freestanding midwifery unit
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

11
(FIVE YEARS 3)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Birth ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Rocca‐Ihenacho ◽  
Cassandra Yuill ◽  
Christine McCourt

Author(s):  
Marta Campiotti ◽  
Rita Campi ◽  
Michele Zanetti ◽  
Paola Olivieri ◽  
Alice Faggianelli ◽  
...  

Background: The present observational study aimed to describe women and delivery characteristics and early birth outcomes according to planned out-of-hospital delivery and to compare this information with comparable planned in-hospital deliveries. Methods: 1099 healthy low-risk women who delivered out-of-hospital between 2014 to 2018, with a gestational age of 37–42 completed weeks of pregnancy, with single, vertex babies whose birth was expected to be vaginal and spontaneous were enrolled. Moreover, a case-control study was designed comparing characteristics of these births to a matched 1:5 sample. Results: living in a medium city (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19–2.74), being multiparous (RR 1.66, CI 1.09–2.51), having the first child at ≥35 years old (RR 1.84, CI 1.02–3.33), not working (RR 1.77, CI 1.06–2.96), not being omnivorous (RR 1.80, CI 1.08–3.00), and not smoking (RR 2.53, CI 1.06–6.07) were all related to an increased chance of delivering at home compared to in a freestanding midwifery unit. The significant factors in choosing to give birth out-of-hospital instead of in-hospital were living in a large or medium city (OR 2.20; 1.75–2.77; OR 2.41; 1.93–3.02) and having a secondary or higher level of education (OR > 2 for both parents). Within the first week of delivery, 6 of 1099 mothers and 19 of 1099 neonates were hospitalized. Conclusions: out-of-hospital births in women with low-risk pregnancies is a possible option that needs to be planned, monitored, regulated, and evaluated according to healthcare control systems in order to work, as in hospitals, for the safest and most effective care to a mother and her neonate(s).


Author(s):  
Nathalie Leister ◽  
Gisele Almeida Lopes ◽  
Thais Trevisan Teixeira ◽  
Caroline Iguchi ◽  
Pamela Vicente Nakazone ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. e006252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Monk ◽  
Mark Tracy ◽  
Maralyn Foureur ◽  
Celia Grigg ◽  
Sally Tracy

ObjectiveTo compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units and two tertiary-level maternity units in New South Wales, Australia.DesignProspective cohort study.Participants494 women who intended to give birth at freestanding midwifery units and 3157 women who intended to give birth at tertiary-level maternity units. Participants had low risk, singleton pregnancies and were at less than 28+0 weeks gestation at the time of booking.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were mode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery. Secondary outcomes were onset of labour, analgesia, blood loss, management of third stage of labour, perineal trauma, transfer, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality.ResultsWomen who planned to give birth at a freestanding midwifery unit were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (AOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06) and significantly less likely to have a caesarean section (AOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.88). There was no significant difference in the AOR of 5 min Apgar scores, however, babies from the freestanding midwifery unit group were significantly less likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care or special care nursery (AOR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). Analysis of secondary outcomes indicated that planning to give birth in a freestanding midwifery unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar or improved odds of indicators of neonatal well-being.ConclusionsThe results of this study support the provision of care in freestanding midwifery units as an alternative to tertiary-level maternity units for women with low risk pregnancies at the time of booking.


Midwifery ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 998-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison J. Macfarlane ◽  
Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho ◽  
Lyle R. Turner ◽  
Carolyn Roth

2014 ◽  
Vol 99 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A82.1-A82
Author(s):  
G Cooper-Hobson ◽  
Z Khandwalla ◽  
C Broome ◽  
V Devendra Kumar ◽  
S Sivashankar

2012 ◽  
Vol 97 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A89.4-A90
Author(s):  
R Barton ◽  
C Broome ◽  
V Heyes ◽  
EA Martindale ◽  
S Sivashankar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document