Approximately 5% of women planning homebirth at the beginning of labour had caesareans, compared with 19% in small ‘low risk’ (<100 births) hospitals, and 31% statewide.

When looking at the baby outcomes for the same group (2008),
• 95.6% of babies born to mothers who planned homebirth at the beginning of labour did not require admission to a hospital nursery, which is approximately the same as the rate for small hospitals with less than 400 births per year.

These data support our contention that there is safety and protection of wellbeing for mother and baby when midwives attend women for planned homebirth.


I recognise that individual cases may be held up as examples of things going very wrong in birth, whether that birth takes place in a tertiary hospital, a private hospital, the woman's home, a birth centre, or in the back seat of the car. 

There are risks associated with birth, as there are particular risks linked to any life event.

I believe that the safety and wellbeing of mothers and babies in our community is enhanced by a strong midwifery profession that is recognised as essential in effective primary maternity care.

WHY I DISAGREE WITH THE CORONER'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Having written last week about some of the complexities of the decisions made by women about their birth-giving, and the roles of midwives, I would like today to briefly explore why I disagree with (most of) the South Australian Coroner's recommendations in the recent case.

I have summarised the recommendations as:
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."

Rather than starting with #1 and plodding through this minefield, I will start with what I see as easier, and pick my way through the minefield, trying to state my opinions clearly. (And, dear reader, I must warn you that I often delete a great deal of what I write, so that you see the heavily edited version)

6) education for public distribution on homebirths and risks 

This is not a bad idea. My only hesitation relates to what sort of education, and who writes it, and who defines the risks, and ...

 5) "establishment of alternative birthing centres" 

Also not a bad idea - for the 1980s, that is. Midwifery theorists proposed that hospital rooms dressed as 'home-like' settings would help women to feel OK about birth.  Some women did well, while many were excluded by risk protocols, and moved into standard (the alternative to 'alternative') obstetric care.  I gave birth to my fourth child at the Women's Birth Centre in 1980, and that experience helped me come out of medically managed and dominated midwifery.  I know many other midwives who have learnt to work in harmony with physiology in unmedicated birth, and to trust their midwifery knowledge when detecting and acting upon complications, during their time working or giving birth in a birth centre.  Perhaps that's a good reason to establish birthing centres.

4) "establishment of a position known as the Supervisor of Midwives"

I need to sit on the fence for this one.  The role of Supervisor of Midwives is one that I don't fully understand.  How would these people be appointed?  What would their role entail?  Would all midwives be supervised, or only certain midwives?    The UK-style Supervisor of Midwives is different from the New Zealand system.  Psychologists work under a system of professional supervision.  I believe a thorough exploration of this proposal needs to be had by midwives, ethicists, psychologists, lawyers, and maternity consumer spokespeople, and some agreement reached, before yet another regulatory control be imposed on the profession.

1) legislation to outlaw unregulated midwifery services "without being a midwife or a medical practitioner registered pursuant to the National Law;"

NO!
Australia does not need to outlaw unregulated midwifery services.
Australia needs to protect and support the midwifery profession, so that midwives can provide midwifery services in homes and hospitals; so that women will feel safe in the professional care of midwives as primary carers, who are able to work seamlessly with specialist services when indicated.
Modern societies, and the legislators and coroners and others in positions of authority need to recognise that spontaneous labour and birth is a fact of nature, not something that a midwife controls or gives permission for, and that women under natural law are able to use the professional services provided in their community, or not.  It's their choice.

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,"

NO!
Midwives who understand the ethical and moral duties of our profession, who by definition work 'in partnership' with a woman, will REFUSE to report women on the grounds of a plan for homebirth.  My own practice for many years has been to encourage women to see the choice of place of birth as a decision they make as labour becomes established, and not before.  I believe this is best practice, as the midwife is committed to the woman, not to the planned setting for birth.

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."

HOW would this work?  Will that woman be arrested and forced to listen to 'appropriate advice' being delivered?

I have not tried to tease out which risk factors the Coroner thinks would be used to initiate reports or the giving of advice.  There are few absolutes in midwifery.  Regardless of what risk factors may be attending a particular situation, physiological birth always starts with spontaneous onset of labour, and spontaneous onset of labour happens in the woman's own time, in her own world, in her own body.  The woman has to make a decision to call a midwife, or not; to go to hospital, or not.  This decision cannot be taken from her.

