Showing posts with label finding a care provider. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finding a care provider. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Hospitals with Midwives on Staff Have Better Outcomes


Here are two recent studies showing that hospitals with midwives and doctors practicing together ("interprofessional" centers) have better outcomes than hospitals with only doctors. One study is on first-time mothers (nulliparous), and the other study is on women who have given birth before (multiparous), to separate out the possible effects of parity.

In first-time mothers, women were much less likely to be induced or have oxytocin augmentation of labor in interprofessional/collaborative centers. The cesarean rate was 12% lower in interprofessional centers too.

For multiparous mothers (multips), women were again much less likely to be induced or have augmentation of labor in interprofessional centers. The first-time cesarean rate was 36% lower, and the Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) rate was 31% higher than in institutions with only doctors. Neonatal outcomes were similar between the two types of centers.

The implication here is that not only do midwives lower the rates of interventions without endangering outcomes, they also influence the hospital culture in a positive way. Doctors who work with midwives tend to be more flexible about interventions, less likely to push a cesarean without need, and more likely to support VBACs.

If you are considering a hospital birth, try to choose a hospital with both doctors and midwives on staff, one with low overall cesarean rates, and strongly consider hiring a doula for professional labor support. Most women can safely be attended by a midwife, so make that your first choice if you can. If a risk comes up that means that you need to see an OB or high-risk maternal fetal medicine (MFM) specialist, the midwife will refer you to one, probably one that is supportive of the parents' birth wishes whenever conditions allow.



References

Birth. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/birt.12407. [Epub ahead of print] Midwifery presence in United States medical centers and labor care and birth outcomes among low-risk nulliparous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study. Neal JL, Carlson NS, Phillippi JC, Tilden EL, Smith DC, Breman RB, Dietrich MS, Lowe NK. PMID: 30417436
...Our objective was to compare labor processes and outcomes for low-risk nulliparous women birthing in United States medical centers with interprofessional care (midwives and physicians) versus noninterprofessional care (physicians only). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk nulliparous women who birthed in interprofessional (n = 7393) or noninterprofessional centers (n = 6982). .. women at interprofessional medical centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 74% less likely to undergo labor induction (risk ratio [RR] 0.26; 95% CI 0.24-0.29) and 75% less likely to have oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.22-0.29). The cesarean birth rate was 12% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in only 0.3% of births and were thus too rare to be modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The care processes and birth outcomes at interprofessional and noninterprofessional medical centers differed significantly. Nulliparous women receiving care at interprofessional centers were less likely to experience induction, oxytocin augmentation, and cesarean than women at noninterprofessional centers. Labor care and birth outcome differences between interprofessional and noninterprofessional centers may be the result of the presence of midwives and interprofessional collaboration, organizational culture, or both.
Birth. 2018 Nov 9. doi: 10.1111/birt.12405. [Epub ahead of print] Influence of midwifery presence in United States centers on labor care and outcomes of low-risk parous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study. Carlson NS, Neal JL, Tilden EL, Smith DC, Breman RB, Lowe NK, Dietrich MS, Phillippi JC. PMID: 30414200
...We sought to use national United States data to analyze the association between midwifery presence in maternity care teams and the birth processes and outcomes of low-risk parous women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk parous women in either interprofessional care (n = 12 125) or noninterprofessional care centers (n = 8996). .. women at interprofessional centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 85% less likely to have labor induced (risk ratio [RR] 0.15; 95% CI 0.14-0.17). The risk for primary cesarean birth among low-risk parous women was 36% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.64; 95% CI 00.52-0.79), whereas the likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean for this population was 31% higher (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10-1.56). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Parous women have significantly higher rates of vaginal birth, including vaginal birth after cesarean, and lower likelihood of labor induction when cared for in centers with midwives. Our findings are consistent with smaller analyses of midwifery practice and support integrated, team-based models of perinatal care to improve maternal outcomes.

Friday, December 7, 2018

How to Find a Chiropractor in Pregnancy: Part Two


We have been discussing chiropractic care in pregnancy and how it can be helpful towards a more comfortable pregnancy and possibly a more efficient labor and birth.

Many people are interested in seeing a chiropractor, but some know nothing about how to find a good chiropractor for pregnancy.

Basically, all chiropractors receive some training in treating pregnant women, so you could see most chiropractors and get at least some help. However, some chiropractors are more highly trained in pregnancy than others and you are probably better off with those.

Your best bet is to find a chiropractor who is trained in the Webster Technique, which is a specific protocol that looks at the alignment of the sacrum and pelvis and the balancing of soft tissues (muscles, ligaments) around it:
The Webster technique is a specific chiropractic analysis and diversified adjustment. The goal of the adjustment is to reduce the effects of subluxation and/or SI [sacroiliac] joint dysfunction. In so doing neurobiomechanical function in the sacral/pelvic region is improved.
The Webster Technique is not just for pregnant people, but can be applied to any weight-bearing person. However, its focus on relieving restrictions in the pelvis and restoring balance to the soft tissues in the area may be particularly very useful for pregnancy.

Chiropractors who have extra training in working with pregnant people can be found in several ways. There are several chiropractic professional organizations, and they can be a good place to start your search. These organizations are similar in many ways, but may have differences of opinion on certain philosophies or treatments, etc.

International Chiropractic Pediatric Association

The International Chiropractic Pediatric Association (ICPA) has a list of chiropractors who specialize in working with kids and pregnant mothers, or who have completed a training course in Webster's Technique, which addresses the specific needs of the pregnant body.

You can find a pediatric chiropractor with the ICPA at http://icpa4kids.org/Find-a-Chiropractor/.

However, this is not a complete list of all the chiropractors who are certified in the Webster Technique. The chiropractors on this list are ones who have asked to be put on this referral list. There may well be other chiropractors in your area who have been trained in the Webster Technique but did not sign up for this list. You can call the ICPA and ask if there are others in your area trained in the Webster Technique.

According to the ICPA website, the ICPA has created a tiered level of training. The first level is "Webster-Certified," which means extra class time beyond the chiropractic degree specializing in the Webster Technique for pregnancy. It is often the starting point for even more advanced training.

The next level is Pediatric Certification, but there are several levels of this. Some program participants have the initials F.I.C.P.A after their names, and undergo 120 hours of continuing education. Other participants undergo an expanded program of 200 hours and have the initials, C.A.C.C.P., after their names. The highest level of training is the Pediatric Diplomate, which requires 400 hours of continuing education, and these chiropractors have the initials D.A.C.C.P. after their names.


International Chiropractic Association

The International Chiropractic Association (ICA) has a Council on Pediatric Chiropractics. Their focus is on treating children, but their definition of "pediatrics" includes in-utero babies so they treat pregnant women as well. Many of these ICA members have gone on to become Board Certified in chiropractic pediatrics in a 3-year post-graduate course of over 360 hours. These chiropractors have "D.I.C.C.P." after their names as well as "D.C." Look here for lists of those with a DICCP diploma.

The ICA also has a list of members who are trained chiropractors who are interested in and specialize in children, but who may or may not have the further training that a "DICCP" diplomate has. Some of the chiropractors on this list are in the process of working on the DICCP diplomate program but have not finished it yet. Regardless, they may be excellent possibilities as well.

In addition, the ICA can be reached at 1 (800) 423-4690 to ask for referrals in person. Ask for a pediatric chiropractor who knows the Webster Technique. 

Other Possible Sources

Not everyone who is certified in Webster's Technique is going to be on the ICA or ICPA lists, but they are good first places to start looking. If you can't find anyone in your area from these lists, it doesn't mean there is no one to help you. Keep looking; many women who initially think there is no one in their area who can help them do eventually find help. It just may not be from the above sources.

One of the best ways to find a Webster-certified chiropractor is to try calling your local homebirth midwives, childbirth educators, and doulas and asking for a recommendation. Often they are familiar with the healthcare professionals in the area that offer pregnancy-related services and can recommend the best ones to you, saving you a lot of time and trouble.

If you cannot find a chiropractor trained in the Webster Technique in your area, you could consider a chiropractor who has extensive experience with pregnant women. Even basic chiropractic care may help enough to make a difference in your comfort level. But if you have a choice, someone trained in the Webster technique is probably preferable. 

People in countries that don't have chiropractors may want to try an osteopath. Osteopaths also do body manipulation to help align the body and relieve restrictions, although not quite in the same way as chiropractors. However, not all osteopaths do manipulations anymore. You might need to find one who has had classical osteopath training.

