Your Feedback Requested! Potential New Quality Measures for Maternity Care in MN

We recently received the email below asking for public comment on potential new quality measures for maternity care in Minnesota. Please read and send in your feedback to paul@mncm.org!

------------------------

I have been working with a group of physicians and other health care experts to develop clinical quality measures around maternity care.  But I need some feedback from people who are pregnant, who have been pregnant, or know someone who is pregnant!  Will you think about your/her experience and let me know what you would like to know about a doctor or doctor’s office?

We’re considering reporting:

• The percent of a doctor’s office births that are c-sections to low-risk, first time mothers
• The percent of times a doctor’s office induces a pregnant woman (without a medical reason) before 39 weeks
• The number of deliveries per year by a doctor or doctor’s office
• Whether or not a doctor’s office offers vaginal birth after deliveries (or VBAC)

We’re also considering other measures around maternity care for additional reporting.  Would you be interested in:

• Prenatal care topics like education, tobacco cessation, screenings, etc.?
• Postnatal care topics like breastfeeding, postpartum depression, etc.? 
• Other procedures at the time of birth like injuries or tearing?

It really helps to hear about what people would find helpful.  I know what I would consider valuable information, but others might have different ideas.  Please forward this message to your colleagues and friends if you can think of people who are interested in maternity care quality.

I would love feedback before the end of November so I can share your thoughts (anonymous of course) with the doctors and experts on the workgroup.  The topics they end up recommending could become state-wide measures for all of Minnesota.

Thank you!
Brenda


Brenda Paul
State Quality Measurement Program Development Project Manager
MN Community Measurement
3433 Broadway Street NE  # 455
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612.454.4829
paul@mncm.org

Large malpractice settlement following c-section!

I first heard about this as a teaser for the upcoming 10:00 news. They only said ‘large malpractice lawsuit settlement nets 4.6 million after mom dies after giving birth’, or some variation of that. I said to my husband “c-section!” Of course while he is used to the c-section talk and takes it very seriously, he really wanted to know why I was so sure. I said because women in the US don’t die from vaginal births anymore-that is so rare. They die from c-sections-they die from bleeding to death or from a blood clot (my statement wasn’t too scientific, so now that I look up the numbers, I see that hemorrhage is number one, though I can’t find it directly tied to c-sections).


When I watched it on the news they made no mention to the c-section. They only said she bled to death after the birth. I went to find it online and the Strib had a much more in depth article. Honestly, I was so shocked to hear that it was much more than a woman bleeding to death after a c-section. I was so shocked to read that a hospital would actually perform one when they didn’t even think they had blood on hand! In my mind, I immediately assumed it was because they view c-sections as so common and ordinary that they didn’t think they would need it?! I don’t know, I am at a loss. It is bad enough—the risks with having one’s labor induced, the risks of having a c-section, but honestly I never feared personally that there wouldn’t be blood on hand. I thought it was common knowledge that the blood loss from surgery is high, and the potential for blood loss postpartum, whether vaginal or surgical was high as well! Stunning. What a tragedy.


Unfortunately, the culture of c-sections is so accepted that there is no question of being induced at 41 weeks. Now, I am not saying I know everything—maybe she was showing signs of preeclampsia or the baby was stressed and the c-section was necessary, but I was induced at 41 weeks just for “post-dates,” and how many of us are there were induced at 40 or 41 weeks for no reason, or “post-dates?” This is so common that no one bats an eye at it. This woman did not have to die and the hospital certainly was negligent and deserves to pay that settlement, even more. But the fact is, we live in c-section culture and these death will continue to happen until the rate comes down. The fact is, this hospital was not safe to have a baby. How many others out there? Or is the medicalization of birth that is at fault?

