Studies Support Home Birthing Option!

Specialties Ob/Gyn

Published

  1. Would You have a planned Home Birth?

    • 0
      No, see my post in this thread why not!
    • 2
      Maybe, I would need to think about it!
    • 8
      Yes, with a Midwife!
    • 0
      Yes, with a Physician!
    • 0
      Yes, unassisted!

10 members have participated

Ackermann-Liebrich U et al. Home versus hospital deliveries: follow up study

of matched pairs for procedures and outcomes. BMJ, 1996;313: 1313-1318.

During delivery the home birth group needed significantly less medication

and fewer interventions whereas no differences were found in durations of

labour, occurrences of severe perineal lesions, and maternal blood loss.

Conclusion: "Healthy low risk women who wish to deliver at home have no

increased risk either to themselves or to their babies."

Albers LL, Katz VL. (1991). Birth setting for low-risk pregnancies. An

analysis of the current literature. J Nurse Midwifery, 1991; 36(4): 215-20.

The authors concluded that "nontraditional birth settings present advantages

for low-risk women as compared with traditional hospital settings: lower

costs for maternity care, and lower use of childbirth procedures, without

significant differences in perinatal mortality."

Anderson RE, Anderson DA. The cost effectiveness of home birth. J Nurse

Midwifery, 1999; 44(1): 30-35.

"The average uncomplicated lady partsl birth costs 68% less in a home than in a

hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a lower combined rate of

intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower incidence of cesarean

delivery."

Anderson RE, Murphy PA. Outcomes of 11,788 planned home births attended by

certified nurse-midwives. A retrospective descriptive study. J Nurse

Midwifery, 1995; 40(6); 483-492.

For those planning a home birth when labor started, the intrapartum and

neonatal mortality rate was 2 per 1,000, falling to 0.9 per 1,000 when

deaths associated with congenital abnormalities were excluded.

Burnett CA et al. Home delivery and neonatal mortality in North Carolina.

JAMA 1980;244(24):2741-2745.

Excluding infants weighing 2000 g or less at birth, the neonatal mortality

rate for hospital deliveries in North Carolina was 7 per 1000 and for

midwife-attended home births it was 4 per 1000. Women attended by midwives

were more likely to be demographically high risk.

Chamberlain G, Wraight A, Crowley P, (eds). Birth at home: The report of the

1994 confidential enquiry by the National Birthday Trust. Pract Midwife

1999;2(7):35-9.

5971 women planning home births at 37 weeks' gestation were matched with

4724 women planning hospital delivery. The cesarean rate was 2.0% for home

births, 4.1% for hospital births. The rate of operative delivery (forceps,

vacuum) was 2.4% for home, 5.4% for hospital. 5.2% of babies planned for

home birth, including transfers, had 1-minute Apgar scores >7, compared to

9.3% of planned hospital babies. Perinatal death rate was too low for both

groups to allow meaningful comparison; both groups were below the national

rate. Exclusive breastfeeding rates at six weeks postpartum were 65% for

planned home births and 44% for planned hospital births.

Conclusion: "In essence it seems that a woman who is appropriately selected

and screened for a home birth is putting herself and her baby at no greater

risk than a mother of a similar low-risk profile who is hospital booked and

delivered." The study included 53 mothers planning home birth after

cesarean.

Duran, AM. The safety of home birth: The Farm study. Am J Public Health

1992;82(3): 450-452.

The Farm cesarean rate was 1.5% versus 16.5% for the U.S. (The Farm midwives

have attended VBACs since 1985. This study included deliveries from

1971-1989.)

"Based on rates of perinatal death, of low 5-minute Apgar scores, of a

composite index of labor complications, and of use of assisted delivery, the

results suggest that, under certain circumstances, home births attended by

lay midwives can be accomplished as safely as, and with less intervention

than, physician-attended hospital deliveries."

Janssen PA, Holt VL, Myers SJ. Licensed midwife-attended, out-of-hospital

births in Washington State: Are they safe? Birth, 1994; 21(3): 141-148.

"The results of this study indicate that in Washington State the practice of

licensed non-nurse-midwives, whose training meets standards set by

international professional organizations, may be as safe as that of

physicians in hospital and certified nurse-midwives in and out of hospital."

(Note: My primary birth attendant meets the requirements for licensure in

Washington State.)

Mehl LE at al. Outcomes of elective home births: a series of 1,146 cases. J

Reprod Med 1977;19(5): 281-290.

The cesarean rate was 2.4% compared with a California primary cesarean rate

of about 5%. The forceps rate was 1.5% The episiotomy rate was 7.8% and

12.9% of women had lacerations requiring repair. The perinatal mortality

rate was 9.5 per 1000 versus 20.3 per 1000 for California.

Murphy PA, Fullerton J. Outcomes of intended home-births in nurse-midwifery

practice: A prospective descriptive study. Obstet Gynecol, 1998; 92(3):

461-470.

"Home birth can be accomplished with good outcomes under the care of

qualified practitioners and within a system that facilitates transfer to

hospital care when necessary. Intrapartal mortality during intended home

birth is concentrated in postdates pregnancies with evidence of meconium

passage." "This study supports previous research indicating that planned

home birth with qualified care providers can be a safe alternative for

healthy low-risk mothers."

Northern Region Perinatal Mortality Survey Coordinating Group. Collaborative

survey of perinatal loss in planned and unplanned home births. BMJ 1996;313:

1306-1309.

Perinatal mortality in planned home births "was less than half the average

for all births, and few of these deaths were associated with substandard

care."

Olson O. Meta-analysis of the safety of home birth. Birth, 1997; 24(1):

4-13.

