Clinical guidelines for a hospital water birth pool facility By Janet Balaskas

Professional advice for attending midwives

1. Must be the midwives choice to help mothers in the pool room.
Two midwives present for delivery

2. Adequate education

  • Literature
  • Videos
  • Regular study days and conferences

3. Professional and peer support

4. Familiarity with legal implications

(in UK code of practice 3.3.3. Sections C & D).

5. Record Keeping

  • Annual analysis and evaluation of outcomes

6. Health and Safety

  • Infection control (rubber gloves – half size smaller or gauntlets, immunization)
  • Cleaning of the bath and equipment
  • Electrical safety

7. Rehearse Emergency Procedures

  • Ensure proximity to paediatric resuscitation and other medical aid. Familiarise procedure.

8. Midwife’s Comfort

  • loose-fitting clothing
  • theatre clothing useful

Preparation of Parents

Aqua natal and other antenatal classes

  • Visit to pool room – rehearsal – 34 weeks +
  • Review of literature – albums – photographs
  • Leaflets and books
  • Videos and discussion
  • Meeting other parents who have used facility

Midwife explains use of the pool

Discuss:

  • Expectations
  • Birth plan
  • Other forms of pain relief possible in conjunction with the pool (TNS, homoeopathy, aromatherapy).
  • Music, camera etc
  • Back-up

File notes of parent’s wishes

Parents to agree in advance

  • The midwife will do her utmost to facilitate the parents wishes.

However

Midwife on duty must be competent and willing

Midwife’s judgement is paramount. If the midwife is not happy about aspects of progress in the pool and wants the mother to leave the pool, she will agree to do so.

“Midwives are accountable for their own practice”

PREPARING THE POOL ROOM

Portable Pool

1. Position the pool to allow easy access all the way round (consider trolley in an emergency).

Remove all unnecessary furniture.

2. Place blue disposable liner in position

3. Run tap for five minutes before filling the pool.

Put filling pipes over the side of the pool.

Fill pool two-thirds full – temperature 36-37 degrees C

As pool is filling, adjust creases in liner.

4. Maintain temperature to mother’s comfort between 32 and 37 degrees.

With this amount of water, temperature reduces at about 1 degree per hour – check half-hourly). Keep heat retaining cover on pool when not being used.

5. Clean up any spillage – remove unnecessary hose.

6. Equipment Required

  • Clean sieve to remove faecal debris
  • Electric fan – especially in warm weather
  • Cassette player
  • Good supply of bath towels and robe
  • Non-slip mat
  • Waterproof sonic aid for monitoring or Pinnard stethoscope
  • Candles or essential oils, homoeopathic remedies
  • A large jug or cold water for drinking
  • Inflatable cushions, rubber ring etc.
  • Easy access to resuscitaire heater in room or outside
  • Ensure that facilities for ‘land’ birth are available in room ie: mattress or delivery bed, stool, chair, non-slip mat, beanbag.
  • Call system and telephone location known
  • Water and room thermometer, delivery pack,
  • Syntometrine, Lignocaine etc.

Parents’ birth plan

Admission

1. Confirm mother still wishes to use the pool

2. Base line observations

  • Temperature
  • Pulse
  • Blood Pressure
  • Urine
  • Palpatation – presentation and lie

3. Assess strength of contractions

4. Obtain satisfactory CTG

5. Vaginal assessment

Avoid rupture of membranes

AIM – Physiologically normal labour

6. Glycerine suppositories – some offer microlax enema (5 mls). This is not usually necessary.

7. Encourage mother too remain outside pool until mid-labour.

Use:

  • TNS
  • TLC

Aromatherapy Massage

  • Lavendar
  • Jasmine
  • Clary Sage

Homoeopathy

  • Arnica 200 (pain)
  • Aconite 200 (fear)
  • Pulsatilla 200 (weepy)
  • Kali Phos 200 (exhaustion)
  • Caulophyllum 200 (ineffectual contractions)

Labour – Inclusion criteria

  • Term Babies only 37 -43 weeks
  • Cephalic presentation established in labour
  • Spontaneous rupture of membranes if contracting
  • Induction by vaginal PGE
  • Good progress
  • Previous caesarian
  • Twin babies

Labour – Exclusion criteria

  • Foetal distress
  • Fresh meconium-stained liquor
  • Intra-uterine growth retardation
  • Babies at risk
  • Ante-partum haemorrhage
  • Previous post-partum haemorrhage (?)
  • Intravenous infusion
  • Severe pre-eclampsia or raised blood pressure
  • Epilepsy
  • Skin conditions
  • Known Hepatitis or positive HIV status
  • Sedation
  • Poor progress
  • Breech

Caring for the mother and baby in the pool

Labour

Priority – remember too many interruptions breaks the mother’s concentration.

Disturb as little as possible

1. Labour established prior to mother’s entry to pool (4cm onwards)

2. Mother can adopt any position she likes. Frequent changes are good.

3. Adjust depth of water for comfort

4. Lower lights

5. Midwife in constant but discrete attendance while mother is in the pool.

6. Check water temperature regularly Mother comfortable – not too warm or too cold 36-37 degrees at delivery

7. Ensure plenty of fluids – mother, partner and staff – to prevent dehydration.

8. Ventilation and room temperature to comfort.

Observations during Labour

  • Maternal and foetal, as usual
  • Maternal temperature and pulse (2 hourly)
  • Blood pressure (4 hourly)
  • Foetal heart (half hourly)
  • Vaginal (4 hourly, or at midwife’s discretion)
  • In any position Mother standing up
  • With partners help – float mother to surface, partner supports her under pelvis

Amniotomy

Usually unnecessary, membranes left intact as long as possible, but can be performed in water.

Pain Relief

1. Warm water may be enough

2. Breathing, visualization, relaxation techniques

3. Massage – holding – partner in pool optional (bathing trunks to be worn)

4. Homoeopathy

5. Essential oils by inhalation – Lavendar, Clary Sage or Marjoram

6. Verbal support – partner participation

7. Opitons – N20 + 02 (Entenox) – Pethidine (not to exceed 50 mgm)

Elimination

1. Inclusion of toilet in pool room preferable

2. Mother usually empties her bladder without being aware of it.

Birth in water

Exclusion Criteria

  • Foetal distress
  • Premature babies (37 –38 weeks)
  • Post mature babies (42 – 43 weeks)
  • Prolonged second stage or poor progress
  • Mother needs to be grounded – no power
  • Twins – multiple births
  • Breech presentation
  • Possible shoulder dystocia – baby large in proportion to mother
  • Water unusually dirty
  • Previous Caesarean section

Second Stage in the pool

If contractions slow down in second stage, the mother should leave the pool – if contractions are effective birth may occur under water.

Two midwives present

Second stage initiation usually self-evident. Vaginal examination not necessary as a routine.

Guidance, support – sometimes suggest different position. Do not actively encourage pushing if progress is normal. (if progress is not satisfactory – advise mother to deliver on dry land).

Crowning: manual support of perineum and control of head not usually needed, due to softening effects of water.

Baby born from front. Head delivered – with next contraction body is delivered. Slowly raise the baby to the surface of the water without delay. Baby face up under water, face down when lifted up. Mother assists or is given baby and welcomes baby with head above water but body below water to minimize heat-loss by evaporation (water level may need adjustment so mother can sit comfortably and hold baby like this)

Baby born from behind into water. Do not bring baby to surface from behind mother. Pass baby, face up, through mother’s legs and invite mother to reach down and receive the baby herself and then hold the baby’s head above, body below water surface level.

If mother stands up or baby is born above the water surface, ensure that the head does not resubmerge. Pass baby to mother (between the legs if from behind), she can then sit down in the pool with baby’s body submerged and head above the water level.

Midwife checks apex beat and cord pulsation, Apgar and blood loss observation.

Mother and father welcome baby, take photographs etc.

First sucking takes place.

Third stage in water

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Heavy Blood loss (> 500 mls)
  • Mother feels faint
  • Delayed delivery of placenta
  • Baby needs resuscitation

First contact between mother and baby undisturbed if possible.

Discreet, unhurried observations

Placenta:

  • In water? Out of water?
  • Theoretical risk of water embolism (no actual case reported).
  • Privacy maintained for optimal oxytocin secretion
  • Room temperature raised
  • Mother helped out of pool
  • Offered warm robe or towels
  • Baby suckling encouraged
  • Mother sitting upright – supported
  • Placenta expelled – using squatting position if necessary

A physiological third stage is logical after a natural birth.

Use oxytocic drugs only if blood loss is excessive

  • After delivery inspect placenta and perineum for trauma
  • Suturing best done one hour after leaving pool to allow recovery from the effects of saturation.
  • Check uterus is well-contracted and blood loss is not excessive
  • Leave mother comfortable with baby.

Emptying a portable pool

  • Place pump in the pool
  • Hose to suitable outlet – ensure end is securely anchored
  • Start pump – takes about 20 minutes
  • Dispose of last gallon with liner

Dealing with Emergencies

If in doubt – Get her out!

Cord around neck

  • No need to feel for cord after delivery of head.
  • If cord entanglement – loosen, slip over baby’s head or body after delivery
  • In rare instance of needing to cut the cord, ask mother to stand up. Once rest of the baby is delivered, mother may sit back into the pool and welcome the baby as usual.

Remember: NEVER cut the cord prior to underwater delivery

Once out of water, the baby’s head must not be allowed to resubmerge, as breathing may have initiated already.

Shoulder dystcoia

  • Try to exclude potential shoulder dystocia prior to onset of second stage in water.
  • Stand mother up out of water
  • Call for assistance and paediatrician
  • Ask mother to bend over and grip side of the pool, standing with legs well apart.
  • The midwife will have to step into the pool and work from behind the mother
  • An emergency episiotomy may have to be performed. Give traction towards mother’s back to release anterior shoulder.
  • In most cases of dystocia this should be effective, if shoulder in the anterior / posterior position.
  • If on palpation the baby feels excessively large, then perhaps it would be advisable for the mother to labour in the pool only, and deliver on dry land. Certainly ask mother to leave the pool if progress is slow with a large baby in second stage.

Episiotomy Procedure

Episiotomy is rarely needed for a water birth

Only done if baby is stuck or in an emergency where mother cannot leave the pool.

Not difficult to do in the pool

  • Change mother’s position – across the pool, partner supporting her shoulders
  • Float mother up so perineum is just under the surface (if local anaesthetic is used, ask mother to sit up on the edge of the pool for a minute or too while it is administered,
  • With perineum under the water surface, two fingers of left hand between head and perineum – line up scissors.
  • At height of next contraction – cut
  • Mother sinks deeper into the pool
  • Head delivered

Woman Collapsing in Pool
(this rarely happens if guidelines are observed)

Call for assistance.

Do not empty pool – if possible fill to maximum as buoyancy aids removal of mother from pool.

If partner is present, ask him to support woman but do not lift.

Midwife maintains airway until assistance arrives.

Assistance Arrives

  • State ‘Pool Emergency’ – summon further help – minimum three people, ideally four (team leader coordinates procedure.
  • Trolley – slide board, handling slings brought in. Tip head of trolley down and place at edge of pool. Slide board placed over edge of pool, bridging gap between pool and trolley.
  • Two assistants enter pool – place handling slings under woman’s chest and buttocks. Third assistant supports head.
  • Use buoyancy of water to float woman from pool to slide board to trolley
  • Dry and cover woman and escort to delivery suite if necessary, giving appropriate emergency treatment. NB: check equipment regularly.
  • Attend regular ‘lifting’ refresher courses with prior practice highly recommended for anyone atttending water labour or birth.

Baby slow to breathe

  • It has been commonly observed that babies born underwater are very calm and initiation of breathing is usually slower.
  • Blowing on baby’s skin stimulates breathing
  • Suction of air passages can be carried out with mother holding baby in the pool.
  • If further resuscitation is required, clamp and cut cord and take baby to resuscitaire. Clear airways and administer oxygen while summoning paediatrician. Keep warm and dry.
  • All midwives should attend a course on advanced neonatal resuscitation.

Please note: This is copyrighted material. But you’re free to forward it to anyone you like, as long as you don’t make any changes or profit from its use.

Water Birth Guidelines and FAQs by Patricia Scott

Please note: this has been written for midwives by a midwife. If you’re pregnant – it’s worth scanning down the page as it’s full of really beneficial information. But, there is a lot of technical information and research that will mainly be of interest to professionals.

I am a practising Midwife, working at the Birth Unit at the Hospital of St. John & St. Elizabeth, a small private unit in North London. It has a” low risk” criteria for booking & delivery and our unit has international recognition for water birth and offering complimentary therapies, as well as offering traditional birthing methods, facilitating client choice (D.O.H 1993).

We currently deliver about 400 women a year and over 60% of women use the pool at some point during their labour and about 30% actually deliver in water.

Waterbirths have always been seen as normal Midwifery practise, the midwives working here have gained confidence and competence in using water for their clients, by on going support in education and by debriefing with colleagues and reflecting on practise, this has been invaluable and meets post registration education and practice (PREP) needs. We are currently taking part in a collaborative Audit of Waterbirth with other units offering Waterbirth.

I am fortunate to work with visionary Obstetricians who support and advocate water for Labour and birth and empower Midwives in normal physiology of labour, We offer Midwifery Led Care (70%) and Consultant Led Care. (30%). There is a great sense of teamwork and mutual respect; clients seek out our unit because of our philosophy of care and the option of using a pool.

We have two pools from the Active Birth Centre and have put a lot of energy into making the birth environment as home-like as possible within a hospital setting, soft colours, dimmed lights, beanbags, birthing ball’ s, floor cushions rocking chairs and aromatherapy burners combine with the safety net of modern obstetrics should the need arise .

Water provides the midwife with an extra dimension, a great resource to enhance her skills in addition to the kind, warm, sympathetic and motherly presence that is so essential to the woman in labour.

Having met many Midwives, and many visit our unit to observe our practise and hopefully, witness a waterbirth and have the opportunity to skill- share with colleagues, there is great discord. Many are disillusioned with the Midwifery profession as a whole, such Midwives are disappointed by the cascade of interventions in their own units, having lost faith in the birthing process and the women’s ability to labour naturally.

Now, I am not saying that our unit is superior to any other, or that we only have women who only want Waterbirth and natural birth. We try to offer the optimal outcome for childbirth, if interventions are required they are very justified. We have an open, honest approach with our clients and try to address the realities of labour and birth in our classes, so whatever the outcome is a waterbirth, vacuum/forceps or caesarean section, it is hopefully a positive birth experience.

Most of what I am going to tell you is from my own 14-year experience of waterbirth, and from the evidence and research that is available, although there is still little. And a lot is anecdotal.

Many Midwives and Mother’s have enthusiastically supported the use of water in labour for birth. Many of the women I have cared for find the use of water so appealing—the soothing nature of immersion in water, the comfort of floating and moving freely, in contrast to being immobile on a bed, under bright light’s and electronically monitored. Immersion in water was popularised as a formal method of analgesia by Michele Odent in the 1970’s (Beake 1999).

It always brings a smile to the faces of women who are shown around our labour room prior to booking, they are often drawn to the pool with interest and curiosity and are keen to learn how and when we use the pool, this has an amazing effect on some women, who relax and are eager to anticipate the birth of their baby, they let go of fears so commonly inhibiting many women today, they begin to trust and some women begin to heal from previously bad birth experiences, knowing that they have a voice, good support and an environment conducive to a positive birth .

When a woman is able to labour in water, she receives positive affirmation that the birth is under her control, and that her values and her preferences are important. She is also likely to have the constant presence of a midwife whose attention is focused on her and her needs.

   In 1992, the House of Commons Health Committee report on the maternity services recommended that all hospitals should provide women with “the option of a birthing pool”.

Due to lack of research on labour and birth in water at this time, the Department of health was prompted to fund a survey, so the National Perinatal Epidemiology unit (NPEU) was commissioned to undertake a survey on labour and birth in water.