I will end with talking about my own birth journey. With my first, I thought having a fancy OB would keep my baby and me safe. It never entered my mind that he has a different list of priorities than I. I was naïve, I know, but I really believed that I was safer with a trained OB and delivering in the biggest private maternity hospital in the state. It just didn’t dawn on me that overused technology is not a good thing in the case of normal, low risk birth. This boggled my brain. When I went to Bradley classes with my VBAC hopes when pregnant with my 2nd, I knew I needed to switch to a midwife (in a hospital setting), but still wasn’t sure about my body. I also was shocked but interested to learn that my instructor “caught babies” at home! Wow—I remember thinking how could this women know what to do in case something goes wrong? At home? This is nuts. Now fast forward to baby #3, and we are having him at home. And you know what? I feel safest there. I know that my midwives are better trained and have higher skills in vaginal birth and all its potentials for problems than most OB’s (who, in my opinion are one trick ponies as skilled surgeons). I know that should something catastrophic happen I am a few minutes from a hospital that can handle an emergency c-section (and I know I could get there in the same time they would prep me in the hospital), and I know that if I stall and just can’t finish at home we are blessed to have an OB here who believes in birth and will let me finish my labor without shame. This is the way it should be. Birth is as safe as life gets and midwives are incredibly skilled. I am so lucky to be able to have a baby where I feel safe, and know that if I need a c-section, it will be truly necessary. When I heard this story about this poor family, I thought, “and they say homebirth isn’t safe!” Hospitals have a whole set of problems that need to be fixed before they can start pointing fingers at homebirth. Finally, I will end with saying women matter! Our birth matters! The end does not justify the means, and often the means is killing us women. This needs to be talked about.


Heather
Mom to two boys-one by c-section due to failed induction and one by hospital VBAC.

Boy #3 due in January, planned homebirth



*******************************

From the Star Tribune:
Malpractice lawsuit nets $4.6 million award
A woman bled to death after giving birth at a hospital in Wright County.
By SARAH LEMAGIE, Star Tribune


The family of a woman who bled to death after delivering her first child was awarded $4.6 million Thursday by a Wright County jury in a malpractice and wrongful-death suit brought against the hospital where she gave birth.


Claudia Calcagno of Albertville began hemorrhaging and died hours after her son was born on Jan. 18, 2008, at Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital, now New River Medical Center. Her doctors were unable to perform surgery that could have saved her life because the hospital failed to provide enough blood for transfusion in time, even though it was "sitting right in their refrigerator," an attorney for Calcagno's family argued.


"Her doctors needed blood to save her life. It was as simple as that," said attorney Kathleen Flynn Peterson.


The jury's award isn't the largest ever seen in a Minnesota malpractice case, but multimillion-dollar verdicts against health-care providers are unusual, said Flynn Peterson.
In a statement issued Friday, the hospital declined to release expert-witness documents supporting its position, saying they contained private medical data. "Our thoughts and sympathy go out to the Calcagno family," the statement said. The hospital is considering an appeal.


Flynn Peterson said the hospital argued in court that Calcagno's doctors were negligent, and should have gone ahead with the surgery. On Friday, the hospital said that "clinical staff members can only act under the direction of a physician, and we believe [hospital] staff members acted according to the orders of the attending physicians."


Two doctors were named in the suit along with the hospital, but Flynn Peterson said it became clear to her before trial that they were not at fault.


The jury found that neither doctor was negligent. The award includes compensation to Claudia Calcagno's family for past and future economic loss, as well as the loss of her companionship.
For Claudia's husband, Bob, "not a day goes by I don't think about her," he said in an e-mail Friday. "To put it simply, I miss my wife."


Claudia was as an executive assistant for Catholic Health Initiatives, Flynn Peterson said. She and Bob met on the job in 1999: He worked for a company that installed furniture for her office. They began dating, and married in 2004.


"The day we found out we were pregnant I cried like a baby," Bob Calcagno said.
As Claudia's pregnancy developed, their excitement grew. She got the house ready for a baby, and "you just knew she was going to knock this whole mothering thing out of the park," he said.
Calcagno, 36, was 41 weeks pregnant when admitted to Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital on Jan. 17, 2008, to have labor induced. Her labor stretched into the next day, and after she had pushed for two hours, her obstetrician ordered a caesarean section. At 6:50 p.m., she gave birth to a healthy son, Vico.


But mistakes that contributed to her death had already been made, Flynn Peterson argued. Court documents say that a routine order to type and screen Calcagno's blood put in before her C-section wasn't done until hours later. And following its own policy, the hospital did not stock blood of her type -- A negative -- falling short of accepted standards of practice, Flynn Peterson said.
At 8:50 p.m., nurses checking on Calcagno found that she was bleeding heavily. Her doctors were called, and a surgery team was paged.


A doctor who examined Calcagno ordered blood for her. The hospital lab sent the O negative blood, traditionally the universal donor type, it had in stock. A 911 call was also made to get blood from a hospital 12 miles away, but it's unclear when it arrived.
Calcagno could have received A or O positive blood that the hospital had in stock, but her doctors said they were never told it was available, Flynn Peterson said.
She was taken to the operating room for an exam under anesthesia and possible treatment, including surgery to remove her uterus. But her doctors decided against that.
According to documents, they were concerned that, given the hospital's resources, they wouldn't be able to control potential bleeding problems if they went ahead with surgery. They also felt they had stabilized Calcagno. So instead, they decided to transfer her to North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale. As a medical crew from North Memorial wheeled her to a helicopter, two more units of blood arrived and were sent with her.