In some areas, chiropractors can be hard to find. If all else fails, try cold-calling all the chiros and/or osteopaths in your area. Ask them:
  • If they have experience and training in treating pregnant women (and what that training might be)
  • How much of their practice is devoted to pregnant women and babies
  • What kind of special equipment they have for accommodating the growing belly of pregnant women
  • If they have been trained in either Webster Technique, the pelvic "diaphragmatic release," or any other technique which might be especially helpful to a pregnant person
  • If they have not been trained in any of these techniques and/or are not experienced with pregnant women, do they know of any chiropractors in the area who are?
Talk to them on the phone if you can and get an idea of how experienced they are and whether they "click" with you. If they sound good, consider trying them for one visit to see how things go. Some chiropractors will do a free consultation so you can visit their practice and check them out. Others might let you observe someone else's treatment (with the patient's permission) so you can see the techniques in action. Ask how many pregnant women the doctor usually sees. Ask for referrals from other patients. Call the midwives in your area and see if they have any experience with that chiropractor.

Remember, all chiropractors are not alike. Some use pretzel adjustments by twisting and turning the patient's body. Some use a drop table to give a little bit of extra force to the adjustment without having to push on the patient as hard. Some use an activator, a spring-loaded small tool that exerts less force for those who dislike traditional adjustments. Some do hands-on work so subtle it's hard to know they are doing anything. There are many, many techniques and styles out there.

Keep your "quackometer" on alert and don't be afraid to try a different chiropractor if one doesn't seem right to you, if the treatment seems unreasonable or ineffective to you, or if they seem too profit-driven. If one chiropractor doesn't work well for you, it doesn't mean that none will. Sometimes it's just a matter of finding the one that fits you and your needs.

If in the end you decide that chiropractic care is not for you, that is a perfectly legitimate choice as well. Many women go through pregnancy without chiropractic care and do just fine. But if you have lots of back pain, pelvic pain, or a history of falls and/or accidents, it may be worth searching a little harder to find the right chiropractor for your needs. 

My Chiropractic Search Story


Although I didn't really experience much significant back problems before pregnancy, once I was pregnant I began to have tremendous back pain, sciatica, and pubic symphysis pain, probably from a series of minor car accidents years before. My care providers shrugged my pain off as a normal part of pregnancy, but by the end of my second pregnancy I could hardly walk at times. This certainly didn't seem normal to me, so I decided to consider a chiropractor.

My search for a chiropractor was long and involved. At the time, there were no lists from the ICA or the ICPA to check, and the local chiros I consulted did not even know about the Webster Technique. I saw several different chiros or osteopaths (D.O.s) over the years, looking for some help. It took a long time to find the right one. 

The first chiro I tried was a sports specialist available through the local family doctor's office. Unfortunately, he was majorly fat-phobic and obviously disgusted by my body. He never physically evaluated my back or pelvis, and he never touched me. He told me that my back pain was because I wasn't getting enough exercise, and gave me some special exercises to do for the muscles in the area. I tried them; they didn't help. I gave up the idea of chiro care for several years.

In my third pregnancy, I stepped up the effort to find some help. None of the doctors or midwives I saw knew of anyone who knew the Webster Technique. I saw an osteopath who had never heard of the Webster Technique, told me my back and pelvis were fine despite all my pain, and was basically no help.

My prenatal yoga teacher in that pregnancy eventually mentioned a chiropractor who used a less forceful "Network" technique for adjustments and who specialized in sacrum pain. I decided that this was better than nothing and saw this chiro. These treatments did not really help much but he happened to know of a young chiropractor in the area who was in the process of getting her DICCP diplomate from the ICA, so he referred me to her.

Amazingly, this chiro had just learned the Webster Technique at a recent class session and was able to help me out. She was shocked at how badly my back and pelvis were out of alignment. My back and pubic symphysis pain improved greatly within an hour or two after treatment. Although we weren't trying to turn the baby with the adjustment, the baby turned from posterior to anterior within an hour after the adjustment, the first time any of my babies had been anterior in three pregnancies. I went on to have a few more appointments in that pregnancy to keep things aligned and fine tune everything. Two weeks later, my baby was born by VBAC, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean.

My third labor and birth was SO much easier than my first two. In my first pregnancy, I had pushed for 2 hours with a malpositioned baby, then had a cesarean. In my second pregnancy, I had pushed for 5 hours with a posterior baby, then had a cesarean. In this pregnancy, I pushed for 12 minutes and the baby was born. He was born so quickly the doctor didn't even make it to the birth; the nurse had to catch the baby. I attribute the relative ease of this birth to the chiropractic care and the fact that the baby had turned to anterior, unlike my previous babies. 

In my fourth pregnancy, I tried an ICPA-trained chiro who was located much closer to home because I was tired of the long drive to my usual chiropractor. The new chiro was perfectly nice and very competent, but she didn't "get" my body and was not able to give much relief. So even though this chiropractor knew the Webster Technique, was very well-trained and knowledgeable, and was certified through the ICPA, she wasn't the right chiropractor for me. 

At one point, I also tried a different osteopath, one with more "classical" manipulation training, and did not find those results as effective either. I eventually went back to a chiropractor trained by my original chiropractor, realizing that a long drive was well worth the trouble to get better results. He focused not only on my back/sacrum, but especially on my pubic symphysis and supporting ligaments because of my pain there, and we found that I tended to respond to that protocol best.

I gave birth to my ten-pound baby (a pound bigger than my cesarean babies) with just 24 minutes of pushing. I'm sure it was not all due to just chiropractic care, but I do believe that a lot of it was. I was glad I had persevered in my chiropractic search.

Summary

Finding a good chiropractor for pregnancy is not always easy. Just as not every OB or midwife is equally effective for everyone, it's important to find a chiropractor that "gets" your body, uses techniques that you find helpful, and is always respectful and responsive to your concerns.

Don't just stop at the first chiro you find, try it once, and then conclude that chiropractic care is not for you. Try out several different styles if you can. If you can't do that, get the advice of local midwives and doulas because they often know the very best people in the area to recommend. Their guidance can save you a lot of time and effort. Remember, just as with an OB or midwife, it's all about finding a provider who is compatible with you.

My own story shows the importance of searching for the practitioner who is right for you. The first chiros and osteopaths I tried were not able to help me. Had the ICA or ICPA lists been available then, my original pregnancy chiro would not have been listed because she was still in the process of training. An ICPA-trained chiro that I tried later looked great on paper but was not effective for me. The chiros I saw saw for the fourth pregnancy were not listed because neither of them is a DICCP diplomate ─ but they were trained by a DICCP diplomate and so were familiar with the techniques needed. The chiropractor that was the closest and most convenient to me did not turn out to be the best chiropractor for my body. It took quite a bit of "shopping around" to find a chiro that worked well for my needs, but in the end it was well worth the work.

There are no easy or quick answers to searching for a good chiropractor for pregnancy. If at first you don't find a Webster Technique chiropractor, keep trying. If the chiro you try at first doesn't seem able to help you or you don't get good results with them, be willing to try others. Good and bad chiros are all over; lists can be a good place to start your search but ultimately they don't tell you much about the quality of the chiropractors themselves.

Nothing substitutes for actually trying something and keeping the search up till you find one that really clicks with your needs.

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Advocating for Yourself at the Doctor

My family had to switch insurance recently. That meant doing the thing that I hate the most ─ finding a new primary care provider. I dreaded it and stressed over it for months. Then I had my first appointment this week.

I needed to get in quickly to get a particular vaccination, so I took the first available appointment with the first available doctor. He was not one I would have picked for myself, since he specialized in men's health and sports medicine. Ugh ─ my experience is that sports specialists are very biased about people of size. I uneasily anticipated a fight over weight loss, weighing regularly, and lectures about nutrition, dieting, etc. I went in primed for a fight.

I am so happy to report I was totally wrong. Not that we were in total agreement about everything, but he listened very respectfully to my point of view and conceded some arguments. He took a very long time in my appointment, much longer than I expected, in order to get a very complete history, and he was very gentle and caring overall. What a tremendous relief!

To advocate for myself, I brought  the Health At Every Size Information for Providers cards from the blog Dances With Fat. That opened the conversation on a productive note; he appreciated me sharing my concerns so he could address them. The good thing about the cards is that they give a quick summary of Health at Every Size and there are research citations with links to the research. That kind of thing resonates with care providers and shows that HAES is not just about “giving up and letting yourself go” but truly about promoting health. Care providers respond better when they realize that.

