Is the operative delivery rate in low-risk women dependent on the level of birth care? A randomised controlled trial. Re-conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the PLACE (pregnant and laboring in an ambient clinical environment) pilot trial. The Stockholm birth centre trial: maternal and infant outcome. [The significance of the environment for delivery at a special department]. A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide, Australia. Care in a birth room versus a conventional setting: a controlled trial. Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. The use of a birthroom: a randomized controlled trial comparing delivery with that in the labour ward.
To investigate possible differences in operative delivery rate among low-risk women, randomised to an alongside midwifery-led unit or to standard obstetric units within the same hospital.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Tromsø, Norway.
                A total of 1111 women assessed to be at low risk at onset of spontaneous labour.
                Randomisation into one of three birth units: the special unit; the normal unit; or the midwife-led unit.
                Total operative delivery rate, augmentation, pain relief, postpartum haemorrhage, sphincter injuries and intrapartum transfer, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, metabolic acidosis and transfer to neonatal intensive care unit.
                There were no significant differences in total operative deliveries between the three units: 16.3% in the midwife-led unit; 18.0% in the normal unit; and 18.8% in the special unit. There were no significant differences in postpartum haemorrhage, sphincter injuries or in neonatal outcomes. There were statistically significant differences in augmentation (midwife-led unit versus normal unit RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.89; midwife-led unit versus special unit RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86), in epidural analgesia (midwife-led unit versus normal unit RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90; midwife-led unit versus special unit RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86) and in acupuncture (midwife-led unit versus normal unit RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.25-1.69; midwife-led unit versus special unit RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22-1.73).
                The level of birth care does not significantly affect the rate of operative deliveries in low-risk women without any expressed preference for level of birth care.
                © 2011 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2011 RCOG. Nearly all hospitalized laboring women spend most of the time in bed. We made simple but radical modifications to a hospital labor room, which included the removal of the standard hospital bed and the addition of equipment to promote relaxation, mobility, and calm. We designed a pilot study, the objectives of which were to test the feasibility of a randomized trial and the acceptability of the modified labor room to women and their care providers.
                Women were assessed and invited to participate just before their admission to the labor and delivery suite. Sixty-two women at two Toronto teaching hospitals were randomly allocated to either the standard labor room or the "ambient room." Data about labor and birth events were abstracted from the medical records. Participants and their nurses and physicians completed questionnaires to elicit their views of their experiences with the labor rooms.
                Women's and practitioners' evaluations of the ambient room were generally very positive. Nineteen women (65.5%) in the ambient group, compared with 4 (13.3%) in the standard group, reported spending 50 percent or less of their hospital labor in the standard labor bed. Twelve women allocated to the ambient room had artificial oxytocin infusions, compared with 21 allocated to the standard room (X (2) = 4.73, p = 0.03).
                We conclude that the ambient labor room should be evaluated in an adequately powered randomized controlled trial. To compare an in-hospital birth centre with standard maternity care regarding medical interventions and maternal and infant outcome.
                The birth centre care was characterised by comprehensive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care with the same team of midwives, restricted use of medical technology, and discharge within 24 h after birth.
                Of 1860 women meeting low risk medical criteria in early pregnancy and interested in birth centre care, 928 were randomly allotted birth centre care and 932 standard maternity care. Data were collected mainly from hospital records, and analysis was by intention-to-treat.
                Of the women in the birth centre group, 13% were transferred antenatally and 19% intrapartum. No statistical differences were observed in maternal morbidity or in perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, Apgar score or infant admissions to neonatal care. Perinatal mortality, defined as intrauterine death after 22 weeks of gestation and infant death within seven days of birth, occurred in eight cases (0.9%) in the birth centre group and in two cases (0.2%) in the standard care group (OR 4.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 39.17; P = 0.11). Subgroup analysis showed that a larger proportion of first-born babies in the birth centre group (15.6%) were admitted for neonatal care than in the standard care group (9.5%) (P = 0.003), whereas the converse was the case for the newborns of multiparous women: 4.7% and 8.4%, respectively (P = 0.04). The overall rates of operative delivery (e.g. caesarean section, vacuum extraction and forceps), 11.1% in the birth centre group and 13.4% in the standard care group, did not differ statistically (P = 0.12), but obstetric analgesia, induction, augmentation of labour and electronic fetal monitoring were less frequently used in the birth centre group. Labour was 1 h longer in the birth centre group.