This set of recommendations exhibits a shallow and linear view of life, risk, and decision-making.  The question that the Coroner seemed to avoid is:

"If a mother does not want to go to hospital, when overwhelming professional advice would want her to give birth in hospital, WHY?", and

"What can be done to make going to hospital a more acceptable choice for women for whom complex obstetric care may become necessary?"



Australia is a society which supports a wide range of freedoms for the individual.  I don't have the words to describe the legal and ethical framework that this is built upon, but I know that when a State (government-sanctioned authorities) is given power to control the most intimate relationships between a woman and her child, that comes with a great loss of basic freedom.

Civil disobedience by midwives has been recorded many times, when the midwives believed that the lives or wellbeing of the mother and/or her baby were at risk.  The Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, who were prepared to disobey and deceive the autocratic, absolute authority of Pharoah, are our model.

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, "When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.  But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live.  So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?"  The midwives said to Pharoah, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives come to them."  So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong,.  And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. (Exodus 1: 15-21, From the New Revised Standard Version (1989) of the Bible)

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."

a career in private midwifery?

... continuing thoughts on this topic from the MIPP blog.

with Sue and baby Benjamin - photo taken by Amy, used with permission

Today I want to focus on questions that arise for midwives and midwifery students who are considering a career in private midwifery practice. If you want to practise privately, independent of the mainstream maternity hospitals (public or private) which provide employment for the great majority of midwives in this country, you need to find a sustainable way to work.

Most midwives who practise privately in this country rely for 'business' almost exclusively on individual women who seek the one-to-one midwife who will work with them when they labour and give birth.  Midwives in private practice have caseload bookings, with individual women, usually across the spectrum of pre-, intra-, and postnatal services.

Most births at which the woman's chosen midwife is the primary/leading professional in attendance - the one who takes responsibility for the conduct of the birth and ensuring the wellbeing of mother and child in that acute episode of care - are in the woman's own home. There are midwives with clinical privileges in hospitals in the South-Eastern corner of Queensland (Toowoomba, Ipswich, Brisbane, Gold Coast), and Sydney. I don't have the details, but can follow up if anyone wants to know more.

What does a private midwifery practice look like, from a business perspective?

We need to consider the practice (the acts and being of midwifery) separately from the business (structure and financial aspects).

The midwife's practice can be 'solo' (working as the only professional midwife booked by a woman for the episode of care) or in arrangements where two or more midwives work together to provide the primary care for each woman who is booked with them. This is often described as a 'group practice'.

The private midwife's business arrangements for earning a living can be a simple 'fee for service' in which the woman/client pays that midwife directly, or the fee may be paid to an employer/company which in turn remunerates the midwife for the work she undertakes. The employer in the latter instance could be a midwifery group practice, or another business such as a group of obstetricians. The midwife may or may not be a partner in the practice.  Whatever the arrangement, laws applying to tax, employment and superannuation must be complied with.

My system for management of payments is that any money that is transacted, whether by cash, credit card, cheque, or electronic transfer, and whether by the woman or by Medicare (bulk billing) is immediately recorded by hand in a small 'Cash Receipt' book with carbon copies.  This automatically generates a number for the receipt, as all the pages are numbered, and I add a prefix which refers to the number on the outside of the booklet - at present the prefix is 17.  The top page is placed in the client's file, and the carbon page stays in the receipt book.  The receipt number and information will be entered into my Quickbooks accounting system when I get to it.  This is the basis for my income tax, and quarterly BAS returns.  Midwifery services do not generate the goods and services tax (GST), but the GST charged on purchases by the midwife in carrying out her business can be claimed from the ATO.

Most of my midwifery practice is 'solo', with some bookings made in which I practise with another midwife.  Recently I have enjoyed working with my colleague and friend, Jan Ireland from MAMA, in providing midwifery services for a woman who was booked with Jan.  I will describe this case from the perspective of the new Medicare arrangements, as it demonstrates how midwives are able to work together within the collaborative arrangement and maternity care plan set up by the midwife who has made the primary booking.

In this case, from the Medicare perspective, the second midwife is able to act as a reliving midwife or locum for the primary midwife.  The locum is described in legislation
Health Insurance (Midwife and Nurse Practitioner) Determination 2011, Health Insurance Act 1973,

Part 4 Interpretation

(1) In this Part: collaborative arrangement, for a participating midwife’s patient, means a collaborative arrangement mentioned in regulation 2C of the Health Insurance Regulations 1975. delivery includes episiotomy and repair of tears.