219 heads of midwifery in England and Wales were sent questionnaires in 1993, the outcome was that there was no evidence to suggest that labour and birth in water should not continue to be offered as an option. Questions remained about the possible benefits and hazards and called for further research.

Labour and birth in water is now widely available throughout the National Health Service. In 1995 nearly half of all units in England & Wales were reported to have installed birthing pools.

This appears to be the case as we start the new millennium. The number of births in water in various units is still generally low; therefore exposure to this type of care for most professionals is limited. As with all aspects of midwifery care, the use of water during labour and birth requires evaluation of associated benefits and risks, yet there are no large, collaborative, randomised controlled trials to date (Nickodem, 200)

The United Kingdom Central Council (UKCC) produced a position statement on waterbirths in October 1994 recognising the need to support the Midwife and that it welcomed the recommendation those women should have choice concerning the method of delivery.

The Position paper 1a (RCM Dec 2000) clarifies the Royal college of Midwives position and recommendations for it’s members stating that all units should develop guidelines and policies on the use of water in labour and birth. supervisors of midwives should help ensure midwives acquire and sustain skills and competence and suggests midwives audit and evaluate their practise and ensure their record keeping of labour and births in water is accurate.

The council (UKCC) recognised concerns raised by Midwives, mothers and consumer groups about the potentially difficult relationships which may arise between a woman’s autonomy, a midwifes professional judgment and accountability and that of local policy in relation to waterbirths as a woman’s chosen method for the delivery of her baby.

Midwives need the support from their Supervisor of Midwives when faced with such dilemmas. .Supervision was written into the MIDWIVES Act 1902 and has remained a statutory requirement until this day. The Supervisor of midwives is responsible for maintaining identifiable objectives, setting standards, ensuring competent practice, supporting staff and identifying training needs as well as fostering a supportive environment for birth and supporting change..

She is an advocate for clients and a supporter of Midwives , supporting women in their choice of care, and Midwives providing that care, She is a resource for learning material and experience, encouraging on going education.

Consequently schools of midwifery and study days/workshops were introduced to offer sessions on labour and birth in water for midwives offering the opportunity to discuss practical and clinical issues thus helping midwives to acquire new skills and update themselves .I am continually surprised at how much I continue to learn despite my many years of experience of waterbirth. This facilitates PREP’s statement of lifelong learning.

Birth in water is considered a “normal birth” and as such midwives have a responsibility to reflect and re-visit their Midwives Rules and The Midwives code of practise (UKCC 1998)The code is very clear that we ensure we are competent in skills acquired in our training and after registration and in maintaining those skills and that as a midwife we are accountable for our own practise in whatever environment we are practising.

Rule 40 : The responsibility and sphere of practise (UKCC 1998)

It is the wording of this rule that both enables the Midwife’s autonomy and at the same time delineates its boundaries.

It states:-

1. A practising Midwife is responsible for providing Midwifery care to a mother and baby during the antenatal, intranatal and postnatal periods.

2. Except in an emergency, a practising midwife shall not provide any midwifery care, or undertake any treatment, which she has not, either before or after registration as a midwife, been trained to give, or which is outside her current sphere of practise.

3. In an emergency, or where a deviation from the norm, which is outside her current sphere of practise, becomes apparent in the mother or baby during the antenatal , internatal or postnatal periods, a practising midwife shall call a registered medical practioner.

REFERENCES:

Maxwell B Water & Birth- Legal Implications Hunter Valley Midwives Association June 1997 vol 5 no 3

Keane H. the Waterbirth Experience, A Supervisors Perspective January 1995

Street D Waterbirths; Client Choice versus legal implications Nursing Times November % 1997 vol 93 no 45

United Kingdom Central Council position statement on waterbirths 1994

Royal College of Midwives Position Paper The use of water during birth July 1994

I have tried to address the most commonly asked questions that midwives ask and are concerned about regarding labouring and giving birth in water .I have included some practical tips from my own experience.

I would like to stress that the midwives clinical judgment, intuition and common sense is paramount.

Q. WHAT SHOULD THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER BE IN THE FIRST STAGE AND SECOND

STAGE OF LABOUR?

A. Labour 32°c- 36°c

Birth 36°c- 37°c

Measure hourly & record in the mother’s records. Record temperature in second stage. Bath thermometers are inexpensive to buy and can be cleaned following individual use.

This range of temperature is said to enhance uterine activity and prevent the baby from initiating respirations.REF:- Catherine Charles. BJM March 1998, vol 6, No 3.

O’dent Michelle, The Lancet. December 1983, pg 1476-1477

Johnson. P birth under water: To breathe or not to breathe J Obstet Gynaecol 1996

Q. WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDED TIME TO ENTER THE POOL?A It is recommended that the ideal time to enter the pool is when labour is well established and the cervical dilatation is 5cms or more. Getting into the pool too early may slow the process down. But if this should happen then leaving the pool & adopting upright positions will help.

However, I feel a degree of flexibility is required, and women reviewed individually, for some women having an intense labour experience, it may benefit from entering the pool earlier. In some cases I have known this has been of benefit and the woman has relaxed enough to “let go” and surrender to the birth process and has consequently made good progress.

I am amazed to witness the effect water can have on some women, from not coping “on land” to total submission, often the sound of “Ahhhh”! is heard as the woman steps into the pool, this has a wonderful effect on everyone!

REF:_ Odent M Use of water during labour- updated recommendations. MIDIRS, Midwifery Digest, March 1998, vol 8, No 1, Pg 68-69.

Odent M can water immersion stop labour? Journal of Nurse- Midwifery, vol 42, No 5 Sep/Oct 1997 pg 414-416

Eriksson, M Mattsson, L-A, Ladfors, L, Early or Late bath during the first stage of labour a randomised study of 2O0 women, Midwifery, vol 13, No 3 September 1997. Pg 146-148.

Boulvain M & Wesel S Neurobiochemistry of immersion in warm water during labour: The secretion of Endorphins, cortisol and prolactin.

Q. WHEN TO LEAVE THE WATER?

A I think here the midwife needs to review the nature of the labour and any risk factors .If in doubt get the mother out!

In my experience women will be asked to leave the pool for the following reasons:-

  • Concern over the condition of the baby, changes in the fetal heart or meconium stained liquor
  • When there is failure to progress in labour first or second stage.
  • In second stage , when a large for dates baby is suspected to birth on land
  • If the water becomes heavily soiled
  • Maternal request, when further analgesia is required.
  • In 3rd stage if there is excessive blood loss .or where there is a low haemoglobin estimation and the need for active management of 3rd stage.

Q DOES THE MIDWIFE GET INTO THE TUB?A No, with carefully designed pools, providing good access this is not necessary, apparently Michel Odent stepped into the pool in his socks, when his first waterbirth took him by surprise!:

In my experience I have never known it.

TIP. Midwives attending a waterbirth are best to wear light cotton trousers and top that can easily be changed should they get wet. Birth attendants are easily able to touch, massage and assist the mother in the pool.

Water spillage can occur as the woman steps out of the pool, or leans over the pool, try to clear up any water as soon as possible to prevent slippage, I usually have a towel or floor mat near by. A non-slip bathmat is also a good idea.

Q. HOW OFTEN SHOULD THE FETAL HEART BE MONITORED?

Prior to entering the pool the fetal heart will have been monitored and found to be normal, depending where the labour is taking place i.e. home or Hospital. Unit protocols should be followed.

In my unit a cardiotocograph (CTG) will have been performed on admission and repeated 4-6 hourly unless a deviation from the norm is detected.

Everyone with a portable acqua dopper sonic-aid devise can hear fetal heart tones.

In order to exclude fetal heart decelerations it is important to listen to the fetal heart immediately at the end of a contraction and from time to time during a contraction.

During the first stage of labour every 30 mins

During second stage of labour after every contraction or every other one.

Follow your instincts, if any concern asks the woman to leave the pool and commence continuous fetal heart monitoring.

All observations and events should be clearly recorded in the mother’s records, this is an integral part of midwifery practise.Q. WHAT IS THE H:I:V: RISK RELATED TO WATERBIRTH?

A. H.I.V is a very fastidious virus, meaning that it has a very hard time surviving outside of its preferred environment. It is thought that the water would provide a barrier to transmission due to the dilution effect of the water.

It is becoming increasingly more routine to offer antenatal H.I.V. screening of women

Some NHS trusts have denied women access to use the pool until screening tests showed they were H.I.V. negative, this is certainly controversial.

However birth attendants should adhere to universal precautions. ( Guidelines have been issued about universal precautions for the protection of health-care workers (D.O:H. 1990)

Wearing gloves is essential:_

TIP

  • I advice wearing a half size smaller to provide a watertight fit
  • Gauntlets are available, but my colleagues and I do not find them to be very user friendly! The latex is rather thick..
  • I have known Midwives to cut off the fingertips of the gauntlets and wear them over regular gloves for better protection.
  • Obviously cuts and abrasions on the hands should be covered with suitable plasters.
  • Keep hands out of the water as much as is possible a “minimal touch” delivery technique is advocated.

REF:- Garland D, Jones K Updating the evidence BMJ June 1997 Vol 5, No 6.

No hepatitis or HIV test, no waterbirth Modern Midwife October 1995

Harley J. The use of water during labour & Birth. RCM Dec 1998, Vol 1, No 12.

Tedder, Prof R.S, Ridgeway, Dr G Blood-borne viruses, Labouring pools and birthing pools January 1996

Q. WHAT OBSERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED?

Observations as per normal practise of maternal temperature, pulse and blood pressure should be done prior to

Entering the pool and can easily be performed in the pool.

The use of the new GENIUS ear thermometers make’s life much easier. Monitoring maternal temperature ensures

That she is not over or under heated.

If there is a concern with the blood pressure it can be recorded in between a contraction with the mother either

Kneeling over the rim of the pool or sitting on the rim of the pool supported.

I have seen blood pressures lower due to the benefits of the mother relaxing in the water; this can be very helpful for

The woman who has mild hypertension.

Listening and observing the woman are very important skills that the midwife should follow.

WHAT ABOUT VAGINAL EXAMINATIONS?

Vaginal examination can easily be performed in the water with the mother lying, kneeling or squatting, supported by her partner. If a proper assessment is needed then the woman should be asked to leave the pool. In my practise I have found that the need to perform vaginal examinations in water is less. Evidence suggests that most women will deliver, for primigravida 4-5 hours, for multips 2-3 hours.

I have always found women to be co-operative and eager to please and will move, change position to help if it is necessary.

If the woman is deep in the water, I have found my examination not to be so accurate and depending on what the indication for examination may request that she leaves the pool.

REF. Warren C Why should I do vaginal examinations? The Practising Midwife June 1999 vol 2, No 6 pg 12-13

Q. HOW DO YOU CONDUCT THE 2nd STAGE OF LABOUR IN THE WATER?

The emphasis should be on the normal mechanism of labour.

Midwives will need to adapt their practise and technique to the position the mother adopts.

Equipment required and useful for a waterbirth’-

  • Warm towels, for mother & baby
  • Large sanitary towel
  • A bath robe
  • A delivery pack & cord clamp, sterile gloves
  • Mirror
  • TorchSieve/bucket/fish net needed to sift out any debris
  • Bath thermometer
  • Non-slip bath mat
  • Water to drink for everyone
  • Evian spray & lip salve
  • Waterproof sonic-aid.
  • Resuscitation equipment checked and near by.
  • Syntometrine or syntocinon at hand should it be needed.
  • Call bell that is easily reached, ours are fixed over the pool or emergency numbers if at home.
  • A low stool, birth ball beside the pool for midwife and partner.

Never leave the woman alone. It is important to remind the mother of the importance of keeping her bottom under the water during delivery

Many units advocate the presence of a second midwife at the time of delivery this is helpful not only for practical reasons, but also an opportunity for midwives to skill-share and observe a waterbirth.

Check the temperature of the water it should be 36-37°c

It is very easy to observe progress; some suggestions may be required if pushing is ineffective. changing position, more upright to aid gravity.

Be prepared for the unexpected! I have known women to stand up out of the water at the last moment, if the baby’s head is delivered above the surface of the water then the delivery is conducted out of the water until full expulsion, then she can sit down into the water with her baby.

A part from the face, keep the baby immersed in the water to ensure that body temperature is maintained.

Michele Odent (1984) noted that women spontaneously leave the pool in second stage to birth their babies, whatever their previous intention had been.

If second stage progress is slow then leaving the pool, so the woman can maximise her pushing power is recommended.

Delivery of the head is technically a “hands off” procedure; this is achieved when there is a good rapport between woman and midwife. A mirror is useful to help see the advance of the baby’s head also I have found some women and partners like to see and this encourages them to progress further. .

The head may crown in full view, alternatively the midwife may use her hand to gently feel the advance of the head, this can be helpful, not to “guard the perineum” as in traditional birthing, but in order to determine if maternal efforts need to be gentler, and not so forceful to minimise perineal trauma and give some direction. The midwife will know if this is necessary.

Minimal intervention is needed, there should be no hurry, when the baby’s head is born, wait for the next contraction, I remember with the first few waterbirths I assisted finding myself holding my breathe! Being anxious and keen to deliver the baby up to the surface of the water, 2-3 minutes can pass, so remain calm!!

The baby is born completely under water and in a slow gentle movement brought to the surface, a movement that will generally take between 5-7 seconds.

The baby’s well being should be monitored throughout and ascultating the fetal heart immediately after a contraction will ensure you detect any late decelerations, if any concern the woman is asked to leave the pool.

I have seen baby’s open their eyes under water.

Usually the baby is handed directly to the mother, but be prepared, as I have had occasions when the mother has needed a few minutes before receiving her baby.

Checking the umbilical cord for pulsation reaffirms that the baby is still receiving oxygen via the placenta; this gives a good indication of the baby’s condition. Often water babies do not cry and are very peaceful so feeling the cord is reassuring.

Q WHAT IF THE CORD IS TIGHT AROUND THE NECK?

It is not necessary to feel for the cord prior to the birth of the shoulders, once the head is born. Feeling for the cord causes discomfort for the mother. If the cord is around the baby it is simple to rotate the baby’s body under the water to disentangle the cord. If the cord is so tight that it might adversely affect the baby late decelerations will be obvious and the woman will be asked to leave the pool.

NEVER CLAMP & CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD UNDER WATER. This is risky and time-consuming sine it could trigger respiration or stimulate the baby. If the cord was that tight you would of detected decelerations of the fetal heart rate prior to delivery.

Q WHAT ABOUT THE RISK OF THE CORD SNAPPING?

This is very rare, but some cases have been reported.

Delivering the baby gently to the surface of the water and avoiding being to hasty will help prevent excessive tension on the cord.

These suggestions may help. –

  • Ensure that the water is not unnecessarily deep.
  • Have cord clamps ready
  • Deliver baby gently and away from the mother, it is then possible to view length of cord
  • If any concern or for a short cord, pull the plug or ask the mother to lift herself up

REF: -Gilbert R E. Tookey P A Perinatal mortality & Morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study

And postal survey B M J 1999, 319 483-7.

Anderson Tricia Practising Midwife Umbilical cords & underwater birth. The practising Midwife February 2000 vol 3 no 3 no 2 p12

ESTIMATING BLOOD LOSS IN WATER?

The amount of blood lost during and after delivery is difficult to estimate in the water, due to the dilution effect of the water.

With experience, midwives become better at gauging this, but if bleeding seems excessive then the woman should be helped to leave the pool.

Observing the mother will make you aware of any ill effects. If a mother feels faint she should leave the pool or the water should be drained

It has become common to estimate blood loss as less than or greater than 500mls. In my experience, I am surprised how often the water is clear following the birth, usually due to little perineal trauma.

Midwives must follow their intuition and gut feeling on this, if in doubt get the woman out!

Use a sieve or fish net to collect any blood clots.