During the postpartum hemorrhage, Calcagno lost at least 4,000 milliliters of blood. By the time she reached North Memorial, she was in critical condition, with dangerously low blood pressure. Despite treatment, including a blood transfusion, her heart stopped beating shortly after she arrived at the hospital. Doctors started an emergency hysterectomy, but despite efforts to revive her during surgery, she died.


With help from Vico's grandparents, Bob Calcagno is staying at home for his son's early childhood. The couple had planned to have one parent stay home for their son's first five years, and "he wants to keep that pledge to Claudia," Flynn Peterson said.
Bob Calcagno said Friday that no amount of money will bring his wife back, "but I take comfort knowing that our futures, especially Vico's, are financially secured."
Sarah Lemagie • 952-882-9016

Star Tribune Features Low-tech Birth & Midwives in MN

The Star Tribune recently published two stories highlighting one Minnesota woman's journey to VBAC despite many roadblocks and St. Joe's Hospital's extraordinarily low cesarean rate. Both articles are valuable in what they have to say about birth in our area.

The first article by Josephine Marcotty tells Danette Lund's search for a care provider to support her desire for VBAC.

Because she had delivered her first child by Caesarean section, a hospital birth would almost certainly mean surgery again. Home birth? Her midwife refused, saying it was too risky. A birth center outside a hospital? She'd have to shell out $7,000 because her insurance wouldn't cover it.

"I felt like I had no options," said Lund, 36, who lives near Waconia. "I was so frustrated."

Lund and other women have discovered that birth in America is rarely the natural event they long to experience.

The article goes on to highlight the overuse of cesareans, the risks involved, and the barriers that so many of us face to having a safe, healthy birth. Marcotty uses Lund's story to illustrate how, despite what media stories and even doctors sometimes say, women are fighting to avoid unnecessary interventions in childbirth. Lund's story will sound familiar to many of us:

"There is nobody advocating for lower C-section rates," Peaceman said. "It's not insurance companies. Not doctors and not women."

Except, perhaps, for women like Lund.

Last year, when she became pregnant for the second time, she knew she was likely to have a C-section again. The surgery has become standard for women like her because there is a small chance that a prior C-section scar will rupture during contractions....

Lund's hospital, Ridgeview in Waconia, will consider a vaginal birth after a C-section. Many hospitals won't because of stringent national medical guidelines for the procedure...

After weighing her options, Lund asked a midwife to deliver her baby at home, but the midwife said it was too risky. She called a St. Louis Park birthing center run by midwives. Although such centers are common in some states, they are new to Minnesota, and Lund's health plan wouldn't pay.

By that point she was 30 weeks pregnant and out of options, she said.

Lund, an attorney and trained litigator, is the first to admit she is not typical of most pregnant women. She's comfortable with confrontation and decided to take matters into her own hands.

Three months ago her labor started at 1:30 a.m. She and her husband waited. And waited. They counted the minutes between contractions, then waited some more. Finally, when she was far enough, she hoped, that it would be too late for a C-section, she went to the hospital.

As soon as she arrived, her water broke. Her cervix was 9 1/2 centimeters dilated. She was ready to deliver her daughter.

"I said: 'Yay, there is nothing they can do to me now,'" Lund said.

The second article by Chen May Yee profiles St. Joe's Hospital in St. Paul, which boasts an incredibly low cesarean rate of around 12%, far lower than Minnesota's 26% rate and the nation's 32.3% rate.  The story tells of St. Joe's long history of supporting natural childbirth, especially with its emphasis on midwifery care.

Kara Sime, 38, a first-time mother from St. Paul, arrived one recent Thursday morning, her contractions five minutes apart. By Friday morning, her labor still wasn't progressing. Exhausted, Sime asked for an epidural, a powerful painkiller, and got one. She also got Pitocin, a synthetic hormone to induce labor.

But there was a problem. Her baby was facing backward, increasing the diameter of the head going through the pelvis. Such cases usually require a C-section or a vacuum.

Instead, the midwife and nurse helped Sime onto all fours -- no small feat since her legs were numb from the epidural. With Sime's belly hanging down, the baby turned.

Three pushes later, Catherine Julia was born at 6 pounds 10 ounces.