Another thing I did was take informational handouts about Lipedema from the Fat Disorders website. Some doctors know about lipedema now, but it's surprising how many do not. And of those who do know about, many have only cursory information. It's very helpful to have a handout with details and research citations about lipedema if this is an issue for you. We had some interesting discussions about lipedema as a result. I think he learned a little bit more about it from me.

I also took in a one-sheet summary of my medical history. It lists all of my care providers (with contact info), any health conditions, all of my medications (with current dosages), and any history of surgery (with the year) etc. I don't have a lot of family medical history because I'm adopted, but what information I do have is very revealing, so that is on the sheet as well. The doctor was very impressed at having such a quick Cliff Note's version of my medical history and was happy I provided it. I highly recommend having a summary like this.

One thing I didn't need to do was question his care recommendations for me. That was so refreshing! He stuck to the issues at hand and didn't automatically recommend weight loss. Nice! When a doctor recommends weight loss and you are not interested, the best question to ask is, If I were thin, what tests and treatment would you recommend and why? Challenge the doctor to see you and treat you like any other patient, without seeing and trying to treat the fatness first.

I didn't do one of the most common things recommended to patients of size ─ bring along an advocate ─ but then I know how to advocate for myself pretty well these days. However, if you have trouble standing up for yourself or just need someone in your corner, I highly recommend taking an advocate to an appointment, either to get better care or just to take notes for you. I have done so in other types of appointments and it was very helpful.

 I think it also helps to look for specialties that tend to be more holistic, like a D.O. instead of an M.D. (both are fully qualified, just from different organizations), or who have a bigger picture of health, like a family doctor instead of an internist. Many practices now have Physician's Assistants and Nurse-Practitioners, and they often are more holistic and understanding than the M.D.s in the practice. Remember that midwives can also do gynecological care; many women of size choose to get their annual pap smears and care from a good nurse-midwife practice instead of an OB.

Never assume size-friendliness from a person's initials and certifications, however. Always ask lots of questions and don't assume that a certain title means size-friendliness. There are many wonderful doctors available and sadly, there are some very fat-phobic nurses and family doctors out there. Start with the least invasive, least high-tech specialty, but do your homework and ask lots of questions before making a final decision about the best care provider for you.

The Tricky Issue of Weighing


One of my main concerns in going to a new doctor was not having to weigh every time I visit. I was fine with getting on the scale for our initial appointment because I believe it's useful for them to have a baseline weight on record. However, I informed the doctor I would refuse to be weighed on repeat visits unless there were a pressing medical need for it (like impending surgery, weight-based dosing of certain drugs, certain conditions like Congestive Heart Failure, etc.).

He agreed that I always had the right of informed refusal, and he listened to my reasons of why I find it so triggering and objectionable. He said the med techs might still ask me each visit because it is so part of their routine, but that he would put in the chart that I should not be harassed or pressured about it (which has happened in the past). After a discussion we came to my usual compromise; I would be free to decline the weighing every visit, with the understanding that if there were large changes in my weight I would report them (because that can be a symptom of a medical problem), and if there was ever a legitimate medical need for weighing I would agree to do it. Weighing itself doesn't bother me, and I don't care what the number on the scale says. For me, it's the act of being weighed in public that is just very triggering and stigmatizing. It's part of my personal empowerment to refuse such unneeded requirements.

I should note that I've written about this before and people noted in the comments that when they refused to be weighed, some med techs told them they did not have the right to refuse, that the insurance companies required it in order for the visit to be paid for. This is baloney. Weighing is like any other test or "measure of health;" you always have the right to informed refusal. If you are firm in your boundaries, most of the time they will back down. I've had some fights over this but have always won because of the right of informed refusal. If all else fails, state strongly, "I DO NOT CONSENT." This has more legal heft because it could potentially lead to being sued. Most of the time they will stop badgering you.

However, according the comments on my previous post, once in a while there is a doctor who will dismiss you from the practice and refuse to provide care if you refuse to weigh at every visit. Even in the face of legitimate protests, some won't back down. All I can do is sympathize and say is you are better off without a provider like that. You have to decide if avoiding weigh-ins is worth it to stay with that particular provider. Generally speaking, a provider that doesn't respect the basic right of informed refusal is not worth having as a care provider anyhow. I would worry what other medical procedures or interventions they might try to bully me into. I would not want to stay with a provider who used such strong-arm tactics. They are not trustworthy. It would be a giant red flag to me.

If you don't have any other choice than to see that provider, do your utmost to challenge the decision. Don't make it easy on them to disregard your rights. Write letters to the practice manager, to the insurance company, to the hospital, etc. If you really do not have a choice, make it clear you are weighing under duress and launch a social media campaign against the practice. Do what you must to get the care that you need, but don't take medical bullying lying down. Even if you don't succeed in getting this rule changed right away, you might with time. At the very least, you put pressure on the doctor and force him to defend why he is disregarding the patient's right to autonomy in their medical decisions.

Concluding Thoughts

Image from Dances with Fat blog, link here
Print this out and take it to your first visit with your provider
Finally, I just wanted to note that sometimes people of size avoid doctors because they are afraid of battles like these, of mistreatment and fat-phobic treatment. I know it's tempting to just avoid the battles altogether, but it's not wise. I would like to urge my readers NOT to avoid going to the doctor. As we age, it really is important that we go see a care provider regularly. It is very important to get regular lab work done to track the results over time, to catch any problems early, and to have a provider with a broad base of knowledge look for issues if needed.

Even though your past contacts with medical providers might be negative, it doesn't mean it will always be that way. You might luck into a truly size-friendly provider, or at least find a size-neutral provider who is willing to discuss things and compromise with you. More and more practices are trying to be open to a more size-neutral approach. There ARE good providers out there.

I learned that this week. I was all ready for a fight, and I was sooo pleasantly surprised that I didn't need one. My intent had been to use this doctor for the purpose of my vaccination, then switch to one of his colleagues, but now I think I'll stick with him. Finding a size-friendly provider can happen. It's best to be ready, just in case, but remember, you might be pleasantly surprised too. 

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Your Hospital Choice Significantly Influences Your Cesarean Risk

Image from Consumer Reports 

Consumer Reports has a new report out for Cesarean Awareness Month, focusing on the variations in cesarean rates at hospitals across the United States. It highlights how different a woman's risk for a cesarean is, depending on which hospital she chooses.

One analysis points out the wide variations in cesarean rates for low-risk mothers in the Consumer Reports investigation. For example, Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, New York had an 11% cesarean rate in low-risk mothers, while Hialeah Hospital in Miami, Florida had a high of 68% for the same group. That kind of massive variation suggests there is more to the cesarean story than simple medical need.

Disclaimer: It's always important to remind people that no one begrudges a cesarean that is truly needed. No one is less of a woman or a mother if she has a cesarean, and it's perfectly okay to be happy with your cesarean. Don't make this about any one person's particular birth story, but rather focus on the big picture.

The big picture here is that over-utilization of cesareans brings significant risks on a public health level. Mothers and babies are being endangered by doing too many cesareans. 


It's time to shine a light on hospitals' cesarean rates so consumers can make fully-educated decisions about where they want to give birth.

Cesarean Rates in Low-Risk Mothers

The Consumer Reports article focuses on the cesarean rate in first-time, low-risk mothers. These rates act as a sort of canary-in-the-coal-mine warning of excessive cesarean rates. Their article explains further (my emphasis):
Consumer Reports’ analysis focuses on first-time mothers-to-be who should be at low risk of needing a cesarean: pregnant women expecting just one child (not twins, triplets, or other multiples) whose babies are delivering at full-term in the proper position, which means coming out head first. 
The target C-section rate for those births, set by the Department of Health and Human Services, is 23.9 percent or less. That’s 10 percent less than the rate for such births in 2007, which the government uses as a baseline from which to improve. 
But many experts say that the ideal C-section rate for those births is even lower. “Getting under 24 percent for low-risk births is something all hospitals should be able to do, but for those deliveries, hospitals should be aiming even lower,” Main says.