In the case of a post partum haemorrhage I would suggest the following will need to be done;

  • Pull the plug, call for help
  • Administer syntometrine intramuscular
  • Help the mother out of the pool to lie down either on a floor mat or on the bed if it is close ask the partner/colleagues to help you
  • Wrap in warm towels or robe and rub up a contraction.
  • Deliver the placenta if not delivered
  • Estimate the blood loss
  • Site an intravenous infusion if required and take blood for x-matching
  • A syntocinon infusion may be requested
  • Check the bladder is empty
  • Record observations of maternal pulse & blood pressure and observe maternal condition

FAINTING

Should a mother feel faint while in the pool it may be best that she leaves the pool, the room often gets heated up with the vapour from the water, perhaps she has overheated. practical suggestions like opening a window, the use of a fan, drinking cold water or tepid sponging may help, and getting her to breathe slowly. Check her pulse and blood pressure. A glucose sweet or energy drink may also help. Rescue remedy and homeopathic arnica are useful.

IS IT SAFE TO DELIVER THE PLACENTA IN THE WATER?Yes, in the absence of complications the mother may remain in the water. A physiological third stage of labour is conducted unless there are contra indication e.g. low haemoglobin estimation.

Always have syntometrine available.

Unit to unit policies will differ on this, but in my own unit we wait for the umbilical cord to cease pulsating prior to clamping and cutting the cord, unless there is a concern. Sometimes the placenta is delivered prior to the baby being separated. Michel Odent (1993) suggests that the umbilical cord should be cut 4-5 minutes after the birth to reduce the risk of polycythemia.

In my experience, if you ask the woman to bear down with the next contraction she feels the placenta is often expelled with ease. Using upright positions assists gravity.

Remember “hands off” and no fiddling with the cord as this can cause undue bleeding.

The third stage can average 20-40 minutes. I have known it to take longer and leaving the pool is advisable, often this helps and the placenta is birthed easily.

In the absence of bleeding and if the mothers condition is satisfactory, be patient, putting the baby to the breast obviously will help.

Giving a homeopathic remedy like Arnica or pulsitilla in a 200-potency ca help.

TIP Have warm towels available and a large sanitary towel. As well as a bowl to catch the placenta.

In my own experience I have found mothers quite keen to leave the pool if the placenta is slow to be birthed.

Fathers are asked if they would like to cut the cord as a symbolic gesture. Often the Dads can enjoy their first cuddle with their baby while the placenta is being delivered.

WHAT IS THE CONCERN REGARDING WATER EMBOLISM?

This is a theoretical risk of introducing water into the uterus as the placenta is delivered, in theory allowing water to enter the mother’s bloodstream through the blood vessels at the placental site.

Back in 1993 Michel Odent raised the question of water entering the vagina and uterine cavity if the placenta is delivered while the woman was still in the water. Since that time many water births have occurred and many placentae have been born into water, without any incidence of water embolism.

In reality, immediately after birth, the vaginal walls touch one another, even if there was a tear so that the vagina is a potential cavity rather than an actual one. So it is extremely unlikely to happen.HOW DOES THE BABY BREATHE?

It is commonly believed that the stimulus to breathe is from the baby’s face coming into direct contact with the cool air and this only occurs when the baby is brought to the surface of the water.

This is one of the main concerns that I hear Midwives and parents expressing about the possibility of the baby inhaling water at the moment of birth.

When the head emerges underwater the chest is in the mother’s pelvis and water cannot be inhaled because the lungs do not expand. The baby continues to receive oxygen via the umbilical cord, therefore the umbilical cord SHOULD NOT BE CUT prior to full expulsion and birth of the baby.

It is important to instruct the mother to keep her bottom under water during delivery, if for some reason the mother lifts herself up and this does happen, then the delivery is conducted above the surface of the water.

Dr Paul Johnson’s work “Birth under water”-“To breathe or not to breathe” (1995) concludes that if the onset of labour is spontaneous, no drugs are administered a baby born with it’s cord in tact, into warm water not asphyxiated,

Is inhibited from breathing. Surfacing into cooler, dryer air provides the stimulus for the baby to start to breathe.

Therefore it is important to detect fetal heart decelerations, particularly late decelerations and hypoxic babies as hypoxia inhibits breathing in the fetus, except if very severe, when gasping occurs.

The entrance to the larynx is bristling with chemoreceptors, water in the larynx causes the diving response.

REF: Johnson P Birth under water- to breathe or not to breathe British Journal of Obstetrics % Gynaecology, vol 103, no 3 March 1996 pg202-208

Letter Birth under water- To breathe or not to breathe, MIDIRS Midwifery Digest (Jun 1997) 7:2 pg 201

Eldering G, Selke, K Water birth- A possible mode of delivery? Waterbirth Unplugged books for midwives Press 1996

WHAT ABOUT THE PERINEUM?

Technically conducting a waterbirth is a “hands off procedure”

Water softens the tissues and allows it to stretch so those deep tears are very uncommon under water.

I believe in a slow gentle delivery of the head using the maternal breath, obviously some women need more guidance than others, this is where having continuity of carer, building a relationship between client and professional, having trust all helps.

Visibility will depend on what position the mother chooses to use, the use of a mirror and torch will help if the mother is squatting or kneeing.

I have never performed an episiotomy in the water, but I have known colleagues who have, with the mother floating supported in the water. In my unit we do not advocate performing episiotomy in the water.

For occasions when the head is crowning for longer than usual, just changing position to being more upright or to even stand up has aided delivery and gravity.

SUTURING Often after a waterbirth if sutures are required it is best to wait an hour before inserting them as often the perineum is water logged, in reality an hour passes fairly quickly.

SHOULDER DYSTOCIA & WATERBIRTH

This is an avoidable tragedy and the detection of risk factors prior to birth would warrant a land birth.

RISK FACTORS: – Exclusion for birth in water

Large for dates baby

Poor progress in first stage, early second stage of labour

Previous history.

Midwives “gut feeling”

This is an emergency situation and medical aid should be called. In the event of the shoulders being difficult to deliver, the midwife will call for help and I would pull the plug and help get the mother out of the pool, just the movement of standing up or lifting her leg over the edge of the pool as getting out could be enough to deliver the baby, she will need help to physically do this, enrol her partner & colleagues.

Then adopt a supported squat position or MRoberts position, lean mother onto a beanbag for support.

Apply supra-pubic pressure; follow your unit’s protocol.

Shoulder dystocia drills are recommended as good practice for staff to feel competent and confident in dealing with this emergency situation, we cover the “what if” situation related to waterbirth in our play stations.

Remember record keeping relating to shoulder dystocia is very important.

E.g.

Not time of perineal phase of the second stage of labour

Note first indication of the shoulder dystocia

Note sequence of events i.e. 1st attempt at delivery

Episiotomy attempted or reasons for not performing

Positions used to facilitate delivery

Manoeuvres used to facilitate delivery

Note time between delivery of the head and the completion of the delivery of the

Baby.

Details of any resuscitation if required.

TWINS & WATERBIRTH

This is usually contra-indicated and stated in unit protocols and guidelines, however there are reports of twin births in water I have actually delivered twins in water but it was not planned, this was a muligravid mother who had a quick, easy delivery of the first twin in water, she left the pool for the second twin as we thought it to be a breech presentation, but actually after an examination it was a head presenting, all was normal, the mother asked to get back into the pool, there was no reason why she should not and with the next two contractions her second twin was born .I had the support of the attending obstetrician.

HOW DOES THE MIDWIFE LOOK AFTER HER BACK?

The health and wellbeing of midwives is very important. In the National Survey on waterbirths (1995), out of 8255 reports of women using water in labour, seven members of staff were reported to have suffered back problems. It is recommended that each Midwife attends an annual moving and handling course and must adhere to the recommendations.

I try not to lean over the pool, I usually pull a stool or chair next to the pool or sit on a birth ball or kneel at the side of the pool. Leaning over the pool unnecessarily is hard on your back. so keep bending over the pool to a minimum and wipe up any excess/spilt water from the floor to prevent falls/slipping.

We do manual handling sessions related to caring for clients in the pool, to look at ways of being kinder to ourselves and taking care of our backs and posture.

Make sure your knees are bent and try to be more conscious of your posture when leaning over the pool.

With care and good postural habit, stress on the spine can almost be avoided. Keeping fit and supple with simple yoga based exercises can help

If you have a back problem or a concern you should discuss this with your manager and occupational health department.

SUGGESTED READING: –

RCM 1999 Handle with cares, a midwives guide to preventing back injury.

RCM 1998 health & Safety representatives handbookRECORD KEEPING

“Record keeping is an integral part of nursing, midwifery and health visiting practise. It is a tool of professional practice and one which should help the care process” (UKCC 1998 Guidelines for records and record keeping).

Good record keeping is paramount and a mark of the skilled and safe practitioner (UKCC 1998)

  • Keep accurate, consistent notes and write events as soon as possible after an event, providing current information on the care and condition of the client
  • Write clearly in black ink
  • Accurately dated, timed and signed with your signature printed along side the first entry
  • In relation to waterbirth, record temperature of water, time of entering , leaving the pool and mother’s and baby’s condition
  • Record any discussions or plans of care that takes place with the involvement of the client.GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF WATER IN LABOUR.

For the first time, guidelines have been produced on the best available evidence for good practice when assisting with labour and birth in water, for use in hospital or home.

The guidelines are intended to reinforce good midwifery practice, and to suggest ways in which a midwife can best, and most safely support a woman who labours and may give birth in water. (Burns E & Kitzinger S Midwifery Guidelines for use of water in labour 2000 )

Each unit will have a guideline/protocol and criteria for Midwives to follow related to the use of water for labour and birth.

Here is an example of our own guideline: -CRITERIA FOR USE OF WATER IN LABOUR

  • An uncomplicated pregnancy of at least 37 weeks gestation.
  • Established labour- preferably when the cervix is greater than 4cms dilated( contractions usually peak within two

Hours of entering the pool therefore entering the pool too early may slow down the labour).

  • No specific indication for continuous monitoring of labour
  • The mother must be attended by midwife/labour partner at all times and must be aware that she will be requested

To leave the pool should complications arise, two midwives must be in attendance during the birth of the baby.

   WOMEN SHOULD BE URGED TO LEAVE THE POOL IF:

  • Excessive fear, anxiety or loss of control exists
  • There is significant blood loss at any time
  • Augmentation with syntocinon is required.
  • If there are significant abnormal changes in the fettle heart rate
  • If moderate to thick meconium stained liquor is present
  • If the contractions stop or significantly slow down
  • If there is lack of progress after pushing for greater than an hour in the second stage
  • If the woman has an abnormal rise in blood pressure
  • If assistance is needed to deliver the head or the shoulders(help the mother to stand up for the first attempt to deliver to be made)

Water born: A new study shows that birth pools can ease the pain of labour

A new study shows that birthpools can ease the pain of labour.

So why, asks Janet Balaskas, are some women denied access to them?

(Observer newspaper January 28, 2004)

In the late 1970’s most women laboured in large consultant units, semi reclining in bed, strapped to electronic foetal heart monitors and subject to an avalanche of routine obstetric interventions. Of course any sensible women is only too grateful for modern obstetric care when there are problems.

However we only have to look at the statistics our hospitals today (22% of babies in the UK were born by Caesarean section in 2002 [www.birthchoices.com]), to see the heritage of this complete misunderstanding of the nature of birth physiology and the kind of environment and care women need to support it.

It’s not surprising that women the world over rebelled against the medical model. When I founded the Active Birth Movement in the 1980’s in North London it was about women reclaiming the right to labour and give birth in upright positions and in an environment which is more conducive to a natural birth.

Active Birth turned women from passive patients, recipients of a medicalised birth to active birth givers. Gradually, this has been influencing change in the provision of midwifery care and birthing rooms that are designed to facilitate more women being able to be mobile and to have a natural active birth.

While at first the freedom to move and choose comfortable upright positions was paramount – the possibility of getting into a pool of warm water in such an environment adds a number of benefits which can no longer be ignored by the managers and providers of maternity services.

News this week of a study by Southhampton General Hospital confirms what women and midwives all over the world have been saying for two decades about the benefits of using a birth pool during labour.

One of the main reasons that women choose to use water during their labour is for pain relief. There is no doubt from what women themselves and experienced midwives say, that immersion in water can provide dramatic relief of discomfort for a high proportion of women and an alternative to the epidural.

The Southhampton study involved 100 first time mothers who were making slow progress in labour and revealed that those who were given a chance to use a birth pool progressed better than those getting standard care. Less than half (47%) needed an epidural, compared to 66 % of those who did not use a birth pool.

This finding is not entirely new. A review of three randomized control trials found that there was a significant decrease in the use of medical pain relief in the women who used a birth pool in labour – indicating,

Nikodem, V.C.,  Immersion in water during pregnancy, labour and birth, The Cochrane Library, Oxford,1998, issue 1.

Other studies have confirmed the pain relieving effects of water.

For example a clinical audit of waterbirths carried out in five birthing units in England, reported a dramatic reduction in the use of analgesic drugs such as pethidine amongst pool users.

The study cited below found that only 3 per cent of women who used water in labour used pethidine as well, compared to 60 per cent of women who laboured on land. A reduction in the use of such narcotic drugs is welcomed by all concerned, as its is now widely recognized that they can have a depressive effect on both mother and baby’s central nervous system and may lead to a variety of complications.

Garland, D. & Jones, K.  Waterbirth, supporting practice with clinical audit. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest (September 2000) 10:3, pp 333-336

While women need to be aware that using a birth pool can make it significantly easier to manage the pain it does not take away the pain entirely and there will be some women who may still need medical pain relief. Experience has shown that the best time to enter the pool to get the most benefit, is about midway through labour at about 5 or 6 cms dilation.

This is generally around the time that many women choose to have an epidural as labour intensifies. Getting into the pool at this point offers an alternative. Many women find that the support of the water allows them to relax much more deeply, to feel much more comfortable both during and in between contractions and to have an increased sense of privacy.

There is a noticeable calming of stress levels and the abililty of the mother to cope with her labour can be transformed. At the same time the water seems to promote more effective contractions, so dilation may progress more rapidly while the mother is relaxing in the pool.

How water birth originated

There have been accounts of women labouring and giving birth in water mostly amongst peoples living near a source of shallow warm water such as the South Pacific islanders. In most traditional societies the rituals and practices of childbirth have, until recent times, been a matter of secrecy and handed down through generations of women. There are oral traditions of similar practices among the Maori, the Indians of Central America, and the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians.

In 1805, the first account the use of water in Europe was documented. A French woman, who had laboured for two days before being encouraged to get into a warm bath by her enlightened doctor then progressed to give birth to a healthy baby within an hour.

Sadly, for millions of women at the time there was no recognition of the importance of this event.

Aside from this, there are no accounts of a tradition of childbirth in water in Europe or other northerly regions. The reason for this may be a simple matter of climate and plumbing. Only with the widespread availability of artificially heated water and portable and installed birthing pools in comparatively recent times, has giving birth in water become a real option for women anywhere in the world.

Waterbirth was pioneered in the 1960’s by the Russian researcher Igor Tjarkovsky Using a large aquarium he installed a glass tank in his own home in Moscow in which many mothers gave birth . Stunning photographs of these extraordinary births were published in the west and inspired the first water births.

For today’s generation of mothers, the key figure in the use of water for labour and birth is the French obstetrician Michel Odent.

In 1977 Odent installed a pool in the hospital at Pithiviers , not with the idea of promoting birth in water, but primarily as an additional option for pain relief and rest during long or difficult labours. He has said ‘the reason for the birthing pool is not to have the baby born in water but to facilitate the birth process and to reduce the need for drugs and other interventions.’

Odent published his findings in the Lancet and his recommendations in this article provided the basis for the first midwifery guidelines for waterbirths.

Odent, M.  Birth under water.  The Lancet. December 24/31, 1983. pp 1476-1477

Inspired by news of what was happening in Moscow and France, the earliest waterbirths in the West took place at home in pools that were often improvised by the couples themselves and attended by independent midwives.

The parents created birthing pools using any large waterproof container they could find – including refuse skips, cattle troughs, inflatable paddling pools or garden ponds lined with a plastic sheet. This happened simultaneously in several parts of the world and began to cause ripples in the world of obstetrics.