"I don't have surgical skills," said the midwife, Melissa Hasler. "I'm motivated to get the baby out vaginally."

Gail Tully, on her Spinning Babies Blog, also shared her own experience with the care providers at St. Joes:

A long time ago, I was at a posterior birth with Deb Monson in which the mom was working hard but staying at 7 cm for 3 hours. Deb's simple trick of 3 pushes against her fingers as they created a false pelvic floor quickly turned the baby and let the labor proceed. Doctors at St. Joe's (I don't know if the Midwives do this) will also occasionally reach in and manually rotate the posterior baby's head to anterior so the birth can finish vaginally. Not all posterior births need any of these interventions, but some do and I believe these skills are a big part of why St. Joe's has a low rate of cesarean section. Plus, the community midwives and doulas have long referred to St. Joe's for their quiet, kind nurses, and mother-centered birthing practices. 

With such a low cesarean rate and a practice culture that supports non-interventive birth, St. Joe's may be the best hospital in the Twin Cities for women hoping to avoid a cesarean. Sadly, however, St. Joe's is the only hospital in the Twin Cities metro area that does not allow VBACs.

This means that St. Joe's rich tradition and practice culture described by Yee and Gail are not available to women like Danette Lund who, for whatever reason, did not avoid that first cut. In a conversation I once had with a representative from St. Joe's administration, I was told that this is because HealthEast "cannot afford" the medical malpractice insurance fees involved in supporting VBAC. This stands in stark contrast to St. Joe's reputation for supporting evidence-based childbirth. And, unfortunately, it shuts out women seeking VBAC who could perhaps most benefit from the kind of support and quality care that St. Joe's provides.

Many thanks to Marcotty, Yee and the Star Tribune for writing and publishing these stories on a very important topic for birthing women in Minnesota.

Birth & Baby Expo TOMORROW!

Twin Cities Birth & Baby Expo
Tomorrow, 10:00am to 5:00pm
Midtown Global Market

Over 50 Exhibitors (see below)
Door prizes
Goodie bags
"Meet the doulas and midwives" event @ 11:00am

Resources, products, services for healthy birth & parenting!

Presented by: ICAN of the Twin Cities

Sponsored by: Blooma Yoga & Wellness, the Childbirth Collective, Family Times Inc., Health Foundations Family Health & Birth Center, Helping Hands Birth Services, Lake Pointe Chiropractic & Wellness, Morningstar Women's Health and Birth Center, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care


Exhibitors:

• 3 Bears Chiropractic & Wellness and Bodywork by Liv
• American College of Nurse Midwives, Chapter 11 Region
• Americare Chiropractic Wellness Center
  
• Awesome Nannies
• Bellies to Babies
• Bliss Yoga Studios/Veronica Jacobsen, CD(DONA), LCCB, CLC
• Blooma Yoga & Wellness
• Brelle Co. LLC/Child's Health Journal
• Chamindika Wanduragala (unique, artist-designed baby clothes)
  
• Child & Family Chiropractic Center
• Cindy Miller, Farmers Insurance
• Cultural Care Au Pair
• Diaper Free Baby
• Discovery Toys (Marlene Zoller)
  
• Do Good Diapers
• Earth Mother Midwife
• E. Dahl Photography
• EMERGE - MSP
  
• Everyday Miracles
  
• Family Tree Clinic
• Health Foundations Family Health & Birth Center
• Helping Hands Birth Services/Nickie's Naturals
• Hennepin County Medical Center, Nurse Midwife Service
• Intentional Environment
  
• International Cesaren Awareness Network of the Twin Cities
• It Works Marketing
• Joeys by Dar
  
• Lake Pointe Chiropractic & Wellness
• Mama Luna Doulas
  
• Minnesota Better Birth Coalition
• Minnesota Council of Certified Professional Midwives (MCCPM)
• Minnesota Families for Midwifery
• Minnesota International Center for Trad. Childbearing
• Morningstar Women's Health & Birth Center
• Optimal Health Zone
• Parenting Oasis
• Pregnancy & Postpartum Support of Minnesota
  
• Revolution Wellness Center
• Sally Kirwin, RN
• Soft Bums
• Spellbound Jungle Photography
  
• St. Croix Valley Doulas
• Swami Baby
  
• Sweet Pickles, LLC
  
• Ten Moons Rising
• The Bradley Method of Natural Childbirth
• The Childbirth Collective
• Victoria Welch (henna, natural baby items)
• Vida Baby Boutique
  
• Wildtree Herbs
  
• Wonderment
• Young Living Essential Oils

Informative Birth Videos

Cross-post from ICAN-Blog:

Three new, thought-provoking videos related to childbirth are available online.