                Birth centre care was associated with less medical interventions than standard care without any statistically significant differences in health outcomes. However, the excess of perinatal deaths and of morbidity in primigravidas' infants in the birth centre group gives cause for concern and necessitates further studies. A material of 292 normal pregnant women was subdivided at random for delivery either in the traditional delivery room or a newly established environmental room. The alterations in the physical environment of delivery did not result in more numerous spontaneous deliveries. A high frequency of episiotomies, stimulation of contractions and artificial deliveries in primiparae occurred particularly when it is considered that two thoroughly investigated groups of low-risk pregnant women were concerned. However, qualitative differences in the experience of the course of delivery were found in favour of the environmental room. The quality of the experience of delivery did not depend so much on the physical environment but more on contact with the staff members responsible for conduct of the delivery. Birthing centre care offers women with a low risk of complication in pregnancy an alternative to conventional care for the birthing of their baby. It is important these two forms of care are appropriately assessed. A randomised controlled trial comparing the newly opened birthing centre with the established conventional delivery suite was conducted at the then Queen Victoria Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia. The outcomes measured included maternal satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes both for mother and baby which related to the need for Caesarean section, episiotomy or tear rate and method of feeding. Two hundred and one women attending the hospital's antenatal clinic were randomly allocated to either birthing centre or delivery suite care. One hundred women were allocated to the birthing centre. No differences were found in either group related to clinical outcomes or costs. The only difference in maternal satisfaction was the choice women made for their next birth. More women in the birthing centre group felt they were encouraged to breastfeed immediately after birth. While the numbers in this study were too small to detect any but large differences in outcome, birthing centre care should remain an option for women and further studies undertaken with larger numbers. A controlled clinical trial was carried out to assess whether a birth room setting would influence the care of mothers and newborns. Of the 163 low-risk women enrolled, 49 (30%) manifested some prenatal risk and were excluded. The remaining 114 were allocated by strict alternation to a birth room or a conventional setting. Of the 56 women allocated to the birth room, 63% of the primiparas and 19% of the multiparas were later transferred. The numbers in the two settings who had oxytocin stimulation, epidural anesthesia, forceps delivery or cesarean section did not show statistically significant differences. The episiotomy rates were slightly lower in the birth room than in the conventional setting, and the rates of an intact perineum were higher in the birth room. Neither the Apgar scores nor the morbidity rates of the infants showed statistically significant differences related to the setting to which the mother had been allocated, although more infants from the conventional setting were admitted to a special care unit. Both "experimental" groups of women less often received routine perineal shaving, enemas or intravenous infusions than did an obstetrically similar nonexperimental comparison group. Despite the apparent inability in this setting for the birth room to influence the rate of major obstetric procedures (except for episiotomy) and outcomes, the authors believe that a birth room is desirable in tertiary care centres as well as in community hospitals. To compare the outcome of two methods of maternity care during the antenatal period and at delivery. One was to be midwife-led for both antenatal care and delivery, the latter taking place in rooms similar to those in one's own home to simulate home confinement. The other would be consultant-led with the mothers labouring in the delivery suite rooms with resuscitation equipment for both mother and baby in evidence, monitors present and a delivery bed on which both anaesthetic and obstetric procedures could be easily and safely carried out.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Leicester Royal Infirmary Maternity Hospital.
                Of 3510 women who were randomised, 2304 were assigned to the midwife-led scheme and 1206 were assigned to the consultant-led scheme.
                Complications in the antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum periods were compared as was maternal morbidity and fetal mortality and morbidity. Satisfaction of the women with care over different periods of the pregnancy and birth were assessed.
                There were few significant differences in antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum events between the two groups. There was no difference in the percentage of mothers and babies discharged home alive and well. Generally higher levels of satisfaction with care antenatally and during labour and delivery were shown in those women allocated to midwife care. To examine whether intrapartum care and delivery of low risk women in a midwife managed delivery unit differs from that in a consultant led labour ward.
                Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Subjects were randomised in a 2:1 ratio between the midwives unit and the labour ward.
                Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Grampian.
                2844 low risk women, as defined by existing booking criteria for general practitioner units in Grampian. 1900 women were randomised to the midwives unit and 944 to the labour ward.
                Maternal and perinatal morbidity.
                Of the women randomised to the midwives unit, 647 (34%) were transferred to the labour ward antepartum, 303 (16%) were transferred intrapartum, and 80 (4%) were lost to follow up. 870 women (46%) were delivered in the midwives unit. Primigravid women (255/596, 43%) were significantly more likely to be transferred intrapartum than multi-gravid women (48/577, 8%). Significant differences between the midwives unit and labour ward were found in monitoring, fetal distress, analgesia, mobility, and use of episiotomy. There were no significant differences in mode of delivery or fetal outcome.
                Midwife managed intrapartum care for low risk women results in more mobility and less intervention with no increase in neonatal morbidity. However, the high rate of transfer shows that antenatal criteria are unable to determine who will remain at low risk throughout pregnancy and labour. A randomized controlled trial of two environments for delivery was conducted at Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital. A total of 253 parous women expecting to have a labour ward delivery were invited to participate in the trial but only 148 agreed. These women were randomly allocated to be delivered either with standard labour ward management (n = 72) or in the birthroom--a small bedroom decorated in a homely manner, without facilities for epidural analgesia or electronic fetal monitoring (n = 76). Eleven women in the birthroom group and 10 in the labour ward group withdrew from the trial before labour and four were transferred from the birthroom to the labour ward when in labour. A questionnaire sent in the postnatal period to the women who completed the trial was returned by 80%. In the birthroom group there was significantly (i) decreased admission-to-delivery interval (ii) less analgesia (iii) more freedom of movement (iv) less suturing (v) increased rooming-in. No difference was found in the assessment of difficulty of labour nor in the method of subsequent infant feeding.
Hospital birth centres are associated with lower rates of medical interventions during labour and birth and higher levels of satisfaction, without increasing risk to mothers or babies.