Yet nearly six in 10 of the hospitals we looked at had C-section rates above the national target for low-risk births. That means that 40 percent of hospitals already achieved this goal. “This sends a message that almost all hospitals should be able to achieve this rate,” Main says. 
The risk of having a C-section also varied depending on where in the country women lived. In general, rates were higher in the Northeast and South, and lower in the West and Midwest. 
Three states plus the District of Columbia had C-section rates of 30 percent or higher: Mississippi (31 percent), Kentucky (32 percent), Florida (32 percent), and D.C. (35 percent). 
And four states had rates below 18.5 percent: South Dakota (14 percent), Wyoming (17 percent), New Mexico (18 percent), and North Dakota (18 percent).
It's nonsensical to think that the uteri of women in South Dakota are vastly more efficient than the uteri of women in Mississippi. There is something else influencing cesarean rates here besides true medical need.

The Science and Sensibility analysis points out that hospital culture plays a very strong role in influencing cesarean rates, as demonstrated by wide variations of cesarean rates in hospitals serving the same basic community: 
For example, 30 percent of low-risk deliveries at the University of Chicago Medical Center were by C-section, while at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, another teaching hospital just 10 miles away, only 17 percent were. 
In southern California, 22 percent of low-risk deliveries at Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center were cesareans, compared with 35 percent of low-risk deliveries at nearby Riverside Community Hospital.
According to this analysis, some hospitals have been able to substantially reduce their cesarean rates over time simply by internally publishing the rates for individual providers within the hospital. When care providers saw their rates compared to those of their colleagues, they often changed behaviors that led to a reduction of cesarean rates. 

So why not make the cesarean rates for EVERY hospital in the country publicly available? Perhaps peer pressure can work on a hospital level too.

If hospitals had to acknowledge that other hospitals with similar patient risk levels and demographics could safely have lower cesarean rates than they did, they might put more effort into policies which would help change their own rates.

Transparency in Cesarean Rates

Transparency in healthcare is vitally important. Consumers have the right to know how their local hospitals rate in measures of quality of care, and to make an educated decision on where to take their business as a result.

Many hospitals are already reporting on their infectious morbidity and other measures of quality ─ why shouldn't parents be able to research the cesarean risk at their local hospital? Parents deserve to be able to make an educated choice, yet right now these reports are completely voluntary and many hospitals don't report results at all.

For example, some of the most prominent hospitals in the U.S., like Mount Sinai in New York City or Yale-New Haven in Connecticut, do NOT practice transparency in cesarean rates. The Consumer Reports article notes (my emphasis):
Consumer Reports does not have C-section rates for more than half of the estimated 3,000 U.S. hospitals that deliver babies. That’s because hospitals are not required to publicly report that information, and many choose not to.
This urgently needs to change. Hospitals should be required to have transparency in quality measures such as infectious morbidity and low-risk cesarean rates.

I'd go even further and suggest that the cesarean rates for EVERY PROVIDER be made publicly available. Sure, you can ask your providers their rates, but not every provider tracks this, and some lie about their rates. Providers need to be held accountable for their rates, and we know that publishing rates is effective in reducing non-indicated cesareans.

Most importantly, though, prospective parents deserve to be able to learn about their likelihood of surgery with a particular provider. How can you be an informed partner in your own care when you can't get basic information like about the performance of your hospital and your provider? Consumers have every right to this information. 

Furthermore, transparency can have the added benefit of providing motivation for hospitals and providers to improve their results so consumers are more likely to bring their business. Experience shows that when substandard results are highlighted and a program is developed to address the issues, outcomes can be improved.

Transparency is powerful stuff in healthcare, and it has the potential to motivate major changes.

Kudos to Consumer Reports for shining a major spotlight on this issue. Now it's time for the hospitals who are not being transparent to change their policies and be accountable too. Otherwise, who knows what's really happening in those hospitals? Or how many women are being subjected to the immediate and future risks of major surgery on dubious grounds?


Saturday, November 29, 2014

Labor Length in "Obese" Women: Dig Deeper


Here's the abstract of an interesting study suggesting that the first stage of labor (dilation) is longer in "obese" women and that this ought to be taken into account when diagnosing labor arrest needing a cesarean in this group.

This is not the first study to find a longer length of labor in higher-BMI women. As a result of these differences, one study concluded:
It is critical to consider differences in labor progression by maternal prepregnancy BMI before additional interventions are performed.
I agree that a possible longer labor length ought to be taken into account before resorting to a cesarean. As we've discussed before, many cesareans are done for "Failure to Wait" rather than for a true emergency, and many cesareans in women of all sizes could probably be avoided if care providers were a little more patient during labor.

In fact, a recent joint statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine suggested that women be allowed a longer time in early ("latent") labor, that women not be considered to be in "active labor" until 6 cm (instead of 4 cm), and that they be given more time both in active labor and in the pushing stage before the doctor starts thinking cesarean.

This may be especially meaningful for high BMI women, as there tends to be a lower surgical threshold for women of size. In one study, labor in obese women was terminated by cesarean an hour earlier on average than in other women. This shows that some doctors are nervous in the labors of obese women and jump to a surgical solution far too quickly.

On the one hand, it is understandable that doctors are nervous about doing a truly emergent cesarean in obese women, since accessing the baby takes longer and the surgery is more difficult. On the other hand, if doctors jump to cesareans too quickly, many obese women who might have given birth vaginally are exposed to the substantial risks of surgery. And since many women of size these days are strongly discouraged from VBAC, this often means further cesareans, which is even more risky.

It's important to acknowledge that it can be difficult for providers to judge whether or not labor should continue in obese women with slow labors. However, provided the fetus is doing well, this study suggests that care providers should be more patient in the labors of women of size. 

Yes! That's something I've been saying for a while now.

Digging Deeper

However, I'd also like researchers to dig even further into why our labors may be longer.

There is some research to suggest that women of size have higher rates of posterior (OP) babies, and OP babies often have prolonged labors. I wish this study's database had fetal position recorded so they could have checked out this possibility.

Do obese women really have more posterior babies? Is that why they tend to have longer labors and more cesareans for dystocia? Or is it a relative lack of responsiveness to oxytocin, as some authors have suggested?

A number of older studies on obesity and pregnancy noted higher rates of fetal malpositions, particularly OP. Most newer studies have not looked for a connection, although the study linked above does note higher OP rates in obese women. Anecdotally, my own birth stories and the birth stories of many fat women I've received over the years for my website seems to support the idea of a higher rate of malpositions as well. All this suggests a connection, but of course we need data to back that up.

I would love to see someone, somewhere research the fascinating question of whether women of size have more malpositioned babies and whether this is one factor behind slower labor rates in this group. I'm sure it's not the only factor, but I would guess that it is a significantly underestimated factor.

If you are a woman of size reading this post, don't panic and think you're doomed to have a really long labor just because you are heavier. On average, our labors tend to be longer, but there's no way to predict labor length for any one person.

SO MUCH of labor length has to do with the position of the baby, whether or not labor is induced, how ripe the woman's cervix is, whether the woman can be mobile in labor, and many other factors. I've known fat women who have had 2 hour labors, and I've known fat women who have had very long labors. My own four labors varied from 8 hours to nearly 20 hours ─ same-sized woman every time but the difference was well-positioned babies vs. OP babies. So labor length really can be highly variable, even within the same person's experiences.

Summary

A combination of a tendency towards longer labor and a lower surgical threshold for cesarean, along with more inductions, is probably why the cesarean rate in high BMI women has risen so high. Because obese women have more complications with cesareans, it is important to discover how to lower this rate.

The take-away message from this study is that, on average, the labors in high BMI women were longer, and their care providers probably should take that into account and wait a little longer before diagnosing a labor arrest disorder and doing a cesarean.

If you are a woman of size, find a care provider who truly believes that you can have a vaginal birth and who is willing to be more patient in labor before resorting to a cesarean. (Generally speaking, midwives tend to be more willing to wait, although some OBs are great about this too. Don't depend on a title but ask careful questions to better understand a provider's practice style.)

If you are a researcher, dig a little deeper and explore why women of size have longer labors, including whether or not there is a higher rate of fetal malpositions. I suspect there is but I'd love to see recent data to confirm this.

If there are more OP babies in heavier women, then there are things that women of size can do that might help lower their chances of a malpositioned baby before labor (chiropractic care is what helped me). Additionally, there are things a care provider can do during labor to help turn a malpositioned baby if needed (research on manual rotation is very promising). And of course, sometimes all that's needed for an OP baby is to have a little more patience in labor.

Whether it's being more patient in labor, doing fewer inductions, or being more proactive about fetal position in women of size, there are things we can do to lower the cesarean rate in this group. It's about time we start doing them. 