This video compares the cesarean experience with VBAC for both mom and baby:

Cesarean vs. VBAC: A Dramatic Difference from Alexandra Orchard on Vimeo.

The video below discusses infant mortality, especially among communities of color, and highlights the role of reducing unnecessary obstetrical interventions in improving outcomes.

Reducing Infant Mortality from Debby Takikawa on Vimeo.

Finally, this video shows an economist elaborating on the cost savings of increasing out-of-hospital birth:

Less Cesareans with Induction of Labor? Read the Fine Print!

Cross-post from ICAN-Blog:

Media reports this past week have hyped a recent study claiming that induction of labor may actually reduce the need for cesarean. These findings appear to contradict previous research and generally held opinion.

However, these reports have underplayed and underreported the substantial caveats offered by the researchers about their findings. Although the authors do report a 22% reduction in cesareans in women who had elective inductions after 41 weeks, they temper their findings with the following:

1) These findings may not translate to many, if any, hospitals in the U.S. because of how obstetricians tend to practice in reality. According to the press release, “Prior research has indicated that doctors often tend to proceed from starting an induction to cesarean fairly quickly.” Thus, in order for these findings to be relevant, doctors must have patience to allow inductions to work. (Which begs the question: Why not just wait for spontaneous labor to occur?)

2) Induction of labor, on the whole, remains vastly understudied and further analysis is needed. As one of the lead researchers on the study states, "It’s pretty surprising that something obstetricians do all the time hasn’t been studied all that well."

With these substantial caveats in mind, it’s far too soon to rush to the conclusion that induction of labor is “safer” than spontaneous labor, even in post-dates pregnancies. The fact remains that women must be aware of the risks associated with any obstetrical intervention and have the freedom to make choices that they believe are best for themselves and their babies, not doctors’ protocols and hospital time clocks.

Pitocin: A Cautionary Tale

Cross-post from ICAN blog:

The blogosphere lit up this last week with posts about “pit to distress” (see here, and here), the practice of administering the maximum dose of Pitocin (synthetic oxytocin) to a laboring women until the baby shows signs of distress. Such overuse (and misuse) of Pitocin in labor raises the risk of cesarean, traumatic vaginal delivery, and other negative outcomes. Yet induction and augmentation with Pitocin is virtually unquestioned by birthing mothers and their medical providers.

This week’s announcement of Ohio’s largest jury award for medical malpractice tragically illustrates this problem. The jury awarded a family $31 million in compensation for their son’s severe cerebral palsy brought on by a uterine rupture during a mismanaged VBAC labor. The complaint cited the continued use of Pitocin despite the hyperstimulation of the mother’s uterus as demonstrated by an inappropriate contraction pattern. Although some might point to the VBAC labor itself as the cause, in fact the misuse of Pitocin in this case is most likely to blame for the rupture and ensuing disability. Use of Pitocin in VBAC labor is known to increase the likelihood of uterine rupture.

Such heartbreaking incidents highlight the need for reform in current maternity practices. Many routine obestetic interventions are not based on the best available evidence and increase risk rather than safety for mothers and babies. In addition, care providers frequently do not proivde women with full, informed consent/refusal about all interventions, despite ethical and legal mandates to do so.

In light of this reality, women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant should educate themselves about routine obstetric interventions, such as induction/augmentation of labor with Pitocin and consider the risks/benefits for themselves and their babies. Doing so should influence decisions about type of provider, model of care, and place of birth.

Respectful Cesarean?

"Yeah, right."

At least, that was my response when I first saw the title of Joni Nichol's talk at ICAN's International Birth Conference in Atlanta last April. But after a few minutes of listening to Joni's descriptions of cesarean births with soft music playing in the OR and parents talking to their babies as they are born, I was warming up to the idea.

Joni is a midwife practicing in Guadalajara, Mexico. Her description of respectful cesareans included the following elements: cesarean is used only as an absolute last recourse, it is preceded by spontaneous labor whenever possible, the place of birth changes but not the philosophy of care, and the experience is made personal, positive, and memorable. Joni's talk left me dreaming of what changed attitudes in our medical community could do for women who truly need cesareans but who still want a peaceful, beautiful birth experience.

You can read about a respectful cesarean here on Joni's website.