When reports and images of the first waterbirths were published, the world looked on in amazement. The women who chose this way of birthing and their attendants were variously regarded as crazy, deluded, foolhardy or inspired. The medical establishment rallied to condemn or at least call the practice into question, citing theoretical risks of infection and fears of the baby drowning.

Such fears have been largely appeased by the work of Dr Paul Johnson, neonatal physiologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. His research on the mechanisms that trigger breathing in the newborn provided scientific confirmation of the safety of birth underwater at body temperature for babies who are not at risk.

He described how the baby is protected against the possibility of breathing while underwater in the few seconds between emerging from the birth canal and being lifted out of the water. This response is known as the ‘dive reflex’.

Johnson, P.  Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol 103, no 3, March 1996. pp 202-208

In 1999 Ruth E. Gilbert and Pat A. Tookey of the Institute of Child Health, London, published a hugely important study in the BMJ that effectively provided the ‘green light’ for labour and delivery in water. It was a study of the outcomes for all babies born in water in the UK in a two-year period between 1994 and 1996.

A total of 4,032 waterbirths were included in the study (about 0.6 per cent of all deliveries). All 1500 consultant paediatricians in the British Isles were asked if they knew of cases of perinatal death or admission to special care within 48 hours of labour or delivery in water. The study showed that there was no increased risk to health for babies born in water as compared with babies born to other low-risk women on land.

Since then a burgeoning of interest in the use of water in labour in the UK has led to the development of a unique concentration of knowledge and expertise within the mainstream maternity system.

Positive encouragement to the use of water in labour and childbirth has come from the Royal College of Midwives, which recommends that midwives should develop the knowledge and skills to assist women at a waterbirth .

Water labour and birth is an option which is limited to ‘low risk’ women having an uncomplicated birth following a healthy pregnancy. In the UK the issues of safe practice have been addressed by the health authorities, Royal College of Midwives, midwifery supervisors and one or two obstetricians.

A significant body of research studies and several important surveys have been undertaken. Development has been more carefully and diligently monitored than many of the obstetric procedures that are widely used.

Against this backdrop, more of the managers of maternity services in the UK are increasingly being persuaded that the option of using water in labour and for birth should be available to all women.

The extent of the use of birth pools in the UK increased . Pools are now used in hospitals as well as independent birth centres, some of which specialize in waterbirths, and in the community at home births with both independent and NHS midwives.

The Edgware Birth Centre in North London is an example of a new type of forward-thinking NHS birth unit. It has two pools and typically 70 per cent of women who give birth at the centre use water during labour and 50 per cent give birth in water. Since it’s inception outcomes show far fewer interventions than for low-risk births at a conventional hospital birth unit. This is a model of care which would transform our maternity services if widely adopted.

In October 2000 the UK’s Royal College of Midwives estimated that 50 per cent of maternity units provided facilities for labour or birth in water. The usage of pool varied between 15 and 60 per cent, which may be an indicator of the significance of the role of the midwife in supporting and encouraging women to consider the use of water. Since then the number of UK hospitals and birth centres with installed pools has risen to closer to 60 per cent.

However, that does not necessarily mean that the pools are being fully or enthusiastically utilized or that the pool is always available. It’s not uncommon for women to be discouraged from using them or to be told that trained midwives are not available. Sometimes stringent protocols around the use of a pool can limit it’s usefulness and frustrate both mothers and midwives. Women who want to use a pool are often also told that this may not be possible if the pool is already in use.

It’s time for such problems to be addressed and for all women to have the possibility of using a birth pool wherever they choose to give birth. Water birth is one of the greatest innovations in childbirth of our times and can no longer be regarded as a passing fad.

The use of epidurals today has reached epidemic proportions and contributes significantly to the high caesarean and intervention rate and is also very costly, requiring a high level of expert attendance. The simple expedient of a pool of warm water is by now a proven way to confine the use of epidurals to those women who really need them and improve safety and quality of the birth experience.

Giving birth in water can be a wonderful memorable and empowering start to motherhood. At the Active Birth Centre we run a nationwide portable pool hire service and also provide installed pools to hospitals. We get feedback from the women and midwives who use our pools which is largely positive and often glowing. The news from Southampton comes as no surprise to me and is a welcome endorsement of the kind of experiences I have been hearing about for many years.

Women’s comments from questionnaires we send out to women who hire our pools.

‘I waited to get into the pool until I was 6 to 7cm dilated. Once in the pool labour progressed rapidly and just 35 minutes later I felt the urge to push. Our baby was born three and half minutes later. The pain was so well controlled that I couldn’t believe tat the birth of our daughter was imminent, neither could our fantastic independent midwife.

The water was so relaxing; this was my only form of pain relief. This birth was so different from my previous experience when I had our son without access to a pool. It was fantastic that our baby daughter entered the world calm and relaxed with no complications – a wonderful experience for all of us.’ “I felt my body relax immediately on entering the water and simultaneously recognized that I was pushing very comfortably.”

“My birth experience was wonderful overall. Helped by excellent midwives who “managed” the situation very well. I was relaxed and confident in the pool and up to the last ten or so contractions, I felt totally happy and in control… Having the pool gave me my own space and enabled me to decide who and when I wanted physical contact with… The water helped enormously with the pain, mainly due to the ease with which I could move about during contractions and the support it gave me whilst resting…”

” I got in the pool at about 5 cm dilated. The relaxation through my body was immediate and the ‘floating’ weightlessness was lovely. The water made it very easy for me to change positions at the start of a contraction. The contractions were stronger which was a bit of a shock but I could feel and visualize my cervix dilating much more easily”

The sense of weightlessness in water gave me enormous relief. My birth was a fantastic experience and I don’t think I would have coped so well without the pool.”‘Labour progressed steadily for five or so hours, and then my waters broke with a gush. That was when I felt I wanted to enter the pool, which made me relax completely. My baby’s head was delivered five minutes later and I could see her hair floating. I then “breathed” her out and she swam into my arms. It was a wonderful experience and such a calm entrance to the world.’

The Benefits of Using Water for Labour and Birth

Extract from “Water Birth” by Janet Balaskas

How water can help you in labour

“The water looked very inviting and I was delighted with it when I got in. I had a fire burning and the room was candle lit, with soft music and lavender oil in a burner.”

The change in how a woman feels and behaves soon after entering a birth pool in a quiet darkened room can be remarkable. It seems to alter her state of consciousness and her concentration – sometimes dramatically – so that she very soon relaxes and sinks more deeply into herself and is able to let herself surrender to the involuntary rhythms of her labour. It’s as if she becomes sleepy, even dreaming.

In the ‘Birth and the Family Journal (Vol 8)’ Michel Odent writes: ‘The reason why kneeling or immersion in water during labour is so helpful is mysterious. What is clear is that water is often the way to reduce inhibitions… we observe that during such immersion in warm water, semidarkness is the best way to reach a high level of relaxation. Water may be a good way to reduce adrenergic secretion. Immersion in warm water with semidarkness may also be a way to reach alpha brain wave rhythms.

Water may be a symbol of mother, of comfort, regression to childlike needs and behaviour. Whatever way we want to talk about the effect of water during labour, one thing is sure.

The contractions become more efficient and less painful at the same time, so that sometimes the labour is very quick. Many women do not want to leave the pool because it is so comfortable. As a result sometimes the baby comes while the mother is in the pool.’

The benefits of water immersion, or hydrotherapy, in labour have been studied and assessed by many experienced midwives, researchers and doctors all over the world.

It is clear from common findings that including a pool of warm water in the birthing room adds a whole new dimension to the experience of childbirth. A recent study of 1,300 water births found that the use of a birth pool is rated very highly by women, whether having their first or subsequent baby and their enthusiasm is shared by midwives.

This echoes the findings of thousands of women and their midwives all over the world. There are some women who have had several water labours or births and have had such satisfactory experiences that they cannot imagine giving birth in any other way.

But just as every labour is unique, no two women will use a birthing pool in quite the same way. Moreover, a minority of women who try the pool do not find it helpful.

Many women however, are very keen to get into the pool at the earliest possible moment (although we will see later that it is not wise to get in too early) and some are so comfortable that they want to stay in the water for the whole of the remaining labour and birth.

Others find the pool helpful for pain relief during labour, but feel the need to be on dry land for the birth itself. A further group may labour and give birth on land but use the pool for relaxation after the birth.

In a long slow labour, episodes in the pool can be useful for resting. The message is that water can be of benefit in a variety of ways.

“My labour was very short and intense. Near the end I wanted to get my head down to slow the pain down When I went into the pool I found that I couldn’t get my head down lower than my hips as I had been doing out of the water, so I felt the contractions more strongly than ever. I got out because I missed the presence of my husband to cling to and overall felt very isolated in the pool.”

Privacy and non-intervention

One of the benefits of labouring in a pool is the sense of privacy that most women who use it experience. Enclosed in her private space, protected by the gentle barrier of the water, a woman can feel secure from unwanted contact and more in control of her body. She is free to turn her attention inwards and focus on the rhythms of her labour and what she needs to do to ride the powerful sensation of the contractions.

Although it is essential that regular fetal monitoring is carried out periodically while the mother remains in the pool, in practice there are fewer internal examinations and other procedures than in most labours on land.

And, significantly, this ‘hands-off’ approach seems to have no adverse effect on mother or baby as was noted in a study of 2,000 women in a hospital in Switzerland where water birth is offered as an option to every woman.

“I was glad not to need any stronger pain relief (I had an epidural for the birth of my first baby) and to give birth naturally feeling in total control in the pool and in my own home. I liked the fact that being in the pool meant that the midwives keep a hands-off approach and leave it up to you with no internal examinations and no breaking of the waters. It was so different from my first experience.”

Midwives who attend water births often have to develop different ways of assessing progress in labour. Instead of routine vaginal examinations to check dilation, the midwife relies on more subtle indicators, such as the woman’s breathing, vocalisations and movements.

In fact, many midwives feel that attending labours and births in water has added an extra dimension to their midwifery skills, including an extra sensitivity to changes in the mother without the need for manual confirmation.

Pain relief through water

“The pool helped the labour to progress rapidly… I was very eager to get in the water and found it a huge relief when I entered… the pool was very useful in coping with the pain, helping to focus me so I could concentrate on making the pain useful and positive.”

One of the main reasons that women choose to use water during their labour is for the relief of pain. There is no doubt among midwives experienced in its use, that immersion in water can provide dramatic relief of discomfort for a high proportion of women.

Various studies have confirmed this finding. For example a clinical audit of water births carried out in five birthing units in England, ‘supported the proposition that water birth is effective as a method of pain relief.’

In hospital birthing units that have a long-standing commitment to the provision of pool facilities and support from birth attendants who feel at ease with using water in this way, there has been a dramatic reduction in the use of analgesic drugs such as pethidine (meperidine in the US).

The study cited above found that only 3 per cent of women who used water in labour used pethidine as well, compared to 60 per cent of women who laboured on land. A reduction in the use of such narcotic drugs is welcomed by all concerned, as its is now widely recognised that they can have a depressive effect on both mother and baby’s central nervous system, especially in repeated or large doses

A systematic review of three randomised control trials exploring immersion in water in labour only (not birth) found that there was a significant decrease in the use of medical pain relief in the women who used a birth pool in labour – indicating that for some women the use of a birth pool provides an effective alternative route to epidural anaesthesia.

Epidurals have become very sophisticated and generally provide effective relief from pain and can be used very positively in some circumstances. You need to be aware that using a birth pool will not eradicate the pain in the same way as an epidural – but works indirectly by helping significantly through the benefits listed below, to make it easier for you to tolerate and manage the pain yourself.

Summary of benefits of labouring or giving birth in water

  • Increases privacy
  • Provides significant pain relief
  • Reduces the need for drugs and interventions
  • Encourages a woman’s sense of control in labour
  • Facilitates mobility and enables the woman to adopt optimal positions for an active birth
  • Speeds up labour
  • Promotes relaxation and conserves energy
  • Helps to reduce tears
  • Is rated highly by mothers and midwives
  • Encourages an easier birth for the mother and a gentler welcome for the baby

Water Birth: Using a birth pool in labour

Excerpt from “The Waterbirth Book”: by the World-Renowned Natural Childbirth Pioneer Janet Balaskas

   The introduction of birthing pools in the UK began in the late 1980’s and is one of the greatest innovations to happen in natural childbirth. More than 150 hospitals in the UK now (2001) have at least one installed pool and hundreds of portable pools are also in circulation. The use of water for labour and birth is increasing and has been under intense scrutiny in the last 10 years. The outcomes of the research have so far, been positive. The help of water to enable more women to give birth naturally is very relevant at this time, when one in 5 babies in the UK is born by caesarean section.

   The invigorating and therapeutic value of water is well know to all of us – from our daily bath or shower to mineral springs, saunas and spa’s, rivers, oceans – all places we go to for healing and regeneration. These qualities are brought into the labour room when we introduce a pool of warm water. This is a wonderful way to transform the atmosphere in a hospital and to encourage normal birth physiology.

   Long before there was modern plumbing, water was used as a birth aid in many cultures. It’s soothing, cleansing, and healing properties were used to help women in labour and it was also used as a birth stimulant.

  • In New Guinea – Gahuka women gave birth by the river. The sound of the water help the mothers concentration and the flowing movement of the water helps the movement of the baby inside.

  • African women – Squat over steaming hot rocks to soften the perineum

  • Gautemalan midwives – gave women relaxing steam bath massages

  • Finnish women laboured in steaming saunas

  • Japanese women in remote fishing villages gave birth in the sea

  • Maories and South Pacific Islanders – Hawaiians – have oral traditions of labour and birth in water. In addition to gravity, warm water is another of nature’s elements which has enormous power to help you during your labour. It is a simple yet powerful way to relax deeply and can be the key to an easier labour.

The benefits of using a birth pool

   Water is a feminine element. It is buoyant and soft and carries your body’s weight. As soon as you enter the water, the warm, sensual sensations on your skin remind you that your labouring body is beautiful, powerful, and sensual. Although this is not the case for everyone, the majority of women comment that they were surprised by how wonderful and relieving it felt when they first got into the pool.

   Water pools help many women to cope better with pain and enhances those passions and deep emotions which are an integral part of a healthy birth. For many women a birth pool provides an alternative route to an epidural and can be the key to a physiological birth. The water is not likely to take away the pain, but it can make a tremendous difference to your ability to relax and may well make the pain more bearable.

   Studies have shown that endorphine levels may go down in a birth pool – a sign that pain levels decrease. A birth pool is something to try before considering an epidural or other form of medical pain relief. You can always change your mind if you need to.

   The buoyant effect of the water completely supports your body’s weight. This gives you a feeling of physical liberation – like being in warm ocean. Resting between contractions is much easier, because being in the water is so comfortable and relaxing. This helps tremendously to conserve your strength and energy, so you are less likely to become fatigued or exhausted.

   In the pool you are in your own womblike space – you are in charge. It’s more difficult to disturb or distract you. A birth pool represents a sanctuary from what some women experience as the menace of obstetric routines. In water your body is your own territory – your birth attendants need your consent to get close to you.

   The water’s buoyancy also helps enormously to make you more comfortable in upright positions. You can move more easily and spontaneously help your baby to descend and rotate by yourself.

  You will be surprised to find that it’s much easier, for example, to squat in water. Even women who find squatting difficult on land, can often do so comfortably in water — with the added benefit that this position makes a lot more space in the pelvis for your baby to descend.

   Once in the pool, you are unlikely to notice how much time has passed. Many women say that the world beyond the rim of the pool seems to disappear.This increased sense of privacy in the pool helps you to concentrate on working through your contractions without any distractions.

   The relaxing environment helps you to let go of what is happening around you and to focus your awareness inwards on the work your body is doing and surrender to the rhythm of your labour.

   The oxytocin wave – how entering a birth pool effects hormone secretion.

   Water birth pioneer, Dr Michel Odent, in his latest updates on water birth, suggests that there is a correlation between the findings of physiologists on the effects of water immersion on hormone secretion and the observations of midwives that labours tend to slow down when the woman enters the pool too early.