Reference

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Nov;171(1):49-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.021. Epub 2013 Aug 29. Maternal body mass index and duration of labor. Carlhäll S1, Källén K, Blomberg M. PMID: 24041847
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the duration of the active phase of labor is associated with maternal body mass index (BMI), in nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labor. STUDY DESIGN: Historical prospective cohort study including 63,829 nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy and a spontaneous onset of labor, who delivered between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2009. Data were collected from the Perinatal Revision South registry, a regional perinatal database in Southern Sweden. Women were categorized into six classes of BMI. Overweight and obese women were compared to normal weight women regarding duration of active labor. Adjustments were made for year of delivery, maternal age and infant birth weight. RESULTS: The median duration of labor was significantly longer in obese women (class I obesity (BMI 30-34.9) = 9.1h, class II obesity (BMI 35-39.9) = 9.2h and class III obesity (BMI > 40) = 9.8h) compared to normal-weight women (BMI 18.5-24.9) = 8.8h (p < 0.001). The risk of labor lasting more than 12h increased with increasing maternal BMI: OR 1.04 (1.01-1.06) (OR per 5-units BMI-increase).The risk of labor lasting more than 12h or emergency cesarean section within 12h, compared to vaginal deliveries within 12h, increased with increasing maternal BMI. Duration of the second stage of labor was significantly shorter in obese women: in class III obesity the median value was 0.45 h compared to normal weight women, 0.55 h (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In nulliparous women with a spontaneous onset of labor, duration of the active phase of labor increased significantly with increasing maternal BMI. Once obese women reach the second stage they deliver more quickly than normal weight women, which implies that the risk of prolonged labor is restricted to the first stage of labor. It is clinically important to consider the prolonged first stage of labor in obese women, for example when diagnosing first stage labor arrest, in order to optimize management of this rapidly growing at-risk group of women. Thus, it might be reasonable to adapt the considered upper limit for duration of labor, according to maternal BMI.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Nice Is Not Enough: Questions for Interviewing a Maternity Care Provider

Many women want to choose their pregnancy care provider carefully, but aren't sure what questions to ask when interviewing doctors or midwives. 

Here are some general questions that some care providers* have suggested asking any provider you are considering during your pregnancy and birth.
  1. How do you define “normal birth”?
  2. Can you give me an example how you typically manage a normal birth?
  3. How would you feel if I disagreed with you about a procedure you recommended during labor or birth?
  4. How long will you “allow me” to wait if I go overdue?
  5. What position(s) will you allow me to use when giving birth?
  6. How do you feel about IVs and continuous fetal monitoring?
  7. How do you feel about a woman eating and drinking in labor?
  8. What are your thoughts on pain relief in labor?
  9. How do you feel about cesareans?
Some childbirth educators would substitute different questions here and there from this list but it's a reasonable basic list to start with. Adapt as necessary for your own personal situation and concerns.

Also pay close attention to the provider's response to your questions. Of course, care providers have limited amounts of time to answer questions at most visits so it's important to be considerate and concise when you ask questions, but if they are impatient with your questions or dismissive of your concerns, that's a sign you might want to look elsewhere.

There are other additional questions you might want to ask if you are a woman of size, but more on that in future posts. If anything, women of size need to be even more vigilant in asking questions of potential care providers because size bias is so prevalent in maternity care. But for now, the above questions are a reasonable start to the process.

Sample Answers to These Questions

So what are reasonable answers to the above questions? It really depends on the type of birth you are looking for and how interventive you want your care provider to be.

Some people want a totally natural birth, and some want all the interventions and machines that go PING that technology can give them. Neither approach is right or wrong; it's more a matter of what you prefer and the unique needs of your pregnancy.

However, it's far more difficult to find a provider truly supportive of natural birth than a provider that routinely uses lots of technology and interventions. So the slant of this post is going to lean more in the direction of finding someone supportive of natural birth, but readers should not infer any judgment of their own personal preferences. Again, adapt the questions to your own personal needs and preferences.

1. How do you define "normal birth"? 

To some care providers, "normal" birth means just about anything (including significant amounts of interventions), whereas to others it means an undisturbed, spontaneous labor resulting in a vaginal birth without any interventions. You can get some idea of a care provider's attitude towards birth and interventions by what they think of as "normal" in birth.

2. Can you give me an example how you typically manage a normal birth?

To some care providers, typical management includes inducing labor at 39 or 40 weeks, mandatory IV, epidural by 4 cm dilation, and active management of care (breaking the waters early in labor, aggressive management of contractions with oxytocin, etc.). To other care providers, induction is used only when medically indicated (concern over blood pressure, baby not growing well, etc.), IVs are not mandatory, epidurals are completely up to the mother's choice, and routine interventions in labor are not utilized unless medically indicated.

Again, neither is inherently right or wrong, just different ways of looking at and managing labor. By asking the question of how the care provider typically manages normal birth, they can begin to understand where the caregiver falls on the continuum of intervention.

3. How would you feel if I disagreed with you about a procedure you recommended during labor or birth?

This is an important question because it speaks to the caregiver's respect for patient autonomy and how they prefer to interact with patients. Some care providers never want their dictates questioned. Others give education on the pros and cons of procedures and make strong recommendations based on their training and knowledge, but respect the mother's right to choose for herself.

It's important to also point out that women vary greatly in their desire for informed decision-making. Some prefer to leave all the decision-making up to the care provider and don't want to be "burdened" with having to make those choices. Others want to be very involved in the decision-making. The question is designed to help you figure out which style of care you prefer, and whether that aligns with the care style of the provider you are interviewing.

4. How long will you "allow me" to wait if I go overdue?

There is a great deal of controversy about the safest time for women to go into labor. There is a small but significant risk for stillbirth as gestational age increases, but this risk has to be weighed against the significant risks of inducing labor earlier, which may increase the risk for harm from strong drugs or may increase the risk for cesarean. Current research varies quite a bit on whether a pregnancy should be induced to lower the risk for stillbirth or other poor outcomes. There is no "right" answer here, only an answer that reveals to you what your care provider routinely does.

Many care providers induce labor right at 39 or 40 weeks, some wait till 41 weeks, some wait till 42 weeks, some wait even longer as long as the baby's status is reassuring. Some prefer inducing earlier but will respect the mother's decision to wait if baby looks okay. The point is to know your care provider's preferences on this very important point and to explore how flexible they are about it.

5. What position(s) will you allow me to use when giving birth?

Most hospital births occur with the mother either flat on her back, propped up with her legs in stirrups, or with the mother pulling back on her knees ("supine" or "lithotomy" positions). This is our cultural expectation of birth, and nearly all media images of birth show this position.

In other cultures, however, many other birth positions are used, including kneeling, squatting, side-lying, hands-and-knees, and asymmetrical positions, and these labor positions have distinct advantages. Some providers are very comfortable allowing the mother to labor in positions like these, while other providers restrict the mother to only the typical hospital positions. The question is designed to help you find out how your provider feels about birth positions.

Be careful how you word the question, though. Many care providers tell you that they will "let" you labor in whatever position you want, but fail to reveal that when it comes time to actually push out the baby they want you in the usual positions. Many providers are extremely uncomfortable attending a birth in a position other than supine or lithotomy and will pressure you to change positions, even though there is quite a bit of evidence for the benefit of upright and other positions in birth.

Some women don't care about what position they give birth in or are uncomfortable experimenting with different positions. Others are adamant about having the freedom to move as their bodies dictate, especially as the baby emerges. The important thing is to find a provider that is comfortable with your preferences, so be sure to ask ahead of time about not only labor positions, but also what position they want you in for when the baby is actually coming out.

6. How do you feel about IVs and continuous fetal monitoring?

It is important to establish your provider's preferences about routine interventions like IVs and continuous fetal monitoring.

Some providers are fine with women laboring without an IV. Others mandate an IV for all their patients, while still others strike a middle course and only request that a heplock be placed so that emergency access would be faster if an IV became needed.

Although continuous fetal monitoring has not been shown to improve outcomes in low-risk women, it is still extremely common in nearly all hospitals. However, some providers are more flexible than others about when it starts, whether intermittent monitoring can be used instead, and whether mobile monitoring is allowed.

7. How do you feel about a woman eating and drinking in labor?

Some care providers and hospitals have strict rules about whether a woman is "allowed" to eat food or drink during labor, despite a lack of evidence showing harm from this practice. Many allow only ice chips to be used during labor. It is important to understand your caregiver's policies before labor.

