• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • 0 CME Hours
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
#Grand Rounds

Midwifery vs ObGyn Deliveries: Low-Risk Hospital Setting Outcomes

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • There is limited research on midwifery care in hospital settings
  • Souter et al., (Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2019) sought to determine if there are differences between perinatal outcomes as well as intervention rates when comparing midwife vs ObGyn care in a low-risk hospital setting

METHODS:

  • Study design
    • Multi-centered retrospective cohort study (2014 to 2018)
  • Participants
    • Singleton births |37w0d to 42w6d
  • Data collection
    • Interventions: Induction | AROM | Epidural | Oxytocin | Episiotomy
    • Mode of delivery
    • Maternal outcomes: 3rd and 4th degree tears | PPH | transfusion | Severe Maternal morbidity
    • Newborn outcomes: Shoulder dystocia | 5-minute Apgar score | Resuscitation at delivery | Birth trauma | NICU admission
  • Data analysis: Regression models to adjust for confounding
    • Data stratified by parity (nulliparity vs multiparity)
    • Confounders: Maternal age | BMI | Height | Race | IOL  | Epidural | Hospital Practitioner

RESULTS:

  • 23,100 births
    • 3,816 midwife deliveries | 19,284 ObGyn deliveries
  • Except for oxytocin induction use, where there was no difference, intervention rates were lower among midwifery cohort
  • For nulliparous women, the following were less likely to be associated with midwifery care  
    • IOL
      • Midwife: 14.7%
      • ObGyn: 20.4%
      • Relative Risk (RR) 0.72 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81)
    • Episiotomy
      • Midwife: 3.8%
      • ObGyn: 6.7%
      • RR 0.57 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.74)
  • In nulliparous women, birth at ≥41w0d more likely in midwifery group
    • Midwife: 25.3%
    • ObGyn: 20.6%
    • RR 1.23 (95%, CI, 1.12 to 1.34)
  • Mode of delivery:  Lower risk of cesarean delivery in the midwifery group
    • Nulliparous: Adjusted RR 0.68 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.82)
    • Multiparous: Adjusted RR 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.89)
  • Operative vaginal birth: Lower risk in the midwifery group  
    • Nulliparous: Adjusted RR 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.93)
    • Multiparous: Adjusted RR 0.30 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.63)
  • Neonatal outcomes: Shoulder dystocia was more common in midwifery group for multiparous patients
    • Midwife: 5.1%
    • ObGyn: 3.1%
    • Adjusted RR 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.92)

CONCLUSION:

  • Results from this study demonstrated increased interventions, cesarean and operative vaginal birth rates among women delivered by an obstetrician vs a midwife in a low-risk hospital setting
  • There was a 40% increased risk for shoulder dystocia among multiparous women delivered by a midwife
  • Limitations of this study acknowledged by the authors include
    • Retrospective observational design (association and not causation)
      • Patients selecting midwifery care may be self-selected and strongly desire vaginal delivery
    • Adverse outcomes: Aside from shoulder dystocia, the authors state that there were “No statistically significant differences were observed in any of the other maternal or newborn outcomes; however, multiple outcomes were underpowered to assess statistical differences”
    • Intrapartum management
      • The study could track midwifery patients delivered by an ObGyn but could not track (1) intrapartum consultations; (2) when the ObGyn became involved (3) indications for the involvement in care
  • The authors state in their conclusion that “Larger studies would be needed to more fully evaluate midwifery care in the United States.”  

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Comparison of Midwifery and Obstetric Care in Low-Risk Hospital Births

Now You Can Get ObG Clinical Research Summaries Direct to Your Phone, with ObGFirst

Learn More  »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All #Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Does Staffing Impact Cesarean Section Rate?
Is It the Time of Day/Week or Staffing Experience that Impacts Labor Floor Outcomes?
Shoulder Dystocia: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

ObG Library

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Fertility
  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Log In to ObG First

Please log in to access OBGFirst and the 2T Ultrasound Atlas

Password Trouble?

Sign Up for ObGFirst

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!

ObG First Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site