   He suggests that immediately after a woman enters the pool, there is a surge of oxytocin which stimulates contractions and results in rapid dilation. However this effect is short lived and after about 1.5 – 2 hours, oxytocin secretion reaches a peak and begins to slow down. The timing of when you enter the pool therefore becomes important.

Practical tips and guidelines

   When to get in – If you are planning to use a birth pool it’s best to stay out of the water in the latent phase of labour. At this time, using upright positions, movement and breathing awareness, complementary therapies or TENS can help you to get into a comfortable rhythm with your labour (see Issue nos 8 and 10)

   .In mid labour, when you are about 5 – 6 cms dilated – around the time when many women ask for pain relief – is the best time to think about entering a birth pool (our experience also shows that getting in too early can slow down contractions). Getting in late means that you are likely to be close to full dilation at the crest of the oxytocin wave.

   In a long labour, contractions may slow down in the pool and then it is best get out and use the help of gravity on dry land for a while, resting in the pool later if you get tired.

   The golden rule of water labour and birth – if progress is slow in water try land, if slow on land try water

   The water temperature is important. Because your baby relies on you for temperature regulation and is one degree warmer than you are, the temperature of the water should never exceed 36C in labour and is best at 36C or 37C for the birth itself. When you feel cold, hormone secretion is inhibited and this will weaken your contractions. If you feel warm enough but not hot, you have probably got it just right for you. Measuring the temperature with a water thermometer is important, but don’t worry about it being too exact! How you feel is the best test.

   The ideal water temperature range in labour is 32C-36C and for birth around 36C-37C

  Water depth – You also need to make sure that in labour the water is deep enough to cover your belly and allow your shoulders to be exposed, so you can sweat and loose heat if you need to. Immediately after the birth there is often a need to remove some of the water, so you can breastfeed in the pool with the water keeping your baby’s body warm with his or her head out of the water at breast level.

   Birthing rooms with a pool are warm and humid, so make sure that there is good ventilation and the room is not over heated. Plenty of drinking water for everyone is also a good idea, as a humid atmosphere is dehydrating.

   Your partner can sit right beside you in the pool or even get in with you to massage, hold and comfort you. As you share the same environment, there is no increased risk of infection if your partner enters the pool! So it’s a good idea to have a swimsuit ready for your partner, just in case.

    If this idea doesn’t appeal to you, it’s still very easy to share the intimacy of labour with your partner seated nearby, outside the pool. Having a low stool or a birth ball beside the pool is useful for your partner and for the midwife. Many women value having all the space in the pool to themselves, while others enjoy the comfort and support of relaxing against their partner’s body in the water.

* The Midwife’s practise

   It is a transforming experience for a midwife to be around women in a birth pool. It is understandable that midwives contemplating their first water births may be nervous and feel insecure. Until very recently their education would not have included Water Birth. The health authority generally prefer two midwives to be at a water birth.

   The fact that you are in water does not greatly change the midwife’s usual practice – in fact it makes it considerably easier, because the warm water helps you to cope better by yourself. She will need to make the normal observations of both your and your baby’s well being and the progress of your labour.

   Vaginal exams can be kept to a minimum and can be done when necessary in the pool.

   Monitoring the baby’s heartbeat at regular (probably half hourly) intervals is important to ensure that there is no foetal distress. However the midwife needs to be sensitive to avoid disturbing you too much – a waterproof sonic aid allows monitoring under water so you do not need to change your position or break your concentration. Alternatives are a stethoscope, a long stemmed pinnard or a regular sonic aid with the transducer in the finger of a long glove. A non water proof sonic aid may mean that you need to float close to the edge or sit up on the edge of the pool.

    The midwife will check your body temperature and blood pressure at times and keep an eye on the temperature of the water.

  When a birth pool is introduced into a hospital birthing room the environment is transformed into one which is much more homelike. The pool invites the mother to relax and there is usually no delivery bed in sight. The atmosphere of fear and danger are eradicated and everyone’s expectations about what will happen are different. There is a deliberate attempt to induce feelings of confidence and relaxation in the mother.

   This makes a hospital environment more attractive if you want a physiological birth with the security of obstetric support close at hand. At a home birth the environment is even more ‘hormone enhancing’ when a birth pool is available and there is a powerful resource to help you cope with pain in the active stage of labour.

   In the pool room it’s a good idea to dim the lights or draw the curtains to reduce stimulation so that there is a peaceful, calm and intimate atmosphere. When you can really relax in labour, as a birth pool helps you to do – you can let go more easily and things usually go well. It’s not a problem if you want or need to get out for the birth. You will have achieved the most important objective, which is a more comfortable labour, without the need for drugs or interventions.

How to use Water during Labour:
How long and When to Stay in the Water

   The attraction to water and the timing of using the water pool is very individual and varies from one woman to another and one labour to another. If pre-labour contractions are intense and there are long runs of contractions prior to the onset of established labour, water can be extremely soothing.

   After staying in water for some time the contractions may diminish, giving you an opportunity to rest and maybe even fall asleep, thus conserving your energy for the subsequent labour and birth.

   When labour is well established, the timing of using the pool once again shows a wide individual variation. After entering the water dilation is often rapid during the first h our. It is preferable to keep the pool in reserve for the second half of labour when the contractions are intense and the periods of rest shorter.

   This is when water is most powerful in assisting dilation and shortening labour. However, you might need the comfort of water from quite early on in labour and want to spend hours in the pool prior to the birth itself. In this instance you can go in and out of the pool and alternate between being in water and being on land.

   When the pool is used early, mothers sometimes tire of the water and they may not want to use this valuable resource later on when contractions become more painful and intense. Getting in too early may slow down contractions and prolong labour.

   Provided the correct water temperature is maintained and your temperature is monitored, it is safe to stay in the water as long as you like. The depth of the water is also important. The more your body is submerged the more help you will get from buoyancy.

   However, women’s preferences vary. While some like the water to be as deep as possible, others are more comfortable in less water.

   When you leave the pool it is advisable to have plenty of large towels available so that you can dry yourself completely. There should also be a heater in the room so that if you feel cold the temperature can be raised quickly.

Movements and Positions

   There are bound to be times when you prefer to need to be outside the pool on dry land during your labour, for example, if labour is not progressing well in water or if you do not feel like being in water. In early labour, as your contractions are beginning to intensify it is essential to make the most of the help of gravity.

   You can do this by using positions such as standing, sitting or squatting during your contractions and resting between them. Follow you instincts when moving during labour and you will find that these positions occur spontaneously.

   Most women use a variety of positions. Some prefer one or two while other women are more restless and change position frequently. During contractions movements such as circling your hips or rocking your pelvis can help to dissipate the pain.

   There are many ways to make yourself comfortable in upright positions so that you do not tire yourself out. It i s useful to bear in mind that the more vertical or upright your body is the more help you will get from gravity. When standing or walking you may find it helpful to lean forward onto a wall or to be held by your midwife or partner during the contractions.

   When kneeling make sure your knees are resting on a soft surface and use a firm beanbag or pile of cushions to make yourself comfortable to relaxing between the contractions and to make sure that your trunk stays fairly vertical.

   You may want to rest lying on your side, well propped up by cushions between contractions. For squatting, a low stool is very helpful and makes squatting less tiring. You can also hold onto a firm support or squat between your partner’s knees while he sits on a chair.

   Sitting on the toilet with your knees spread apart is very comfortable in labour and for many women the privacy of the bathroom is appealing. Here you can fill the basin and splash yourself with water if you want to and enjoy the sound of running water from the tap.

Entering the Pool

    Once you enter the pool, water powerfully increases your sense of privacy and adds a new dimension to the range of positions and movements you can use. The buoyancy of the water makes it much easier to move and change position and you will find that you will change positions instinctively and movement will occur spontaneously.

   It’s helpful to experiment in the pool or in a swimming pool in the days before your labour begins, and to submerge your head under water at times so that you feel completely familiar and at ease in the water. This is a way to block out sounds which are distracting.

   You will find that most of the movements and positions you can use on land can be used in water during contractions.

    Floating between contractions is a wonderful way to relax, and wetting your hair and going under the water at times reduces outside stimulation and sounds and helps you to let go. there is a wonderful sensuous quality to being in water in labour.

   It is like reconnecting with the original primal feelings you had in the womb. This is a tremendous aid to surrendering to the birth energy and to letting your body’s natural rhythms take over.

   There is no need to do anything. It will help if the room is darkened and you have enough privacy. With the water as deep as possible you can use your ability to relax and quieten your mind to sink deeply into your labour.

   Some women remain quite still in the water, changing positions occasionally, whereas others like to move a lot, rolling from front to back like a mermaid, or a dolphin.

  Movements and position changes will happen without you needing to think about them. Between contractions you can rest and benefit from the restorative and energising properties of the water.

    You can sink into its nurturing and feminine energy and accept its power to relax you. If you can let go completely you will rest, your energy will recharge and you will enter into a kind of timeless ocean of bliss between the contractions.

The End of Labour

   As the birth of the baby approaches contractions will be at their most intense. They will be longer (lasting up to sixty seconds) and closer together so that the intervals are very brief.

   This is the peak of labour when the ocean waves are high and turbulent, following upon each other with relentless frequency. The end of labour is usually referred to as ‘the transition stage’. You are close to full dilation and your baby’s head is about to emerge through the dilated cervix into your vagina ready to be born.

   It is normal to feel fearful at this stage. This is the time when you are likely to wish you could get away or have an epidural anaesthetic, when your courage and strength may be at a very low ebb.

   You may feel angry and irritable or despairing, as if you are exhausted and almost close to death. The breaks between your contractions may give you little respite before the next contraction looms large, like a tidal wave.

   It is very helpful to make the most of the respite between contractions and rest and relax deeply, almost sleeping until the next wave begins. this can restore and replenish your energy surprisingly – even though the gaps are short.

   The fear which is common at this stage has an important role to play. It triggers off a surge of adrenalin secretion, the ‘fight or flight’ hormone which stimulates the reflexive contractions which expel your baby during birth.

   At this time you are on the threshold of giving birth. This is when the powerful demon goddess takes over as the urge to bear down and give birth arises.Outside stimulation including sound and light or touch should be minimal, as you go through these last demanding contractions without distraction.

   You will be in an altered state of consciousness, deep inside your labour. Anyone who is present will need to be very discreet and avoid disturbing you, by watching, talking or by being falsely reassuring or anxious.

   This time can also be difficult for birth attendants and partners who may feel an intense desire to do something to help. However, their calm silence can be a source of strength, reassurance and encouragement as you go through the intensity of the end of labour.

   Some women are deeply afraid of the birth at a subconscious level and may experience difficulty in surrendering to the power of these final contractions. Being in warm water helps to let go. Often this intense phase passes very quickly or has a kind of timeless quality.

   However, if transition is long, you can keep up your energy by sipping water or dilute fruit juice. Most women feel very thirsty when the adrenalin response begins and need to drink a glass or two of water. The bach flower remedy called ‘Rescue Remedy’ can be very helpful.

   At this time near to the birth, the sounds emerging from the birth room tend to be loudest, so there is no need to try to be quiet. You will be in your full power, so feel free to roar like a lioness if you need to .

   Noise will help you to find the power to assist your baby to come down as your body opens to give birth. Your bowels empty spontaneously as your baby’s head presses down and you may need to retch as the expulsive reflex begins.

   Some women feel shy or inhibited about letting go to to these natural reflexes in the presence of other people. It helps to remember that your midwife is used to this and will welcome these events as a sign that the birth is imminent. Whatever happens your concentration will be focused deeply on the power of your contractions with moments of brief but blissful serenity in between them.

   At this stage you may feel that you are almost drowning in a sea of contractions. You may wish to leave the water, or alternatively surrender to the power in the weightlessness which its buoyancy allows you.

   Whether you are in or out of the pool, it is best to use the positions which feel most comfortable, making sure that you can relax, with your body supported between contractions. The water level in the pool should be as high as possible to offer you maximal support.

   As birth approaches, many women prefer kneeling. This position helps to give you a sense of control over the intensity of the contractions and makes it easier to relax or even sleep in the brief intervals between them without moving or changing position.

   At the very end of labour, contractions often slow down and the resting phases may lengthen. The contractions which expel our baby from the womb usually begin around the time full dilation of the cervix is reached.

   In some women the urge to push may start before dilation is complete and sometimes, on the other hand, there is a break or resting period before expulsion begins. This will feel like a lull, a period of time where suddenly the waves become still and the sea becomes calm.

   The lull may continue for quite a while before the pushing urge begins. On the other hand you may begin to feel the urge to bear down much earlier. Whatever happens you can trust in the wisdom of your body and surrender to its urges. Soon your baby will be born!

Giving birth in water

   When you feel you are ready to push and give birth to your baby you may decide to leave the pool, to feel the solidness and security of the ground underneath you. Or you may prefer to remain in the water for the second stage. Some women have a strong urge to get out, while this possibility may not even occur to others.

   In some places, especially when the midwives are new to water birth, pools are used only for labour and all women are asked to get out for the birth.

   The benefits of using a pool during labour are the main reason to consider using the help of water. If you are asked to leave the pool to give birth, it is still well worth getting in for labour. The birth often happens very soon after the mother leaves the pool at the end of active labour in water.

   A water birth is appropriate when labour has progressed well and when there is no sign of a potential problem during labour. When this is the case, studies have shown that giving birth in water is as safe as any other way of giving birth. A water birth is a soft and gentle way for a baby to be born and welcomed to the world.

   Birth in water is a ‘low risk’ option. It is only recommended when the baby’s heart tones are strong throughout labour and second stage and when there are no complications. That’s why your midwife will want to listen in to your baby every half hour or so during labour, and this is done even more frequently in the second stage.

   In places where a birth pool is encouraged as an option, women rate the experience of labour and/or birth in water very highly (one study showed that just over 90% of women who had a water birth rated it as ‘excellent’) and research has shown that fewer women need interventions.

   Using a birth pool, whether just for labour or for the birth itself, is an effective and harmless way to reduce the risk of complications and to increase your chances of a natural birth.

* The dive reflex – a major discovery

   The evidence of many thousands of water births all over the world has shown us that when the circumstances are appropriate, babies can be born safely into warm water at around body temperature and brought immediately to the surface to breathe. This is due to an innate reflex in human newborns called the ‘dive reflex’.

   This was first discovered by the Russian researcher Igor Tjarkovsky in the 1960’s and was first described in the medical literature by the eminent neonatal physiologist Paul Johnson, from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. He is an expert on the first breathing responses of the newborn. In March 1996 he published an article ‘Birth under water- to breathe or not to breathe?’ in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The dive reflex was also researched by the German obstetricians Eldering and Selke and their findings are published in the book Water Birth Unplugged.

   Johnson point out that the breathing reflex in a newborn baby is stimulated at birth, at the moment when the sensory chemoreceptors around the babies nose and mouth first come into contact with air.

   When the head emerges into warm water at body temperature during a water birth, this stimulation does not occur before the face emerges from the water. Under water, the dive reflex causes the air passages in the larynx to close and any water entering the nose or mouth is swallowed rather than inhaled.

   The only time the dive reflex may be overridden, causing the baby to gasp under water, would be if there was severe foetal distress. This is why diligent monitoring to rule out this possibility is an essential feature of a water labour or birth. Labour and birth in water tends to minimise stress and relax the birthing mother. This in itself is a preventative of foetal distress.

   However the death of a baby can occur on rare occasions with any method of birth. Infant mortality during water births that are skilfully managed, appears so far, to be exceptionally low, comparative with the national rate for low risk mothers (which is very low in the UK).

Birth in water

    The possibility of your baby being born in water may be very appealing and a water birth is certainly a beautiful, gentle way to welcome your baby. However it may not be appropriate at the time, so try to avoid having too much of preconceived idea about this. Even if you would love to have a water birth, try to keep an open mind.

   Water births happen when second stage progresses well and the mother does not want to leave the pool.