8. What are your thoughts on pain relief in labor?

Women vary greatly in their wishes towards pain relief during labor. Some prefer to go natural, some want an epidural "in the parking lot," some would rather take a wait-and-see-if-it's-needed approach.

Some care providers are very respectful of a woman's wishes about pain management in labor. However, some practically mandate that all their patients receive an epidural, while others can be judgmental about any use of pain medications. Still others know many "tricks" to help women lower their need for pain relief in labor but are supportive of whatever the woman chooses at the time.

Respect for one's wishes regarding pain management during labor plays a strong role in women's satisfaction with their birth experience. It is vitally important to find a care provider who is aligned with your preferences and who will be supportive of your choices.

9. How do you feel about cesareans?

Some providers truly believe that vaginal birth is dangerous and that cesarean birth is to be preferred. Others believe that cesareans are to be avoided at virtually any cost. Most providers fall somewhere in between, but most tend to "lean" one way or the other. Obviously, every caregiver is supportive of cesareans when they are truly life-saving but their attitudes towards other cesareans (and the current cesarean rate in first-world countries) can be revealing about their underlying philosophies of birth and likelihood to use a cesarean.

Beware: Nice Is Not Enough

Don't let a care provider's bedside charm and personality supercede your own commonsense about interventions. A care provider can be really charming, caring, and nice and still have a 50+% c-section rate and a 40+% episiotomy rate, which will do far more harm than good in the long run.

Just because they are "nice" doesn't mean you are going to get care from them that doesn't put you at risk for more complications. 

One midwife told the story of the following doctor on her blog:
What is the definition of a “good doctor”? I once knew a physician whom everyone believed was a “good doctor”. Let’s call him Dr. Wonderful. He had a very high cesarean rate, a high episiotomy rate, a high forceps/vacuum rate, and yet his patients adored him. Why?
He made each woman who came to him feel special. He was handsome and charming, and would treat each woman as if she were the only patient in the world that mattered to him. This is not necessarily a bad thing–I believe each patient should feel special and important to her provider. However, when this perception of being special clouds a woman’s judgment, it is time to have a reality check.
Dr. Wonderful would visit his patient after whatever unnecessary procedure he did, sit by the bedside, take her hand, and very regretfully tell her how sorry he was that she needed ___________ (insert the procedure of your choice), but if he had not done it, ___________ would have happened (insert catastrophe of your choice). So he very reluctantly had heroically intervened to save her life, or the life of her baby. The woman would be trembling with gratitude toward this marvelous physician by the time he left the room. None of his patients could ever believe that any of these procedures were unnecessary.
This bait-and-switch tactic is very common among some care providers. They know how to manipulate patients into going along with what they think is best and/or what is most convenient, even when the actual research doesn't support these interventions as best practice. 

Most women think that if their doctor recommends a procedure to them, it must be necessary, and who are they to question the doctor's judgment? But most don't realize how much interventions vary from caregiver to caregiver. Nor are most given adequate information about the pros and cons of most procedures.

The point is not that all interventions are "bad" or must be avoided, but that the benefits and risks of proposed interventions should be discussed thoroughly and true patient autonomy respected, not manipulated. 

If you are sure you want a hospital birth but you'd like to try and find a provider who is more friendly to natural childbirth and patient autonomy than most, the midwife above summarized one strategy for scoping out the possibilities:
I suggest that women who are planning hospital birth call their local [Labor and Delivery] unit, and ask to speak to a nurse who enjoys helping women who want unmedicated birth. Then ask that nurse for names of doctors [or midwives] that she thinks are most likely to support you in your goals.
Last, and perhaps most important, don’t be fooled by a charming bedside manner. Make sure there is substance behind it.
Amen to that. "Nice" is wonderful, but some care providers use it as a way to convince women into all kinds of risky interventions as a way to lower the risk for being sued or because it's more convenient for him/her. 

In particular, many women of size are just so grateful just to find a doctor who doesn't yell at them about their weight that they fail to ask further questions about the provider's rates of interventions that increase the risk for cesarean (a high induction rate, inducing for suspected big baby, etc.). 

I've been there done that myself and gotten burned, so learn from my mistakes.

Don't fall for "nice" over substance. Nice is a good start, but you still have to ask further questions.

Ask for Specific Intervention Rates

It's really important to ask a provider's intervention rates, especially his/her intervention rates for first-time moms.

What's his/her induction rate, cesarean rate, episiotomy rate? 

Also observe how the provider responds to questions about these things. That's as telling as the actual intervention rate.

For example, "I only do them when necessary" is not a helpful answer; for some docs, interventions like these are seen as "necessary" 60% of the time, and that rate presents far more risk than benefit. 

For example, episiotomy rates should be quite low; if it's not, the provider is not practicing evidence-based medicine, which has clearly shown routine episiotomy to be more harmful than helpful. 

Many doctors say they "only do episiotomies when necessary" --- but if they find it "necessary" 40% of the time, there is something wrong with their definition of "necessary."

Moral of the story: Actual numbers are important for evaluating a provider.

Primary cesarean rates (cesareans in first-time moms or mothers who have never had a cesarean before) is another benchmark by which you can judge providers. Women who have not had cesareans before should not have a very high rate of cesareans during labor; if they do, it suggests that the doctor has a low threshold for surgery or encourages a lot of interventions that lead to more cesareans.

(Of course, if a provider regularly provides care to many high-risk women, the cesarean rate is going to be higher than a provider who mostly sees only low-risk women.....but generally speaking a high cesarean rate is a red flag.) 

It's also helpful to ask how the care provider feels about cesareans. 

If they have a high cesarean rate but are defensive about that, they'll likely say something that minimizes the impact of cesareans and ridicules the mother for caring. 

Watch out for comments like, "The real priority is a healthy baby" or "A healthy baby is more important than the delivery method".....as if that justifies any intervention the doctor uses, as if the mother's outcome is of no importance, and as if the mother questioning things means she doesn't really care about her baby over herself.

Of course the priority is a healthy baby, but a healthy mother is also a priority, and one recovering from unnecessary surgery is not a healthy mother. Nor should a woman be ridiculed for caring about avoiding a cesarean or an episiotomy whenever possible. 

A provider that avoids the question of intervention rates by blaming the mother, brushing off her concern, or making her feel selfish for caring is a giant red flag.

Beware care providers that "don't know" their cesarean rate, or who subtly deride anyone who asks questions about cesarean or episiotomy rates. All providers should have a general idea of their cesarean and episiotomy rates. If they don't, that suggests that they don't think these rates are important or aren't concerned about their use.

Also ask when/why the provider would want to induce labor. If they routinely induce labor if the baby is thought to be  "big," that's another tremendous red flag.  Research shows that inducing early for a "big baby" actually increases the cesarean rate, but despite the evidence, many providers still induce early for a big baby anyway.  [This is one major factor driving the high rate of cesareans in women of size.]

If you interview a provider and they would induce early for a big baby, this is a huge red flag.

Many providers also routinely induce labor at 39, 40 or 41 weeks, and research is mixed on the pros and cons of this practice. 

Particularly for women of size (whose pregnancies tend to last longer), inducing labor early or right around term "just in case" probably leads to more cesarean risk and a whole host of other potential complications. You may want to find a provider who is more willing to wait and not rush things as long as mother and baby are doing well.

Conclusion

You can have the "nicest" doctor or midwife in the world, and he or she can still coax you straight down the path to a cesarean or episiotomy you don't need by engaging in unnecessarily high rates of interventions with dubious benefits.

Being nice is just not enough. You have to ask careful questions when interviewing a care provider, you have to ask for specific intervention rates, and it's very important to watch for the classic red "alarm" flags.

What questions were most helpful to you when you were interviewing providers? What questions do you wish you had asked? What advice do you have for other pregnant women looking for maternity care providers?


*July 2014 Update: These questions were originally shared in a much longer article ("In Search of Dr. Right: 11 Questions to Ask" by The Midwife Next Door) on another website, and I gave credit and linked to that article in my original post in 2010. Sadly, the original link has since been compromised and now goes to an extremely undesirable site, so I have stripped out all those links and am re-posting this article without them. The questions are helpful so I am keeping the post; but it's important to note that it originally arose from another's work.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Midwives Can Safely Care for Obese Women

Image Credit: Andy Ellison
In many places, midwives are no longer permitted to care for obese women, or at least obese women over a certain BMI (often 35 or 40). 