Two VBAC bills in Minnesota Senate

The following bills are under consideration in the Minnesota State Senate:

S.F. No. 1468, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Mar 11, 2009

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to health; regulating hospital policies on cesarean section under certain
1.3circumstances;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 144.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. [144.566] VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN SECTION.
1.6A hospital licensed under sections 144.50 to 144.56 must not prohibit a pregnant
1.7woman from choosing a vaginal birth solely because the woman has previously undergone
1.8delivery by cesarean section.




S.F. No. 1469, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Mar 11, 2009

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to health; prohibiting an individual health plan from refusing to issue
1.3coverage because of a previous cesarean delivery;amending Minnesota Statutes
1.42008, section 62A.65, subdivision 4.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 62A.65, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
1.7 Subd. 4. Gender rating prohibited. (a) No individual health plan offered, sold,
1.8issued, or renewed to a Minnesota resident may determine the premium rate or any other
1.9underwriting decision, including initial issuance, through a method that is in any way
1.10based upon the gender of any person covered or to be covered under the health plan. This
1.11subdivision prohibits the use of marital status or generalized differences in expected costs
1.12between principal insureds and their spouses.
1.13(b) No health carrier may refuse to initially offer, sell, or issue an individual health
1.14plan to a Minnesota resident solely on the basis that the individual had a previous cesarean
1.15delivery.

Access to VBAC is Shrinking

Feb 19 2009

New Survey Shows Shrinking Options for Women with Prior Cesarean

Bans on Vaginal Birth Force Women into Unnecessary Surgery

For Immediate Release

Redondo Beach, CA, February 20, 2009 – The International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) has released the results of a new survey showing an alarming increase in the number of hospitals banning vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). The survey shows a near triple increase (174%) from November 2004, when ICAN conducted the first count of hospitals forbidding women from having a VBAC. In 2004, banning hospitals numbered 300. The latest survey, conducted in January 2009, counted 821 hospitals formally banning VBAC and 612 with "de facto" ban. (1) Full results of the research can be seen in the VBAC Ban Database.

The bans essentially coerce women into surgery they do not need. In response to bans, women are either submitting to unnecessary surgery or are traveling long distances to hospitals that do support VBAC. Some women are feeling forced out of hospital care altogether and are having their babies at home in order to avoid coerced surgery.

“There is an alarming disconnect between what medical research says about the safety of VBAC, and the way that hospitals and their doctors are practicing medicine” said Pam Udy, president of ICAN, an all-volunteer patient advocacy organization. “These bans are about business, not about the health and well-being of mothers and babies.”

Research has consistently shown that VBAC is a reasonably safe choice for women with a prior cesarean. According to an analysis of medical research conducted by Childbirth Connection, a well-respected, independent maternity focused non-profit, in the absence of a clear medical need, VBAC is safer for mothers in the current pregnancy, and far safer for mothers and babies in future pregnancies. (2) While VBAC does carry risks associated with the possibility of uterine rupture, cesarean surgery carries life-threatening risks as well. “The choice between VBAC and elective repeat cesareans isn’t between risk versus no risk. It’s a choice between which set of risks you want to take on,” said Udy.

Studies from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network, one most recently published in the February 2008 issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, demonstrate that repeated cesareans can actually put mothers and babies at greater clinical risk than repeated VBACs. (3)

Hospitals cite strict guidelines set by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as the driver behind the bans. The ACOG guidelines stipulate that a full surgical team be “immediately available” during a VBAC labor, though the stipulation is a “Level C” recommendation, which means it is based on the organization’s opinion rather than medical evidence.

“If a hospital can’t handle a VBAC emergency, they can’t handle any emergency. VBAC-banning hospitals are claiming to be a safe place of birth for non-cesarean moms, but those mothers are just as likely to have an emergency as a mother with a prior cesarean” says Udy. Placental abruption, cord prolapse, fetal distress are all common emergencies that any mother can experience and require immediate attention.

For physicians, repeat cesareans are often considered more convenient, more lucrative and better insulation from lawsuits. VBACs are inconvenient and costly because they require the physician to be on-site and be available to care for the mother. “ACOG created clinical guidelines that are, in effect, good for business,” said Gretchen Humphries, ICAN’s Advocacy Director, who spearheaded the research. “If physicians think VBAC patients need more attention, then they can simply provide that attention by being in the hospital. But it’s easier to just push women into unnecessary surgery.”

“These bans mean that any mother with a prior cesarean is going to have to be aggressive about seeking out balanced information about the pros and cons of a VBAC versus an elective repeat cesarean, and unfortunately, be prepared for an uphill climb if she chooses to have a VBAC,” said Humphries. For more information, please visit our page about the rights of mothers facing VBAC bans.