   The baby usually emerges without difficulty, sometimes the head and body are born in one contraction. Often though, the head is born first and there is a break between contractions when just the baby’s head is out. The dive reflex is working while the head is under water, so the baby will not inhale the water. He or she is still receiving oxygen from the placenta through the umbilical cord. The placenta remains attached and working until the baby is breathing independently.

   Usually with the second contraction, after the head has emerged, the shoulders and the body emerge next baby is born into the water. The buoyancy supports the baby’s body in the water and you may see the babies eyes open under water. The dive reflex is still working. The baby is then gently ‘caught’ and brought to the surface immediately.

   This is done in slow motion, without rushing, within about 10 seconds after the baby has been born, which gives the baby enough time to relax and uncurl in the water on the way out. The baby is lifted out in time to take the first breath, when the mouth and nose come in contact with the atmosphere.

   With this gentle way of birth, breathing usually starts slowly with the baby taking frequent little breaths instead of one big gasp. Within minutes breathing is established and it takes about 10 -15 minutes before the cord stops pulsating altogether and the transition to lung breathing is completed.

   Holding your baby in your arms for the first time, is one of the most wonderful experiences you will ever know. No doubt you will kiss and caress your baby and hold him or her close to your heart. Take your time to welcome and enjoy your baby in privacy – this first bonding is the beginning of a love affair which will last a lifetime!

After the birth

   While welcoming your baby you can stay in the pool and hold your baby in your arms, close to the breast. Your partner or birth attendants may need to alter the depth of the water to ensure that your baby’s body is submerged and kept warm, while the head is able to reach the breast easily above the water surface.

   This is a good moment to put on a heater so the room is very warm when you leave the pool. Facilitating the first undisturbed contact between mother and baby is what is most important now – ‘daddy bonding’ time happens a little later after the placenta has emerged safely. The birth is not over until then.

   While doing these practical tasks, try to keep the room very calm and quiet, maintaining privacy so that the mother is not distracted from her baby.

    It’s a good idea to encourage the baby to latch on to the breast and to get the first sucking going if possible. This will stimulate more contractions. The cord is usually clamped and cut after it stops pulsating or after the placenta has emerged.

   You may be asked to leave the pool when you start to get third stage contractions, so that the placenta is delivered when you are outside the pool. It’s possible to stay in the water while the placenta emerges and many experienced water birth midwives will have no objection. There is no evidence of this being a problem. However, as there is still uncertainty about this, many midwives have to adhere to a policy of the placenta being born on dry land.

    The important issue now is not where the placenta emerges, but that first contact with your baby is undisturbed. So if you need to leave the pool, stand up holding your baby. Step carefully out of the pool and sit on a soft surface on the floor (an inflatable swimming ring covered by a soft towel is ideal!). Have someone drape some warm towels or a bathrobe over your shoulders and carry on welcoming and feeding your baby.

    The room needs to be warm to the point of ‘over heated’ so the baby is kept very warm by your body heat and the room temperature! A soft warm towel or flannel sheet can be placed over the baby in your arms. Skin-to-skin contact with your baby should be maintained continuously, until the placenta has emerged, as this will enhance bonding and stimulate third stage contractions simultaneously.

   These can feel very crampy and it is a great relief to give birth to the placenta, which is softer and smaller than a baby! It’s a surprisingly pleasurable feeling birthing the placenta.

  Most women feel ecstatic after a physiological water birth. Babies tend to be calmer and often seem to smile fleetingly, although their face muscles only become strong enough to sustain a smile at around 6 weeks old. They generally settle into life easily with a sense of wholeness and continuity from the shelter of the womb to the close contact with mum after the birth. Many mother’s feel that this is the kindest, gentlest and most loving way to have a baby and that nothing could be more natural. For you and your partner it can be wonderful way to celebrate the birth of your child.

    “I got into the pool at 5 cms dilated after approximately 4/5 hours of comfortable early labour at home, having used lots of movement and upright positions. Getting into the pool made me feel very comfortable and much more mobile and seemed to speed up labour. The contractions were very effective and I was fully dilated and ready to push after about 2 hours in the water. Our lovely daughter Lily Martha was delivered into the water after about 40 minutes of pushing and seemed very happy about the whole experience. I got out of the pool for a natural delivery of the placenta. I felt the whole experience of being at home and using the pool was amazing and contributed to a stress-free and wonderful natural birth.”

Melissa Clarke, London N1. First baby born 5th May 2001

Perché Noi

Active Birth Pools, fondata nel 1987, ha una ricca storia di pionierismo e rivoluzione nell’uso dell’acqua per il travaglio e il parto.

Con un focus su sicurezza, valore e prestazioni, Active Birth Pools è diventata la scelta principale per ostetriche e ospedali in tutto il mondo.

Questo articolo esplora perché Active Birth Pools si distingue nel mercato, attingendo informazioni dal catalogo ad alta risoluzione dell’azienda, dal brochure e da altre preziose risorse.

Design Superiore ed Ergonomia

Active Birth Pools ha continuamente evoluto i suoi design in collaborazione con ostetriche, madri, ostetrici e esperti di salute e sicurezza.

Questo approccio collaborativo ha portato alla prima vasca da parto acquatico di grado ospedaliero appositamente progettata al mondo.

Le vasche presentano design ergonomici che danno priorità al comfort sia delle madri che delle ostetriche.

Ad esempio, le vasche offrono un ampio bordo su cui le ostetriche possono comodamente appoggiare braccia e gambe, simile al sedersi a una scrivania.

Le madri beneficiano di varie posizioni supportate, inclusi seduta, inginocchiata e accovacciata, grazie ai bordi sagomati della vasca.

Qualità e Durabilità dei Materiali

Le vasche sono realizzate in Ficore®, un materiale proprietario con qualità uniche, rendendole più durature, pratiche e sicure rispetto ad altri materiali.

Le vasche in Ficore® mostrano una superiore ritenzione del calore, riducendo la perdita di calore a solo 0,7 gradi all’ora, che è molto vantaggioso durante un travaglio prolungato.

Inoltre, il materiale è resistente a batteri, agenti di pulizia e disinfettanti aggressivi, garantendo elevati standard di igiene e sicurezza.

Sicurezza e Igiene

Il design delle Active Birth Pools minimizza il rischio di infortuni con caratteristiche come la resistenza allo scivolamento e superfici meno scivolose.

La costruzione monopezzo del Ficore® migliora la sicurezza e l’igiene dell’acqua impedendo ambienti di crescita batterica.

Inoltre, la costruzione senza cuciture e le superfici lisce eliminano le “trappole per sporco” e facilitano una pulizia e manutenzione più efficaci.

Comfort e Supporto

I design delle Active Birth Pools sono incentrati su comfort e supporto per le madri.

La galleggiabilità dell’acqua nelle vasche sostiene il peso corporeo della madre, consentendo rilassamento e facilità durante il travaglio.

Questa galleggiabilità rende anche più facile per le madri adottare e cambiare tra posizioni erette o accovacciate, note per essere vantaggiose durante il travaglio.

Feedback Positivi ed Endorsement

L’azienda ha ricevuto numerose testimonianze positive da ostetriche, professionisti sanitari e madri.

Queste testimonianze evidenziano il comfort delle vasche, la facilità d’uso, la sicurezza e la praticità.

Tali endorsement sono una testimonianza dell’impegno dell’azienda verso la qualità e la soddisfazione degli utenti.

Caratteristiche Innovative

Active Birth Pools ha integrato caratteristiche moderne come l’illuminazione LED multicolore e sistemi audio Bluetooth nelle loro vasche.

Queste caratteristiche creano un’atmosfera favorevole per il travaglio fisiologico e il parto naturale, migliorando l’esperienza di parto complessiva.

Longevità e Sostenibilità

Un vantaggio significativo delle Active Birth Pools è la loro durabilità e sostenibilità.

Le vasche realizzate in Ficore® hanno una durata prevista superiore ai 25 anni, rendendole un’opzione più sostenibile rispetto ad altre vasche da parto acquatico con durata inferiore.

Conclusione

Active Birth Pools si afferma come scelta primaria per ostetriche e ospedali grazie al suo impegno per la qualità, la sicurezza e l’innovazione.

L’approccio dell’azienda al design ergonomico, unito all’uso di materiali superiori e all’attenzione al feedback degli utenti, la posiziona come leader nel mercato delle vasche da parto acquatico.

Con le loro vasche, ospedali e centri di nascita possono offrire un ambiente di parto più sicuro, confortevole e sostenibile, portando a risultati migliori sia per le madri che per le ostetriche.

L’apice del design e dello sviluppo delle piscine per il parto

Il video “Libertà di Movimento” raggiunge 12.000.000 di visualizzazioni su YouTube!

L’apice del design e dello sviluppo delle piscine per il parto

Pourquoi Nous

Active Birth Pools, créé en 1987, possède une riche histoire de pionnier et de révolution dans l’utilisation de l’eau pour le travail et l’accouchement.

Avec un accent sur la sécurité, la valeur et la performance, Active Birth Pools est devenu le choix privilégié des sages-femmes et des hôpitaux dans le monde entier.

Cet article explore pourquoi Active Birth Pools se distingue sur le marché, en s’appuyant sur le catalogue haute résolution de l’entreprise, sa brochure et d’autres ressources précieuses.Superior Design and Ergonomics

Design Supérieur et Ergonomie

Active Birth Pools a constamment fait évoluer ses designs en collaboration avec des sages-femmes, des mères, des obstétriciens et des experts en santé et sécurité.

Cette approche collaborative a conduit à la création du premier bassin d’accouchement en eau de qualité hospitalière spécialement conçu au monde.

Les bassins présentent un design ergonomique qui priorise le confort des mères et des sages-femmes.

Par exemple, les bassins offrent un large rebord pour que les sages-femmes puissent reposer confortablement leurs bras et leurs jambes, semblable à être assis à un bureau.

Les mères bénéficient de diverses positions soutenues, y compris assises, à genoux et accroupies, grâce aux bords façonnés du bassin.

Qualité et Durabilité du Matériau

Les bassins sont fabriqués à partir de Ficore®, un matériau propriétaire aux qualités uniques, les rendant plus durables, pratiques et sûrs par rapport à d’autres matériaux.

Les bassins en Ficore® présentent une excellente rétention de chaleur, réduisant la perte de chaleur à seulement 0,7 degré par heure, ce qui est très bénéfique pendant un travail prolongé.

De plus, le matériau est résistant aux bactéries, aux agents de nettoyage et aux désinfectants agressifs, garantissant des normes élevées d’hygiène et de sécurité.

Sécurité et Hygiène

Le design des Active Birth Pools minimise le risque de blessures avec des caractéristiques telles que la résistance au glissement et des surfaces moins glissantes.

La construction en une pièce de Ficore® améliore la sécurité et l’hygiène de l’eau en empêchant les environnements propices à la croissance bactérienne.

De plus, une construction sans joint et des surfaces lisses éliminent les “pièges à saleté” et facilitent un nettoyage et un entretien plus efficaces.

Confort et Soutien

Les designs des Active Birth Pools sont centrés autour du confort et du soutien pour les mères.

La flottabilité de l’eau dans les bassins soutient le poids du corps de la mère, permettant la relaxation et la facilité pendant le travail.

Cette flottabilité facilite également pour les mères l’adoption et le changement entre des positions debout ou accroupies, qui sont connues pour être bénéfiques pendant le travail.

Retours Positifs et Recommandations

L’entreprise a reçu de nombreux témoignages positifs de sages-femmes, de professionnels de santé et de mères.

Ces témoignages mettent en lumière le confort, la facilité d’utilisation, la sécurité et la praticité des bassins.

Ces recommandations témoignent de l’engagement de l’entreprise envers la qualité et la satisfaction des utilisateurs.

Caractéristiques Innovantes

Active Birth Pools a intégré des caractéristiques modernes telles que l’éclairage LED multicolore et les systèmes sonores Bluetooth dans leurs bassins.

Ces fonctionnalités créent une atmosphère propice au travail physiologique et à l’accouchement naturel, améliorant l’expérience globale de l’accouchement.

Longévité et Durabilité

Un avantage significatif des Active Birth Pools est leur durabilité et leur durabilité.

Les bassins fabriqués à partir de Ficore® ont une espérance de vie dépassant 25 ans, ce qui en fait une option plus durable par rapport à d’autres bassins d’accouchement en eau ayant une durée de vie plus courte.

Conclusion

Active Birth Pools se présente comme un choix de premier plan pour les sages-femmes et les hôpitaux en raison de son dévouement à la qualité, à la sécurité et à l’innovation.

L’approche de l’entreprise en matière de design ergonomique, couplée à l’utilisation de matériaux supérieurs et à l’attention portée aux retours des utilisateurs, la positionne comme un leader sur le marché des bassins d’accouchement en eau.

Avec leurs bassins, les hôpitaux et les centres de naissance peuvent offrir un environnement d’accouchement plus sûr, plus confortable et plus durable, conduisant à de meilleurs résultats pour les mères et les sages-femmes.

Liberté de Mouvement” atteint 12 000 000 de vues sur YouTube !

Piscines pour accouchement naturel

Piscines de Naissance Active: Énoncé de l’Éthique et des Valeurs

Por Qué Elegirnos

Active Birth Pools, establecida en 1987, tiene una rica historia de pionerismo y revolución en el uso del agua para el trabajo de parto y el nacimiento.

Con un enfoque en seguridad, valor y rendimiento, Active Birth Pools se ha convertido en la elección principal para parteras y hospitales en todo el mundo.

Este artículo profundiza en por qué Active Birth Pools se destaca en el mercado, extrayendo perspectivas del catálogo de alta resolución de la compañía, folleto y otros recursos valiosos.

Diseño Superior y Ergonomía

Active Birth Pools ha evolucionado continuamente sus diseños en colaboración con parteras, madres, obstetras y expertos en salud y seguridad.

Este enfoque colaborativo llevó al primer piscina de parto en agua de grado hospitalario especialmente diseñada en el mundo.

Las piscinas cuentan con diseños ergonómicos que priorizan la comodidad tanto de las madres como de las parteras.

Por ejemplo, las piscinas ofrecen un borde ancho para que las parteras descansen cómodamente sus brazos y piernas, similar a sentarse en un escritorio.

Las madres se benefician de varias posiciones apoyadas, incluyendo sentarse, arrodillarse y en cuclillas, gracias a los bordes moldeados de la piscina.

Calidad de Material y Durabilidad

Las piscinas están fabricadas con Ficore®, un material patentado con cualidades únicas, haciéndolas más duraderas, prácticas y seguras en comparación con otros materiales.

Las piscinas de Ficore® exhiben una retención de calor superior, reduciendo la pérdida de calor a solo 0.7 grados por hora, lo cual es muy beneficioso durante un trabajo de parto prolongado.

Además, el material es resistente a bacterias, agentes de limpieza y desinfectantes fuertes, asegurando altos estándares de higiene y seguridad.

Seguridad e Higiene

El diseño de Active Birth Pools minimiza el riesgo de lesiones con características como resistencia al deslizamiento y superficies menos resbaladizas.

La construcción de una sola pieza de Ficore® mejora la seguridad y la higiene del agua al prevenir ambientes de crecimiento bacteriano.

Además, la construcción sin costuras y las superficies lisas eliminan las “trampas de suciedad” y facilitan una limpieza y mantenimiento más efectivos.

Comodidad y Apoyo

Los diseños de Active Birth Pools se centran en la comodidad y el apoyo para las madres.

La flotabilidad del agua en las piscinas sostiene el peso del cuerpo de la madre, permitiendo relajación y facilidad durante el trabajo de parto.

Esta flotabilidad también facilita que las madres adopten y cambien entre posiciones verticales o en cuclillas, que se sabe son beneficiosas durante el trabajo de parto.

Retroalimentación Positiva y Endosos

La compañía ha recibido numerosos testimonios positivos de parteras, profesionales de la salud y madres.

Estos testimonios destacan la comodidad, facilidad de uso, seguridad y practicidad de las piscinas.