Many women of size these days are "risked out" of midwifery care, homebirth, birth centers, waterbirth, and even some hospitals. Some OBs are even refusing to see obese patients at all. A fat woman's only choice for care may become a high-risk specialist, even if she is healthy and has no complications.

I've written about this before. I call it Ghettoizing Women of Size.

It is done based on hyperbole around the risks of obesity and does not reflect the fact that many obese women are healthy, do not develop complications, and do just fine with midwifery or other "alternative" care. 

In the following recent Dutch study, although more obese women had their care transferred to OBs (some of which could simply represent bias or exceeding BMI cutoffs rather than actual complications), the obese women who were cared for by midwives had no more adverse outcomes than other women.

This shows that, providing there are no major complications, obese women (and even "morbidly obese" women) can be safely cared for by midwives.

There is no need for automatic transference of care, and definitely no need for routinely ghettoizing obese women into high-risk, high-intervention care.

*Midwives, let's see some more formal studies of midwifery care of obese women. Personally, I'd love to see a study comparing outcomes of healthy obese women routinely assigned to OB care and those routinely assigned to midwifery care. 



Reference

BJOG. 2014 Mar 12. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12684. [Epub ahead of print] The impact of obesity on outcomes of midwife-led pregnancy and childbirth in a primary care population: a prospective cohort study. Daemers D1, Wijnen H, van Limbeek E, Budé L, Nieuwenhuijze M, Spaanderman M, de Vries R. PMID: 24618305
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of obesity on the likelihood of remaining in midwife-led care throughout pregnancy and childbirth. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Dutch midwife-led practices. POPULATION: A cohort of 1369 women eligible for midwife-led care after their first antenatal visit. METHODS: First-trimester body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight measured at booking divided by height squared. Obstetric data were retrieved from medical records. Multiple logistic regressions were performed to examine the effects of BMI classification on midwife-led pregnancies and childbirths. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages of women remaining in midwife-led care throughout pregnancy and throughout childbirth. RESULTS: Of women in obesity classes II and III, 55% remained in midwife-led care throughout pregnancy and 30% remained in midwife-led care throughout birth. Compared with women of normal weight, women in obesity classes II and III had fewer midwife-led pregnancies (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69), and women who were overweight or in obesity class I had fewer midwife-led childbirths (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29-0.84, respectively). Compared with women of normal weight, women who were obese had higher referral rates for hypertensive disorders (4 versus 14%), prolonged labour (4.6 versus 10.4%), and intrapartum pain relief (4 versus 10.4%). The women who were eligible for midwife-led birth and who were overweight or obese, had no more urgent referrals than women of normal weight. Women who were obese and who completed a midwife-led birth had no more adverse outcomes than women of normal weight, with the exception of higher rates of large for gestational age (LGA) babies (>97.7 centile; 12.1%, versus 1.9% in normal weight and versus 3.3% in overweight women). CONCLUSIONS: Although fewer women who were obese remain in midwife-led care during pregnancy and childbirth, there was no increased risk of unfavourable birth outcomes for women who were obese and eligible for a midwife-led birth when compared with women of normal weight. This indicates that when primary care midwives use a risk assessment tool throughout pregnancy and childbirth they are able to safely assign women who are obese to either midwife-led or obstetrician-led care.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

CesareanRates.com: Transparency in Maternity Care

www.cesareanrates.com 

There's a new website out that I've been wanting to highlight for a while.  Now, as the author struggles to finance her work on the site, it's even more important that I publicize the site.

The site is called cesareanrates.com and it has the cesarean rates for most of the states in the U.S. and the provinces in Canada.

Most importantly, not only does it have the cesarean rates by state/province, it also has the cesarean rates by individual hospital.

Earthy-birthy types who read my blog probably already know about this wonderful resource, but others may not.  It makes for very interesting reading and I recommend the site.

Having cesarean rates available by hospital is incredibly useful information.  If you live in an area where you have the choice of more than one hospital, you can see which ones have very high baseline cesarean rates and which ones don't.

Such information has to be interpreted with caution, of course, since some hospitals have higher loads of high-risk patients who might be expected to have higher cesarean rates. This is a legitimate concern.  However, even among hospitals that serve higher-risk patient populations, cesarean rates can vary widely. So while caution has to be used when viewing this data, it still can be useful to the consumer.  Some hospitals really do have a strong climate of overutilization of cesareans, and consumers should have access to that information before choosing to become a customer of that hospital.

So let's talk a little bit more about the variations in cesarean use and the importance of transparency in cesarean rates for quality control purposes.
Image Use Disclaimer: I received express permission from creator Jill Arnold of The Unnecesarean to use the cesareanrates.com images. If you want to use them, please ask her permission first.
Variations in Cesarean Utilization

One of the attitudes we have to fight against all the time in Cesarean Awareness advocacy is the common public perception that cesareans are only done when necessary.  In other words, most people assume that if a woman had a cesarean, it was usually because she needed it and it saved her or her baby's life.

Yes, cesareans can be life-saving, and there is no doubt that having them available is a wonderful thing.  Absolutely no argument there.

However, while cesareans mostly used to be used only when truly needed, there are many cesareans being performed today that are not medically indicated.  And the strong regional variations in cesarean use just reinforce this.

Below is a chart from Jill's site of the ten hospitals with the highest c-section rates in Florida.


Now look at a chart from Jill representing the ten hospitals with the highest c-section rates in Utah.


So the hospital with the highest cesarean rate in Florida has a rate TWICE as high as the hospital with the highest cesarean rate in Utah.

Come on, are the uteri of women in Utah really that much more efficient as the uteri of women in Florida? No, of course not.  The fact is that cesarean rates are highly variable by region, by hospital, and by doctor, and many of these variations are not explainable by demographic differences or risk caseload.

Even within one regional area with similar demographics and patient risk profiles (and eliminating cesareans for indications like breech, thought to be "necessary" by some providers), cesarean rates can vary widely.


While doctors like to blame women for high c-section rates (the overused "women are too old or too fat" or "women are requesting these cesareans" arguments), the truth is that provider practice patterns have far more influence on cesarean rates than factors attributable to women themselves.

The Childbirth Connection, an organization devoted to improving maternity care, confirms this trend:
The cesarean rate varies broadly across states and areas of the country, hospitals, and maternity professionals. Most of this variation is due to "practice style" rather than differences in the needs and preferences of childbearing women.
In other words, your chances of "needing" a cesarean at one hospital in your area may be quite different than your chances of "needing" a cesarean in a different hospital in your area.  Even if you fall into a supposedly "high-risk" category, your chances of "needing" a cesarean can vary widely, depending on who you see and their practice patterns around birth.

While some cesareans truly are prudent and at times even life-saving, many cesareans performed today are not.  Women deserve to know which hospitals have high rates of cesarean utilization and which do not, so that they can make informed choices about where they go to birth, should they choose to have a hospital birth.

Caveats

I would like to tell you that hospital-level cesarean rates area available for all 50 states, but alas, that's not true.  Last I checked Jill's site, the following states did not have hospital-level information about cesarean rates available:
Why is this information not available uniformly? The reasons vary. Some states don't think consumers are interested in this information and so don't provide it. Or pencil-pushers decide that providing cesarean rates to the public is not a Department of Health budget priority.  A few states have decided that health consumers have no right to this information and refuse to release hospital-level cesarean rates, despite many requests to do so.

There is information in each of the links above on how to contact these states directly to request that this information be made public.  Sometimes, if a state gets enough requests, they make providing hospital-level cesarean rates more of a priority.  (We were able to do this recently in my state.)

On the other hand, sometimes states actively refuse to provide hospital-level cesarean rates because doctors have actively campaigned to keep these rates private, on the grounds that the public is not smart enough to understand the concept of mitigating factors (like a high-risk caseload, etc.).  Or they simply don't want the bad publicity for their hospitals.

This is ridiculous.

As health consumers, we deserve to have public health information about various hospitals and their quality of care.  And we deserve this information for maternity-related care as well as basic overall care.  

The Importance of Transparency

Transparency is a HUGE up-and-coming issue in healthcare.  As one quality watchdog group notes:
You may not realize there are differences in the quality of care provided by different hospitals. Hospitals are busy and complex places. Every day, hundreds of patients are receiving hundreds of different procedures. Medical mistakes are a leading cause of death each year, causing more deaths each year than car accidents, breast cancer and AIDS. 
There is good news! Hospitals can take steps to prevent mistakes and protect patients from unnecessary injury. Even better, there is information available to help you determine the quality of your local hospitals.
More and more, groups such as consumerreports.org and the Leapfrog Group have begun to document basic information on Quality of Care measures, such as which hospitals have high rates of hospital-acquired infections, which have poor overall patient safety, and which have high rates of medical mistakes or medication errors.