For more information about the clinical risks of VBAC and elective repeat cesarean, please visit Childbirth Connection.

About the survey: This survey was powered by an all-volunteer team of callers who called, state by state, hospitals across the country. Survey volunteers used publicly available listings of hospitals and made every effort to call every hospital in each state. Surveyors contacted each hospital’s Labor and Delivery (L&D) ward and questioned L&D nurses about the hospital’s practices. Survey questions were designed to elicit information about formal bans, de facto bans, the reasoning behind the bans, and the level of coercion mothers might face if couldn’t find an alternate hospital option. Information from calls was recorded into a central database. A total of 2,850 hospitals were called. Individual records are available for viewing here.

About Cesareans: ICAN recognizes that when a cesarean is medically necessary, it can be a lifesaving technique for both mother and baby, and worth the risks involved. Potential risks to babies include: low birth weight, prematurity, respiratory problems, and lacerations. Potential risks to women include: hemorrhage, infection, hysterectomy, surgical mistakes, re-hospitalization, dangerous placental abnormalities in future pregnancies, unexplained stillbirth in future pregnancies and increased percentage of maternal death.

Mission statement: ICAN is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve maternal-child health by preventing unnecessary cesareans through education, providing support for cesarean recovery and promoting vaginal birth after cesarean. There are 94 ICAN Chapters across North America, which hold educational and support meetings for people interested in cesarean prevention and recovery.

For Interviews: Contact ICAN President Pam Udy at (801) 458-2190 or ICAN Advocacy Director Gretchen Humphries at (517) 745-7297.

________________________

(1)A “de facto” ban means that surveyors were unable to identify any doctors practicing at the hospital who would provide VBAC support.

(2) http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10210#bottom Best Evidence: VBAC or Repeat C-Section, Childbirth Connection

(3)Mercer et al, Labor Outcome With Repeated Trials of Labor Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;VOL. 111, NO. 2, PART 1

Silver et al, Maternal Morbidity Associated With Multiple Repeat Cesarean Deliveries, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; VOL. 107, NO. 6

VBAC Policies in Minnesota

According to a survey conducted by ICAN of the Twin Cities in 2008, 39 out of 101 hospitals (38%) with labor and delivery services in the State of Minnesota have formal policies prohibiting vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Particularly in rural areas of the state, this means that women must either "choose" unnecessary, repeat cesarean surgery or travel extensively to receive maternity care. An additional 30 hopstials (30%) have policies leaving access to VBAC up to individual doctors' discretion. In total, this means that two-thirds of all hospitals with labor and delivery services in Minnesota have formal or de facto policies that severely limit birthing women's access to choice in childbirth. For more information, please contact ICAN of the Twin Cities: icantwincities@gmail.com.




Download PDF here. Key for hospital #s here.


Click here for a PDF of Twin Cities metro VBAC Map

March for Better Birth: Ending VBAC Bans in MN!

The Minnesota Better Birth Coalition, of which ICAN-Twin Cities is a member, is promoting "better birth at lower cost for all women in Minnesota by organizing public support for legislation that will remove barriers to evidence-based, woman-and family-centered maternity care."

Please join us for a Day on the Hill on Monday, March 9th to celebrate better birth for Minnesota women and hope for an end to VBAC bans in Minnesota:


DAY ON THE HILL SCHEDULE
11:15am Meet at St. Joseph’s Hospital or Region’s Hospital
11:30am Depart for the Capitol
12:45pm Assemble on the Capitol Steps
1:00pm Rally in the Rotunda
2:00pm Talk With Your Legislators!

Maternity care costs are increasing while maternal and infant outcomes are
getting worse:
• Minnesota’s infant mortality rate, compared to worldwide figures,
surpasses our national standing but still ranks 32nd.
• Surgical births, which cost up to 3x more than vaginal births, are
performed at a rate of 26% and rising, with some metro area hospitals at
57%. Research suggests a cesarean rate of no more than 10-15%.
• Over 1/3 of Minnesota births are paid for with public dollars..
• Women, lacking appropriate information to make informed choices, are
experiencing unprecedented rates of postpartum depression.


THE PROBLEM?
Current practices are not governed by evidence-based care,
which provides the best care with the least harm.

Bring the whole family and join us in front of St. Joseph’s or Regions Hospital with signs sharing your message about how BIRTH MATTERS to you. Our two groups will meet and march up the Capitol steps together to let legislators know that Minnesota families deserve: better birth. lower cost.