Dichos endosos son un testimonio del compromiso de la compañía con la calidad y la satisfacción del usuario.

Características Innovadoras

Active Birth Pools ha integrado características modernas como iluminación LED multicolor y sistemas de sonido Bluetooth en sus piscinas.

Estas características crean un ambiente propicio para el trabajo de parto fisiológico y el nacimiento natural, mejorando la experiencia general de dar a luz.

Longevidad y Sostenibilidad

Una ventaja significativa de Active Birth Pools es su durabilidad y sostenibilidad.

Las piscinas hechas de Ficore® tienen una expectativa de vida de más de 25 años, lo que las convierte en una opción más sostenible en comparación con otras piscinas de parto en agua con vidas útiles más cortas.

Conclusión

Active Birth Pools se destaca como una opción principal para parteras y hospitales debido a su dedicación a la calidad, seguridad e innovación.

El enfoque de la compañía en diseño ergonómico, junto con el uso de materiales superiores y atención a la retroalimentación del usuario, la posiciona como líder.

La cúspide del diseño y el desarrollo de las piscinas de nacimiento en el agua.

Piscinas de Parto Activo: Declaración de Ética y Valores

El video “Libertad de Movimiento” alcanza 12,000,00 vistas en YouTube!

Warum Wir?

Active Birth Pools, gegründet im Jahr 1987, hat eine reiche Geschichte darin, den Gebrauch von Wasser für Wehen und Geburt zu pionieren und zu revolutionieren.

Mit einem Fokus auf Sicherheit, Wert und Leistung ist Active Birth Pools zur ersten Wahl für Hebammen und Krankenhäuser weltweit geworden.

Dieser Artikel geht darauf ein, warum Active Birth Pools auf dem Markt heraussticht, und zieht Einsichten aus dem hochauflösenden Katalog, der Broschüre und anderen wertvollen Ressourcen des Unternehmens.

Überlegenes Design und Ergonomie

Active Birth Pools hat sein Design kontinuierlich in Zusammenarbeit mit Hebammen, Müttern, Gynäkologen und Gesundheits- und Sicherheitsexperten weiterentwickelt.

Dieser kollaborative Ansatz führte zum weltweit ersten speziell entwickelten Krankenhaus-Wassergeburtsbecken.

Die Becken zeichnen sich durch ergonomische Designs aus, die den Komfort sowohl der Mütter als auch der Hebammen in den Vordergrund stellen.

Zum Beispiel bieten die Becken einen breiten Rand, an dem Hebammen ihre Arme und Beine bequem ablegen können, ähnlich wie beim Sitzen an einem Schreibtisch.

Mütter profitieren von verschiedenen unterstützenden Positionen, einschließlich Sitzen, Knien und Hocken, dank der geformten Kanten des Beckens.

Materialqualität und Haltbarkeit

Die Becken sind aus Ficore®, einem proprietären Material mit einzigartigen Eigenschaften gefertigt, was sie haltbarer, praktischer und sicherer im Vergleich zu anderen Materialien macht.

Ficore®-Becken zeigen eine überlegene Wärmeretention, wodurch der Wärmeverlust auf nur 0,7 Grad pro Stunde reduziert wird, was während einer langen Wehenphase sehr vorteilhaft ist.

Zusätzlich ist das Material resistent gegen Bakterien, Reinigungsmittel und harte Desinfektionsmittel, was hohe Hygiene- und Sicherheitsstandards gewährleistet.

Sicherheit und Hygiene

Das Design der Active Birth Pools minimiert das Verletzungsrisiko mit Merkmalen wie Rutschfestigkeit und weniger rutschigen Oberflächen.

Die einteilige Konstruktion von Ficore® verbessert die Wassersicherheit und -hygiene, indem sie das Wachstum von Bakterien verhindert.

Außerdem erleichtern die nahtlose Konstruktion und die glatten Oberflächen eine effektivere Reinigung und Wartung.

Komfort und Unterstützung

Die Designs der Active Birth Pools sind auf den Komfort und die Unterstützung für Mütter ausgerichtet.

Der Auftrieb des Wassers in den Becken unterstützt das Körpergewicht der Mutter und ermöglicht Entspannung und Leichtigkeit während der Wehen.

Dieser Auftrieb erleichtert es auch, aufrechte oder hockende Positionen einzunehmen, von denen bekannt ist, dass sie während der Wehen vorteilhaft sind.

Positive Rückmeldungen und Empfehlungen

Das Unternehmen hat zahlreiche positive Testimonials von Hebammen, Gesundheitsfachkräften und Müttern erhalten.

Diese Testimonials heben den Komfort, die Benutzerfreundlichkeit, Sicherheit und Praktikabilität der Becken hervor.

Solche Empfehlungen sind ein Beleg für das Engagement des Unternehmens für Qualität und Kundenzufriedenheit.

Innovative Merkmale

Active Birth Pools hat moderne Funktionen wie mehrfarbige LED-Beleuchtung und Bluetooth-Soundsysteme in ihre Becken integriert.

Diese Merkmale schaffen eine förderliche Atmosphäre für physiologische Wehen und natürliche Geburt, was das gesamte Geburtserlebnis verbessert.

Langlebigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit

Ein bedeutender Vorteil von Active Birth Pools ist ihre Langlebigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit.

Becken aus Ficore® haben eine Lebenserwartung von mehr als 25 Jahren, was sie zu einer nachhaltigeren Option im Vergleich zu anderen Wassergeburtsbecken mit kürzerer Lebensdauer macht.

Fazit

Active Birth Pools steht als erste Wahl für Hebammen und Krankenhäuser aufgrund seiner Hingabe an Qualität, Sicherheit und Innovation.

Der Ansatz des Unternehmens in Bezug auf ergonomisches Design, gepaart mit der Verwendung überlegener Materialien und der Beachtung von Nutzerfeedback, positioniert es als Marktführer im Bereich der Wassergeburtsbecken.

Mit ihren Becken können Krankenhäuser und Geburtszentren eine sicherere, komfortablere und nachhaltigere Geburtsumgebung bieten, was zu besseren Ergebnissen für Mütter und Hebammen führt.

Der Höhepunkt der Entwicklung und des Designs von Wassergeburtsbecken

Freiheit der Bewegung” erreicht 12.000.000 Aufrufe auf YouTube!

Aktive Gebärbecken

 

United Kingdom Department of Health: Safe water in healthcare premises

Guidance on design, installation, commissioning, testing, monitoring and operation of water supply systems in healthcare premises.

This Health Technical Memorandum (HTM 04-01) has now been revised into 3 parts, A, B and C.

It gives advice and guidance on the legal requirements, design applications, maintenance and operation of hot and cold water supply, storage and distribution systems in all types of healthcare premises to:

  • healthcare management
  • Water Safety Groups
  • design engineers
  • estate managers
  • operations managers
  • contractors
  • the supply chain

It also provides advice and guidance on the control and management of the risk posed by Legionella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other water borne pathogens within a healthcare setting.

Part A: covers the design, installation and commissioning

Part B:  covers operational management

Part C:  focuses on specific additional measures that should be taken to control and minimise the risk of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in augmented care units

It should be read in conjunction with the HSE’s Approved Code of Practice (L8) and HSG274 Part 2.

It is equally applicable to both new and existing sites.

Part A: design, installation and commissioning

Part B: operational management

Part C: Pseudomonas aeruginosa – advice for augmented care units

Supplement: performance specification D 08 – thermostatic mixing valves

 

Joint statement: Immersion in water during labour and birth – RCOG RCOM

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/Royal College of Midwives

Joint statement No.1 Immersion in water during labour and birth

Originally published: 2006

Summary

1.  Both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives support labouring in water for healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

The evidence to support underwater birth is less clear but complications are seemingly rare.

If good practice guidelines are followed in relation to infection control, management of cord rupture and strict adherence to eligibility criteria, these complications should be further reduced.

Background

  1. Lying in warm water gives a sense of relaxation, but whether it actually reduces pain is less certain. A perception of relaxation, pain relief, ease of movements and more holistic experience made labour in water a popular choice during the 1980s. This concept has been extended to include actual birth under water following widely quoted experience from France.1 In response to public demand, the Winterton Report recommended that all maternity services provide women with the option to labour and/or give birth in water.2
  2. Recent surveys3 show that, of 295 UK maternity units for which data on birthing pools were available, 64% had at least one birthing pool, with 20 units having two or more. There are no current data on the number of women who actually use these facilities during labour or for water birth, apart from a postal survey carried out between April 1994 and March 1996, which reported that, at that time, fewer than 1% of births in England and Wales occurred in water.4
  3. Partly in response to the Winterton Report, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists produced a Statement on birth in water in 1994, which was updated in 20015 and the Royal College of Midwives published a Position Paper on the use of water in labour and birth in 1994 (updated in 2000).6 Both documents endorsed the use of water in labour as a choice, provided that attendants had appropriate skills and confidence to assist women who choose to labour or give birth in water.

Labouring in water

  1. It is important to separate the evidence on benefits and risks of immersion in water during the active phase of labour from those of actual birth in water.
  2. There are considerable perceived benefits of using immersion in water during labour, including less painful contractions and less need for pharmacological analgesia, shorter labour, less need for augmentation, with no known adverse effects for the woman herself.However, there may be rare but clinically significant risks for the baby born under water. These include respiratory problems (including the possibility of fresh water drowning), cord rupture with haemorrhage, and waterborne infections.
  1. A Cochrane review by Cluett et al.7 provides the most recent evidence on water births. Overall, there was no difference found in the use of analgesia, although women allocated to immersion in water needed less epidural, spinal or paracervical analgesia. There was no significant difference in other important clinical outcomes, including duration of labour, operative delivery and perineal trauma. The same applied to the neonatal outcomes, including neonatal infection, which was rare.
  2. The evidence on timing of immersion into water during the first stage of labour was not robust enough to set criteria8 but early labour could be managed by mobilisation and other activities within a labour room rather than water immersion.
  3. Most of the available evidence, both randomised and observational, is restricted to healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancy at term, although induction of labour and previous caesarean section have been managed using water for labour and birth without reported problems.9 A randomised trial by Cluett et al.10 on women with prolonged labour found reduction in obstetric intervention following immersion in water but a higher number of babies who needed admission to the neonatal unit. Although there is clearly a need for more research, the currently available evidence does not justify discouraging women from choosing immersion in water during labour. Increasing women’s choices for analgesia and the need for maternity services to promote normality are key principles in all UK Maternity Service Framework documents and support provision of birthing pools to be made available for healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies.11–13

Birth in water

  1. Informed choice on the benefits and risks of birth in water is clouded by the lack of good quality safety data. Although there is no evidence of higher perinatal mortality or admission to special care baby units (SCBUs) for birth in water,4,14,15 caution is advised because of small numbers, possible under-reporting of SCBU admission and exclusion of women who were in labour in water but gave birth conventionally after complications.
  2. One review identified 16 articles reporting a total of 63 neonatal complications attributable to water birth, including drowning, respiratory problems, cord avulsion and waterborne infections.16 One can argue that this anecdotal evidence is reassuring, given the thousands of women who have given birth under water in the last few decades. However, we still do not know how the low perinatal mortality and morbidity rates compare with those babies born in air.
  3. The respect for maternal autonomy and choice is important; however, it is important that any possible concerns for fetal and neonatal safety are made clear. Women who make an informed choice to give birth in water should be given every opportunity and assistance to do so by attendants who have appropriate experience. More research is needed on third-stage management in the pool, as there is currently no reliable evidence that can be used to inform women regarding the benefits and risks of experiencing the third stage of labour under water.

Achieving best practice

13 Both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives believe that to achieve best practice with water birth it is necessary for

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Midwives Joint Statement No.1 2 of 5 organisations to provide systems and structures to support this service.

This means developing a service that is committed to responsive practices and ensuring that women are involved in planning their own care with information, advice and support from professionals.11–13

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

14 All healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at term should have the option of water birth available to them and should be able to proceed to a water birth if they wish. The written documentation of any discussion is essential.

Practice issues

  1. There has been much controversy over the temperature of the water of a birthing pool, with strict criteria recommending differing estimates ranging from 34 to 37 degrees Celsius17 to a Swedish study which recommended that women be encouraged to regulate the temperature of the water to suit themselves.18 Given these large discrepancies, it would be difficult to agree strict temperature restrictions. It may be of more benefit to allow women to regulate the pool temperature to their own comfort and encourage them to leave and re-enter the pool in the first stage of labour as and when they wish. Birth attendants should ensure that the ambient room temperature is comfortable for the woman and should encourage her to drink to avoid dehydration. Cord clamps should be readily available and birth attendants need to be alert to the possibility of occult cord rupture and be sensitive to any undue tension on the cord.16
  2. Monitoring of the fetal heart using underwater Doppler should be standard practice, as stated in the current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines.19 If there are any concerns about maternal or fetal wellbeing, the woman should be advised to leave the birthing pool and an opinion from an obstetrician or other suitably qualified person should be sought in the usual manner. There needs to be a locally agreed procedure for getting a woman out of the pool, should she become compromised, and all staff likely to be caring for the woman in the room must be familiar with the procedure and should practice it regularly in emergency drills.
  3. If the woman raises herself out of the water and exposes the fetal head to air, once the presenting part is visible, she should be advised to remain out of the water to avoid the risk of premature gasping under water.
  4. All birthing pools and other equipment (such as mirrors and thermometers) should be disposed of or thoroughly cleaned and dried after every use, in accordance with local infection control policies. Disposable sieves should be made available to ensure that the pool remains free from maternal faeces and other debris. Local information and guidelines regarding prevention of legionella build up in water supply from seldomly used pools should be obtained from local NHS trust estates and should be adhered to. Midwives should use universal precautions and follow local trust infection control guidelines.

Education, skills and training

19 Midwives should discuss antenatally the use of immersion in water in labour with all women in a low-risk category, as part of their overall discussions regarding options for pain relief, and information leaflets should be available. It is important that information on water birth is conveyed to all women in a form they can understand and in a culturally sensitive fashion, to ensure parity of access to quality services.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Midwives Joint Statement No.1 3 of 5

  1. All midwives should ensure that they are competent to care for a woman who wishes to have a water birth and have a good understanding of the basic principles of caring for a woman in labour, and should make themselves aware of local policies and guidelines. Apart from emergency drills, training should also include emergency management of cord rupture at birth.20
  2. Midwives, managers and supervisors of midwives should ensure that training in caring for a woman who wishes to have a water birth is undertaken by midwives who undertake intrapartum care, in order to increase choice for women and promote normality and ensure quality care.11,21,22

Audit

  1. The use of birthing pools for labour and birth should be audited carefully. Data should be kept both on immersion in first stage of labour for analgesia use and separately for underwater birth. Data collected should focus on maternal wellbeing and the condition of the baby at birth, and should include usual birth outcomes, incidence of cord rupture and reasons for and rates of neonatal admission to SCBU.
  2. Data should also identify women who wanted a water birth but were transferred to conventional birth, including decision time to leave the pool for the birth of baby, the reasons for transferring to conventional care and the condition of mother and baby at transfer.
  3. Data should also be collected on women who wished to use the birthing pool but for whatever reason were unable to do so. Units should also audit ethnicity in relation to the offer of the option of water birth, to ensure that there is parity of access.

Record keeping

25 Accurate contemporaneous records should be kept, as usual. In addition, times of entering and leaving the pool should be clearly documented, including the reason for leaving the pool, if appropriate. It is important that it is recorded clearly whether the baby was born under water.

User surveys

26 User surveys of satisfaction with water birth services, including ease of access and the quality of the information given, should be carried out. Cultural acceptability needs to be reviewed to ensure equity of access and culturally sensitive services.