However, these quality monitoring efforts are in their infancy.  Some hospitals participate voluntarily, but some actively resist any attempt to shine a spotlight more closely on care practices. Yet experience shows that when substandard results are highlighted and a program is developed to address these issues, outcomes can be improved.

It is important to be careful when comparing results from different hospitals, but even with this caution in mind, transparency in Quality of Care measures can be useful in improving care and patient outcomes.

Transparency and Participatory Medicine are concepts whose time has come.

How does this translate to maternity care?  In maternity care, substandard care translates to high rates of maternal or neonatal infections, high rates of early scheduled deliveries, higher-than-average deaths, and a too-high cesarean rate.

Some hospitals would argue that a high cesarean rate is not a sign of substandard care. The World Health Organization disagrees, noting that high rates of non-medically indicated cesareans translate into a higher rate of adverse maternal outcomes, including admission to Intensive Care Units, blood transfusions, hysterectomies, and maternal deaths. Other risks include blood clots, wound infections, anesthesia accidents and other problems.  Clearly, overuse of cesareans has risks.

There is an ongoing argument over what the "most optimal" cesarean rate should be, but that's beside the point.  Whatever the "ideal" rate is, women deserve to know the baseline cesarean rate of their hospital of choice, and how that compares to other hospitals.  Then it is up to them which hospital they choose.

Final Thoughts

CesareanRates.com is a powerful new tool for healthcare consumers.

One of the many useful things on the website is the listing of the cesarean rates of all the U.S. states (both alphabetically and by highest-to-lowest rates). There is also a graph showing the increase in cesarean rates over time in the U.S.  Rates from the Canadian Provinces are available as well.

I like the Top Ten slideshow, where slides from several representative states list the hospitals with the highest cesarean rates in those states.  You'll see that quite a few hospitals have c-section rates around 50%-60%, while other states' rates are not nearly so high. This is a good micro-demonstration of how much variation there can be in cesarean rates from hospital to hospital and state to state.  (Click on the page number on the bottom to freeze a particular state's slide.)

Another useful thing is a state-by-state listing of the VBAC ban policies of individual hospitals.  This information can already be obtained from the International Cesarean Awareness Network’s VBAC Policy Database but it's useful to have it all in one place with the hospital-level cesarean rates.

You can read more here about why Jill Arnold created this new site:
CesareanRates.com is a snapshot of online cesarean rate reporting in the United States as of January 2012. The site compiles the most current hospital-level data accessible to the public online, whether reported directly by a state’s department of health or gathered from state hospital association web sites via pull-down menus. The initial goals of the site are to a) show the (poor) quality and inaccessibility of hospital-level information available to the public, b) to assess whether there is public demand for this information and c) to work toward establishing a precedent for hospital data transparency.
How might this site be useful for a typical healthcare consumer?  Jill elaborates on that question here:
As with everything pregnant people can get their hands on, it is one of many tools. Everyone makes decisions differently and weighs things based on their unique experiences, values, preferences and education. For example, a 60% total cesarean rate might trigger a different reaction for different people. A woman that passionately wants to avoid an unnecessary cesarean section might be deterred from giving birth there, while one hoping for an elective primary section might infer something about the culture of the hospital and seek a provider that delivers babies there. Another person might try to evaluate what exactly that means and start investigating why it is so high, while someone else might not care one way or the other where they give birth as long as they are with a care provider they like. 
Ideally, it would be nice to see the site used by pregnant people for the purpose of seeking preference-sensitive care and opening up dialogue with their provider about what they can expect at the hospitals at which their provider has privileges.
If you want to know more about how cesarean rate information is reported. watch the following short video on the technical aspects of such data collection.



Go, check out www.cesareanrates.com. If you get an additional moment, go to its Facebook Page and "like" it as well.  Blog about it and pass on the link so more people know about this invaluable resource.

And if you can, donate to the author so she can continue carrying on this work.


Thank you, Jill, for your hard work on this site.  Brava!


References

Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 Sep-Oct;25(5):w355-67. Epub 2006 Aug 8. Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Baicker K, Buckles KS, Chandra A.   PMID: 16895942
There is enormous geographic variation in the use of cesarean delivery: For births over 2,500 grams, adjusted cesarean rates vary fourfold between low- and high-use areas. Even for births under 2,500 grams, high-use counties have rates that are double those of low-use ones. Higher cesarean rates are only partially explained by patient characteristics but are greatly influenced by nonmedical factors such as provider density, the capacity of the local health care system, and malpractice pressure. Areas with higher usage rates perform the intervention in medically less appropriate populations-that is, relatively healthier births-and do not see improvements in maternal or neonatal mortality.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;196(6):526.e1-5. Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. Clark SL, et al.   PMID: 17547880
OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to examine the national and regional rates of operative delivery among almost one quarter million births in a single year in the nation's largest healthcare delivery system, using variation as an arbiter of the quality of decision making. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the variation in rates of primary cesarean and operative vaginal delivery in facilities of the Hospital Corporation of America during the year 2004. RESULTS: In 124 facilities representing almost 220,000 births during a 1-year period, the primary cesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates were 19% +/- 5% (range 9-37) and 7% +/- 4% (range 1-23). Within individual geographic regions, we consistently found variations of 200-300% in rates of primary cesarean delivery and variations approximating an order of magnitude for operative vaginal delivery. CONCLUSION: Within broad upper and lower limits, rates of operative delivery in the United States are highly variable and suggest a pattern of almost random decision making. This reflects a lack of sufficient reliable, outcomes-based data to guide clinical decision making.
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;115(6):1201-8. Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates. Hanley GE, Janssen PA, Greyson D.   PMID: 20502291
OBJECTIVE: To examine regional variations in rates of primary cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery in the population of British Columbia, while adjusting for the maternal characteristics and conditions that increase the likelihood of operative delivery. METHODS: Using data from the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, we studied all deliveries in British Columbia between 2004 and 2007, excluding women who had a previous cesarean delivery (n=116,839)...RESULTS: Crude primary cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates varied markedly across the Health Service Delivery Areas ranging from 16.1 to 27.5 per 100 deliveries, and from 8.6 to 18.6 per 100 deliveries, respectively. The most common indication for cesarean delivery was dystocia, which accounted for 30.0% of all cesarean deliveries and varied more than fivefold across regions. After controlling for maternal characteristics and conditions known to increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery, adjusted cesarean delivery rates varied twofold, ranging from 14.7 to 27.6 per 100 deliveries, while adjusted assisted vaginal delivery rates varied by more than twofold, ranging from 6.5 to 15.3 per 100 deliveries. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate substantial regional variation in the use of cesarean delivery that cannot be explained by patient illness or preferences. This variation likely reflects differences in practitioners' approaches to medical decision-making.
Birth. 2005 Sep;32(3):170-8. Cesarean delivery in Native American women: are low rates explained by practices common to the Indian health service? Mahoney SF, Malcoe LH. PMID: 16128970
BACKGROUND: Studying populations with low cesarean delivery rates can identify strategies for reducing unnecessary cesareans in other patient populations...METHODS: We used a case-control design nested within a cohort of Native American live births, > or = 35 weeks of gestation (n = 789), occurring at an Indian Health Service hospital during 1996-1999... RESULTS: The total cesarean rate was 9.6 percent (95% CI 7.2-12.0). Nulliparity, a medical diagnosis, malpresentation, induction, labor length > 12.1 hours, arrested labor, fetal distress, meconium, and gestations < 37 weeks were each significantly associated with cesarean delivery in unadjusted analyses. The final multivariate model included a significant interaction between induction and arrested labor (p < 0.001); the effect of arrested labor was far greater among induced (OR 161.9) than noninduced (OR 6.0) labors. Other factors significantly associated with cesarean delivery in the final logistic model were an obstetrician labor attendant (OR 2.4; p = 0.02) and presence of meconium (OR 2.3; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher prevalence of medical risk factors for cesarean delivery, the rate at this hospital was well below New Mexico (16.4%, all races) and national (21.2%, all races) cesarean rates for 1998. Medical and practice-related factors were the only observed independent correlates of cesarean delivery. Implementation of institutional and practitioner policies common to the Indian Health Service may reduce cesarean deliveries in other populations.