(2) For this Part, a participating midwife is a member of a practice that provides a patient’s antenatal care if the midwife:

(a) participates (whether as a partner, employee or otherwise) in the provision of professional services as part of the practice; or

(b) provides relief services to the practice; or

(c) provides professional services as part of the practice as a locum.

The arrangement by which I have provided (b)'relief services to the practice' or (c) 'professional services as part of the practice as a locum' is under (a) 'otherwise', since I am neither partner nor employee of MAMA.



Midwives who are beginning private practice, and who have Medicare eligibility, may consider the 'relief/locum' model, either as partner, employee, or otherwise, as a means of getting started.  



I commenced this post with a question, 'a career in private midwifery?'.  I believe there is a great potential for midwives to aspire to extending their midwifery practice when they step out of hospital employment into private practice.  However there are also significant risks, which all would do well to consider. 

Midwives who practise privately in a community are able to support each other, with relief/locum services, on one hand, while on the other they may be competitors for business.  Being able to accept and work constructively with this dynamic is a key to sustainability in private midwifery practice, not just for the individual midwife, but also for the community served by midwives over generations.

Reflection on practice

Today I am using Gibbs' reflective process in reviewing an experience I have had recently, attending a woman, who I will call Linda (not her real name), giving birth in hospital. I do not want to approach this from an idealistic standpoint, or to 'deamonise' the hospital. Birth, as with the rest of life, is full of unpredictable moments when those who are present are called upon to do their best.

Alena welcomes her baby brother, Christopher

I want to assure readers that mother and baby are well.  However, I am left with some difficult questions. I question my own actions as well as those of colleagues in the hospital.

1. What happened?
Linda was treated unnecessarily (imho) and aggressively for obstetric haemorrhage.

2. Feelings: What was I thinking and feeling?
I was shocked, surprised, and bewildered when I realised that there was a full-scale emergency 'code' being performed, with not only active management of the Third Stage, but additional oxytocic drugs intramuscular Syntometrine, intravenous Syntocinon (40 IU in 1 litre of fluid) administered urgently.

3. Evaluation: What was good and bad about the experience?
What was good? Having experienced respectful care from the doctors and midwives through the pregnancy, and engaged in carefully informed decision-making up to the moment of birth, this incident was an over-reaction to Linda's known risk factors (including multiparity, and a previous caesarean birth)
What was bad: I realised that I had facilitated this chain of events, because I encouraged Linda to agree in early labour to having the IV cannula sited in her arm.

4. Analysis: What sense can I make of the situation?
I can understand why this incident happened, because I know about other very difficult incidents that this group of midwives were dealing with.

5. Conclusion: What else could I have done?
At present a midwife practising privately is not able to have visiting access for clinical privileges in hospitals in Victoria. I cannot over-ride the clinical decision of another midwife, and when an emergency code has been called, I would be foolish to interfere. My long term hope is that I will be able to have clinical practice rights in public hospitals, and in this case I would be able to take responsibility for my own clients.

6. Action Plan: If it arose again, what will I do? 

As I noted in #3 above, I had encouraged Linda to agree to the hospital's policy and have an IV cannula sited in preparation for an incident such as a post partum haemorrhage (pph). I believe Linda would have declined the offer if I had not spoken to her about it. In this case I think it was the fact that the cannula was in situ, and the hospital midwife was basically 'set up' for a pph, that somehow set the pathway.

In another similar situation, I will be careful to inform the mother that once a cannula has been sited, it is easier for staff who may be on edge for totally unrelated reasons, to 'jump the gun' and treat her as though she is in an emergency, when this is not the case.

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.

Planning for birth

I have updated my little booklet, Planning for birth, which I have used for many years as a handout for women who visit me, making inquiries about having a baby, and for midwives and students of midwifery.

This booklet is self-published, and copies are printed as required. Readers who would like like a .pdf copy, please request by email joy@aitex.com.au [I have not hyperlinked this email address, as that may invite spam] I am happy to share my work. If you want to use copyrighted items such as the poem 'waiting' on page 8, please give reference.

waiting

You are waiting to give birth.

Your pregnancy is a statement of your wellness, life and strength.  New life is swelling your womb. 
 

You and your mate accept the gift of life with eager anticipation.

Your body tells you that change and growth are following nature’s course.   The cessation of your menstrual flow, the desire for good food and rest, the enlargement of your breasts - all external - accompany the private dreaming.

As your midwife I am committed to supporting you and your family through this wonderfully basic life event - the birth of your baby - your personal, intimate celebration of life and health.

 ©Joy Johnston

The pages of the booklet are also scanned here - 4 sheets with 2 pages per side.