Early Elective Repeat C-sections Dangerous for Babies

Cross-post from ICAN Blog:

A new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine reports that elective repeat cesareans performed prior to 39 weeks of gestation significantly increase the risk or respiratory problems and other adverse outcomes for babies. According to the study, "The rates of adverse respiratory outcomes, mechanical ventilation, newborn sepsis, hypoglycemia, admission to the neonatal ICU, and hospitalization for 5 days or more were increased by a factor of 1.8 to 4.2 for births at 37 weeks and 1.3 to 2.1 for births at 38 weeks."

Read the full abstract here. Read the related article in TIME here.

Maternity Leave Before Delivery Decreases Likelihood of Cesarean

Cross-post from ICAN Blog:

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley have found that women who take maternity leave prior to delivery are less likely to have cesarean sections. Women who started their maternity leave in the last month of pregnancy, rather than working up to the point of delivery, were nearly four times less likely to have c-sections. Read the full article here.

Consumer Reports: High tech birth = poor outcomes

Consumer Reports has published a summary of a study recently released by the Childbirth Connection on the overuse of high tech interventions in childbirth:

Back to basics for safer childbirth

Too many doctors and hospitals are overusing high-tech procedures

Noninvasive measures can mean better outcomes for baby and Mom.

When it's time to bring a new baby into the world, there's a lot to be said for letting nature take the lead. The normal, hormone-driven changes in the body that naturally occur during delivery can optimize infant health and encourage the easy establishment and continuation of breastfeeding and mother-baby attachment. Childbirth without technical intervention can succeed in leading to a good outcome for mother and child, according to a new report. (Take our maternity-care quiz to test your knowledge.)

"Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve," co-authored by Carol Sakala and Maureen P. Corry of the nonprofit Childbirth Connection analyzed hundreds of the most recent studies and systematic reviews of maternity care. The 70-page report was issued collaboratively by Childbirth Connection, the Reforming States Group (a voluntary association of state-level health policymakers), and Milbank Memorial Fund, and released on Oct. 8, 2008.

Overuse of high-tech measures

The report found that, in the U.S., too many healthy women with low-risk pregnancies are being routinely subjected to high-tech or invasive interventions that should be reserved for higher-risk pregnancies. Such measures include:

• Inducing labor. The percentage of women whose labor was induced more than doubled between 1990 and 2005
• Use of epidural painkillers, which might cause adverse effects, including rapid fetal heart rate and poor performance on newborn assessment tests
• Delivery by Caesarean section, which is estimated to account for one-third of all U.S births in 2008, will far exceed the World Health Organization's recommended national rate of 5 to 10 percent
• Electronic fetal monitoring, unnecessarily adding to delivery costs
• Rupturing membranes ("breaking the waters"), intending to hasten onset of labor
• Episiotomy, which is often unnecessary

In fact, the current style of maternity care is so procedure-intensive that 6 of the 15 most common hospital procedures used in the entire U.S. are related to childbirth. Although most childbearing women in this country are healthy and at low risk for childbirth complications, national surveys reveal that essentially all women who give birth in U.S. hospitals have high rates of use of complex interventions, with risks of adverse effects.

The reasons for this overuse might have more to do with profit and liability issues than with optimal care, the report points out. Hospitals and care providers can increase their insurance reimbursements by administering costly high-tech interventions rather than just watching, waiting, and shepherding the natural process of childbirth.

Convenience for health care workers and patients might be another factor. Naturally occurring labor is not limited to typical working hours. Evidence also shows that a disproportionate amount of tech-driven interventions like Caesarean sections occur during weekday "business hours," rather than at night, on weekends, or on holidays.

Underuse of high-touch, noninvasive measures

Many practices that have been proven effective and do little to no harm are underused in today's maternity care for healthy low-risk women. They include:

• Prenatal vitamins
• Use of midwife or family physician
• Continuous presence of a companion for the mother during labor
• Upright and side-lying positions during labor and delivery, which are associated with less severe pain than lying down on one's back
• Vaginal birth (VBAC) for most women who have had a previous Caesarean section
• Early mother-baby skin-to-skin contact

The study suggests that those and other low-cost, beneficial practices are not routinely practiced for several reasons, including limited scope for economic gain, lack of national standards to measure providers' performance, and a medical tradition that doesn't prioritize the measurement of adverse effects, or take them into account.

Thanks to Emily Ward for the link! Send us your blog ideas: icantwincities@gmail.com