Included six controlled studies covering 24, 092 mainly low-risk women

planning home or hospital births. Perinatal mortality was not significantly

different between the planned home and planned hospital groups, but the

planned home birth group had fewer low Apgar scores and fewer severe

maternal lacerations. There was less intervention in the planned home birth

group: fewer inductions, fewer episiotomies, fewer assisted deliveries, and

fewer cesareans.

"Home birth is an acceptable alternative to hospital confinement for

selected pregnant women, and leads to reduced medical interventions."

Schlenka P. Safety of alternative approaches to childbirth. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1999. Available online:

http://www.domiciliary.org/freedom/@birth/meadsum.html.

Conclusions: "...low-risk women who opt for a natural childbirth in an

out-of-hospital setting will experience a slightly though not significantly

lower perinatal mortality than low-risk women who opt for a hospital birth

under the management of an obstetrician, including the unfavorable results

for transfers from home to hospital. Our data also suggest that even for the

high-risk levels of our study population the natural approach produces the

same perinatal mortality outcomes as the obstetric approach. Given no

differences in perinatal mortality it must be noted that the natural

approach shows significant advantages with respect to lower maternity care

cost as well as reduced mortality and morbidity from unnecessary cesareans

and other obstetric interventions, and significant benefits from avoiding

negative long-term consequences from unnecessary obstetric interventions and

procedures."

Tyson H. Outcomes of 1001 midwife-attended home births in Toronto,

1983-1988. Birth, 1991; 18(1):14-9.

Spontaneous lady partsl delivery rate was 93%, including transfers. The forceps

rate was 3.4%, and the cesarean rate was 3.5% Among all lady partsl births,

17.9% had episiotomies, of which most were performed by physicians at

hospital births. Only 0.5% had third-degree lacerations and 55.2% had an

intact perineum. Perinatal mortality rate was 2/1001. At 28 days postpartum,

98.6% of mothers were fully breastfeeding.

Woodcock HC, Read AW, Bower C, Stanley FJ, Moore DJ. A matched cohort study

of planned home and hospital births in Western Australia 1981-1987.

Midwifery, 1994;10(3):125-35.

Women in the home birth group had longer labors but were less likely to have

induction, cesarean, or other operative delivery; and less likely to have

other interventions overall. Babies in the home birth group were in better

condition at birth. Hospital babies were more likely to take a while to

start breathing, to need resuscitation, and to have Apgar scores lower than

8. Perinatal mortality was higher overall in the home birth group, but it

was not statistically significant. Neonatal mortality was significantly

higher in the hospital birth group.

"Key Conclusions: Planned home births in Western Australia appear to be

associated with less overall maternal and neonatal morbidity and less

intervention than hospital births."

Also, you could certainly get Marsden Wagner or Lewis Mehl to comment as OBs

on the safety of home birth. If you want, I'll look up their email addresses

for you.

shay, like how you named it a *home birth baby*.....things happen to babies no matter where they are born, but more unneccessary interventions are made in hospital than anywhere else.

If docs and nurses could learn to keep their hands out of a woman's lady parts during the birth process, things would be much better!! Less reliance on technology and more on instinct!! Before technology came along, docs had other ways to know how a baby and mom were doing, now they rely on the machines that are not always reliable......I mean, how many times does the u/s say there is a problem with this or that, a HUGE baby or TINY baby....turns out not to be true....

Hospitals are for the sick, I'm pg and not the least bit sick....why would I want to subject my baby to all the super germs of the hospital?? Or all the unneccessary procedures?? :eek:

Nursing school didn't teach me any of this....I had to seek out other ways to educate myself about how birth can be....how it should be.....

true that.. But.. although I am a fervent partisan to homebirth and have helped in many settings as a doula, I have observed the following:

The homebirth client "most of the time" is a creme of the crop client, they take care of themselves, do not smoke or drink and believe in their bodies..

Now, the majority of the population that I receive in the hospital I work with, would not be imo the creme of the crop..except of course for a few..

A MW usually reserves herself the right to refuse a client for a homebirth if she estimates the risk fators too being too high..

Ginny Doula RN SNM

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.

I had a homebirth with a CPM with my second child, and if I had another baby (which I won't) I would do it again. I am very convinced that if I had had her in the hospital, I would have ended up with a C/S for FTP.

I think it's odd that women can't have this option if they chose it as no OB doc here will do them and we don't have any midwives either. The litterature all points to it being as safe as a hospital birth for certain women, but they still subjected to scare tactics. A fellow L&D nurse who was a midwife in Britain said the time it takes to get to the hospital (a few minutes) is not wasted because the doc, anesthetist, nurses, would be setting up for the c-section during that time.

Think again. NO hospital staff are going to prepare for something they have no knowledge about. Time is always wasted, even when you are already IN the hospital. Uually setting up is not the problem. Not being near immediate help is the issue here. Although I support a person's right to choose, I would never chose HB for myself. Even working in thew risk/low intervention setting that I do, I know how quickly one can go from fine to bad. I woul rather see more of the option of coming in to birth aqnd then having the option to go home in 12 hours if both mom and baby are stable (which is usually the case).

Specializes in NICU.

While I understand why homebirths are a very attractive option for many women...

I would never do it personally. Like others have said, I've seen too much. I want a hospital, an IV (just in case), fetal monitors, and an experienced high risk delivery team a phone call away. Yes, bad things can happen at home or in the hospital, but at least in the hospital everything is right there. Seconds count.

Can you tell I'm a NICU nurse?

Bets, I am talking about where the midwife and OB are working together in the hospital. She seemed to make it sound like the midwife could call the hospital and they would start setting up for the c-section while they came in. I don't remember the conversation exactly because you quoted a very old post:) I wouldn't have a hb either, but where I was living at the time I posted that, no one could have one with a trained health care provider. No midwives, no obs willing to do it.

+ Add a Comment