References

  1. Odent M. Birth under water. Lancet 1983;2:1476–7.
  2. House of Commons Health Committee. Second Report on the Maternity Services (Winterton report). London: HMSO; 1992.
  3. Dr Foster Good Birth Guide [www.drfoster.co.uk/home/birth2005.asp].
  4. Gilbert RE, Tookey PA. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ 1999;319:483–7.
  5. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth in Water. RCOG Statement. London: RCOG; 2001.
  6. Royal College of Midwives. The Use of Water in Labour and Birth. Position Paper no. 1a. London: RCM; 2000 [www.rcm.org.uk/data/info_centre/data/position_papers.htm].
  7. Cluett ER, Nikodem VC, McCandlish RE, Burns EE. Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD000111.
  8. Eriksson M, Mattson L, Ladfors L. Early or late bath during the first stage of labour: a randomised study of 200 women. Midwifery 1997;13:146–8.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Midwives Joint Statement No.1 4 of 5

  1. Brown L. The tide has turned: audit of water birth. Br J Midwifery 1998;6:236–43.
  2. Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K, St George Saunders NJ. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ 2004;328:314.
  3. Department of Health. The National Service Framework for Children and Young People. Maternity Services. Standard 11. (NSF) 2004. London: Department of Health [www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/09/05/23/04090523.pdf].
  4. Scottish Executive. A Framework for Maternity Services in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive; 2001 [www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/health/ffms-00.asp].
  5. Welsh Assembly Children’s Health and Social Care Directorate. National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government; 2005 [www.wales.nhs.uk/sites/documents/441/ACFD1F6.pdf].
  6. Woodward J, Kelly SM. A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of water birth versus land birth. BJOG 2004;111:537–45.
  7. Geissbuehler V, Stein S, Eberhard J. Waterbirths compared with landbirths – an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med 2004;32:308–14.
  8. Anderson T. Umbilical cords and underwater birth. Practising Midwife 2000; 3(2):12.
  9. Anderson T. Time to throw the waterbirth thermometers away. MIDIRS 2004;14(3):370–4.
  10. Geissbuehler V, Eberhard J, Lebrecht A. Waterbirth: water temperature and bathing time –mother knows best! J Paediatr Med 2002; 30:371–8.
  11. National Institute for Clinical Evidence. The Use of Electronic Fetal Monitoring: the useand interpretation of cardiotocography in intrapartum fetal surveillance. London: NICE; 2001 [www.nice.org.uk/pdf/efmguidelinenice.pdf].
  12. Grunebaum A, Chervenak FA. The baby or the bathwater: which one should be discarded? J Perinat Med 2004;32:306–7.
  13. Nursing and Midwifery Council. Midwives Rules and Standards. London: NMC; 2004 [www.nmc-uk.org/aFrameDisplay.aspx?DocumentID=169].
  14. Nursing and Midwifery Council. The NMC Code of Professional Conduct: standards for conduct, performance and ethics. London: NMC: 2004 [www.nmc- uk.org/aFramedisplay.aspx?documentID=201]

A comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries

Otigbah CM; Dhanjal MK; Harmsworth G; and others, (July 2000).

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology , vol 91, no 1, July 2000, pp 15-20.

Setting, participants, design and aim:

The study took place in a district general hospital over a five year period, 1989-1994 and involved a total of 602 mothers. A retrospective case-control study which analysed data on 301 mothers who had a water birth and another 301 who had a normal land birth.

The aim was to explore the effects of water immersion on labour and birth, as compared with normal land birth.

Method: The study centre had several pool selection criteria which accepted women who were considered to be at low risk of complication for the pool.

They were required to have: * no medical or obstetric problem; * a gestation of at least 38 weeks with a normal sized fetus; * cephalic presentation; * clear liqour if membranes were already ruptured; * a reactive admission cardiotocograph.

The controls were selected from the unit’s audit data, as the next parity matched woman who was low risk, had a normal birth and did not have labour augmentation.

The variables compared and analysed included: * labour length; * analgesia uptake; * Apgar scores; * maternal complications – namely perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage and infection; * neonatal complications – namely shoulder dystocia, admission to special care baby unit (SCBU) and infection.

Data were analysed using the Chi-squared test to compare proportions, and Student’s t test to compare means. Any difference was considered significant if the P value was <0.05. Results: * Primigravidae who had a water birth had a significantly shorter first stage (P <0.05) and second stage (P <0.005) of labour.

The total labour length was 90 minutes shorter; * Water birth mothers, whatever their parity, used significantly less opioid pain relief, either alone or in addition to entonox – 1.3% compared to 54% of the controls (P <0.0001).

A total of 38% water birth women had no analgesia compared to 8% of the control group (P <0.0001); * Water birth mothers had significantly fewer episiotomies – 5%compared to 25% (P <0.0001), although they had more vaginal, 1° and 2° perineal tears overall – 53% versus 39% (P <0.001).

Water birth primigravidae had more intact perinea – 41% compared to 36%, although this was not statistically significant; * Fewer postpartum haemorrhages occurred among water birth mothers – 1.3% versus 2.7%; * One case of maternal pyrexia was reported on a multiparous water birth woman who was treated with antibiotics; she had no positive cultures on subsequent sampling; * No significant difference was reported between the groups in the mean Apgar scores at one and five minutes; *

Two water birth babies were admitted to SCBU with low Apgars.

In one case there was a true knot in the umbilical cord and the other followed a difficult delivery with an unexpected compound presentation; * Five babies in the water birth group and four in the control group had shoulder dystocia; * No neonatal infections were reported.

Abstract writer’s comments:

This is clearly an interesting and worthwhile study which includes data on a good size sample of mothers and babies.

A key strength is the analysis and presentation of the data by parity as often findings relating to primigravidae and multigravidae are amalgamated, despite the influence of parity on factors such as use of analgesia, labour length and type of delivery.

The authors acknowledge the limitations of a non-randomised water group sample.

It would have been interesting to have collected information relating to the social class of pool users, as there is an assumption among health professionals that birthing pools attract greater interest among middle class women, but I know of no evidence to support this view.

The researchers report a shorter labour for water birth primigravidae but do not mention the frequency of vaginal examinations, or whether the second stage was timed when the presenting part was visible, making the precise process of how they timed these labour stages unclear.

The effect of water immersion on analgesia uptake appears striking.

The authors suggest that an influencing factor may have been the continuous midwifery care, often by a known midwife, for pool users, as opposed to an intermittent midwifery presence by a midwife unknown to a mother before her labour.

There is, however, no mention whether any facilities such as beanbags, birthing balls, rocking chairs or floor mattresses were available to women who did not use the pool, apart from presumably a delivery bed.

It is therefore not known whether these women were encouraged to adopt comfortable positions and be as mobile as possible throughout labour.

The practice of maximising maternal mobility has been shown to reduce the perception of pain and thus the uptake of analgesia.

Whilst it is reassuring that fewer episiotomies were performed on water birth women, nonetheless, fifteen still had one!

It would be interesting to know something about the study centre’s approach to care during the second stage regarding pushing techniques and time perimeters, as this could have influenced the incidence of both tears and episiotomies.

The researchers note that ‘particular care was taken to ensure controlled delivery of the head’ (p16) but do not explain how, ie if the midwife touched the head and perineum or not.

Besides, tears often occur with the birth of the shoulders.

Comparison was made between the groups on the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage, but no mother appeared to have a completely physiological third stage because the cord was clamped and cut promptly after the birth, which disturbs the physiology, and the placentas were delivered out of the pool.

The rationale for leaving the pool was to estimate blood loss more accurately – a difficult thing to achieve in or out of water.

A second reason was the totally unproven risk of water embolism.

This study reported no adverse effect for mothers or babies associated with water immersion during labour and birth and forms a useful basis for future research.

Water birth: a review of 848 deliveries and a comparison with other delivery positions

Thoeni A; Holzner J, (2002). International Confederation of Midwives. Midwives and women working together for the family of the world: ICM proceedings CD-ROM Vienna 2002. The Hague: ICM , 2002. 7 pages.

Objective:

The object of our study was to analyze 848 consecutive water births and to compare them with two other delivery positions.

Methods:

We compared 848 water births, 493 deliveries in the traditional bed, and 172 deliveries on the delivery stool.

Duration of labor, rates of episiotomies and lacerations, arterial cord blood pH, base excess, analgesic requirements, and postpartum maternal haemoglobin levels were evaluated.

Results:

The first stage of labor was significantly reduced in primiparas with water birth compared with the other delivery positions (386 vs. 477 min., respectively).

There were no differences in the duration of the second stage (32 vs 39 min.).

The low episiotomy rate with the water births (1% compared with 18% and 8% for the other two positions) was not associated with an increased rate of perineal lacerations (23% in all three groups).

Of the primipara, 59% had no lacerations with water birth compared with 36% and 46% for the other two positions, respectively.

No woman with water birth required analgesics.

There were no differences among the groups in arterial cord blood pH or postpartal maternal haemoglobin level.

Conclusion:

Our results suggest that water birth is associated with a significantly shorter first stage of labor, lower episiotomy rate and perineal lacerations, and reduced analgesic requirements compared with other delivery positions.

Water birth is safe for the mother and fetus-neonate if candidates are selected appropriately.

Study confirms… Women who labour in water have lower rate of epidural analgesia

Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour

Objectives:

To evaluate the impact of labouring in water during first stage of labour on rates of epidural analgesia and operative delivery in nulliparous women with dystocia.

Design Randomised controlled trial.

Setting University teaching hospital in southern England.

Participants 99 nulliparous women with dystocia in active labour at low risk of complications.

Interventions Immersion in water or standard augmentation for dystocia (amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin).

Main outcome measures:

Primary: epidural analgesia and operative delivery rates.

Secondary: augmentation rates with amniotomy and oxytocin, length of labour, maternal and neonatal morbidity including infections, maternal pain score, and maternal satisfaction with care.

Results:

Women randomised to immersion in water had a lower rate of epidural analgesia than women allocated to augmentation (47% v 66%, relative risk 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01), number needed to treat for benefit (NNT) 5).

They showed no difference in rates of operative delivery (49% v 50%, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47), NNT 98), but significantly fewer received augmentation (71% v 96%, 0.74 (0.59 to 0.88), NNT 4) or any form of obstetric intervention (amniotomy, oxytocin, epidural, or operative delivery) (80% v 98%, 0.81 (0.67 to 0.92), NNT 5).

Conclusions:

Labouring in water under midwifery care may be an option for slow progress in labour, reducing the need for obstetric intervention, and offering an alternative pain management strategy.

(Extract from abstract of Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour by Elizabeth R Cluett, Ruth M Pickering, Kathryn Getliffe, Nigel James, St George Saunders published in British Journal of Midwfery January 26, 2004)

The growing trend of birth in water…

Milli Hill explains why more and more women, including celebrities like Maia Dunphy and Rebecca Adlington, are choosing a birth pool.

More and more women are saying yes to water birth; thanks in part to the many celebrities who are extolling it’s virtues, including broadcaster and wife of Johnny Vegas, Maia Dunphy, and Olympic swimmer Rebecca Adlington, both of whom are planning to have their babies in a birth pool in the next few weeks.

ficore-birthing-pool

As so many women are discovering, there’s literally nothing not to like about water birth. I’ll admit, though, that when I first heard about the trend in 2007, I was sceptical.

I was pregnant with my first, and maybe I already felt daunted enough by the idea of giving birth, without adding in another whole set of anxieties and ‘unknowns’. I was definitely in the “Why would you do that?” camp.

This scepticism is common, explains Beverley Turner, birth expert and LBC presenter. She used a birth pool in all three of her own births and now encourages pregnant women on her London based antenatal course, The Blooming Bunch, to give it a try:

“It’s hard to explain the benefits of water birth in words. You can read all about how it’s great for pain relief, how it helps you to move and find comfortable positions, how it supports the perineum and can prevent tearing, and how it makes your chances of a normal, natural birth more likely.

But ultimately, this can all seem academic – it’s only when you slide your labouring body into the warm water that you really ‘get’ it.”

Water birth is often spoken of in terms of being a ‘pain relief option’, but I’m not sure – having finally let my scepticism be washed away during the birth of my second child – that this entirely does it justice. It’s true, when you get into the pool, the warmth and the weightlessness seems to ‘take the edge’ off the contractions.

Research supports the idea that being in water helps with labour pain: one study found that water birthing mums rated their pain as not only lower than women giving birth on dry land but lower than land birthers who had had epidurals.

img_1020

Another study, however, found that there was no difference in pain levels between women giving birth in water or on dry land. If you’re pregnant I’m sorry to have to break the news that, no matter where women in the study gave birth, their general view seemed to be: It Hurts.

However – and this is where it gets interesting – what the researchers did find was that the water birthers remembered birth as less painful, once it was over.

I think this shines a light on the aspect of water birth that so often gets missed – perhaps because it is hard to measure or quantify: women’s experience.

Women who have water births – whilst they may still feel as much pain as their contemporaries on the bed – enjoy their births more. Yes, you heard correctly, whilst it may or may not ‘hurt’ – they enjoy it.

In these times of increasingly high medical intervention in birth, water birth removes you from this stereotypical ‘one born every minute’ reality. You are – quite literally – in a different element. You are upright, active, mobile and out of easy reach – the absolute opposite of being immobilised on your back on a bed.

Version 2

The balance of power in the birth room, for several decades at least tipped strongly in favour of the midwives and doctors, is upended. We try to explain why women enjoy it so much by saying, “It’s great for pain relief”, but the real reason is this: water birth puts women back in charge.

“The most amazing thing was that I was in my own space, with no invaders”, Hannah Roe, a midwife who gave birth in water last November told me. “I called all the shots, it really felt like my territory. Midwives could only listen in when I truly consented (ie floated over to them!) and birth was completely ‘hands off’.

“Aside from the encouragement of my midwives and birth supporters I did it all by myself – touched his head to reassure myself that my cervix was fully dilated and lifted him out of the pool following the birth. It was amazing.”

Birth workers themselves are often fans of water birth. As Sarah Dodge, a student midwife at Kingston University told me, “I absolutely love caring for women who choose water, it allows you to do absolutely nothing apart from watch and listen.

I have learnt so much from doing this.” Doula Claire Morrow-Goodman is equally evangelical: “I love it when a mama-to-be slowly sinks down into the water and that wonderful blissful look that enraptures her face…as a doula I sigh with her”, she told me.

freedom-of-movement

However, there are opponents – in April 2014 the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a joint statement, denouncing water birth as without benefits and potentially unsafe.

This statement has made access to water birth more limited in the USA, although the Royal College of Midwives called it ‘disappointingly biased and partially incorrect’, and researcher Rebecca Dekker has written a review of the available literature on water birth in response, concluding the ACOG statement contained, “major scientific errors”.

Dekker’s review makes fascinating reading for anyone interested in the research on water birth. If you want the short version, however, the basics are this: there is no strong evidence against water birth for low risk women, and more research would be helpful.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Water VBAC: exploring a new frontier for women’s autonomy

McKenna JA; Symon AG, (2014). Midwifery , vol 30, no 1, January 2014, e20-5.

BACKGROUND: although Vaginal Birth After Caesarean section (VBAC) has been promoted successfully as one means of reducing the caesarean section rate, the practice of VBAC using water immersion (Water VBAC) is restricted.

Very little valid, reliable research evidence is available on this birth method, although initial small-scale audits indicate that Water VBAC has no adverse effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

METHOD: in-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of eight women who had undergone Water VBAC in one midwife-led unit.

The interviews aimed to explore their reasons for requesting this birthing method, and their experience of the process. An interpretative phenomenological analytical approach was adopted.

FINDINGS: the women pursued Water VBAC for two main reasons: in order to prevent a repeat of the obstetric events that previously led to a caesarean section, and to counteract their previous negative birth experiences.

The women reported improved physical and psychological outcomes from their Water VBAC experience when compared with their previous experience of caesarean section.

Three main themes emerged: ‘minimising’, ‘maximising’ and ‘managing’. Water VBAC entailed an attempt to minimise the medicalisation of the women’s childbirth experience.

This was achieved by limiting medical staff input in favour of midwife-led care, which was believed to minimise negative physical and psychological experiences.

Correspondingly, Water VBAC was perceived as maximising physical and psychological benefits, and as a means of allowing women to obtain choice and assert control over their labour and birth.

The women planning a Water VBAC believed they had to manage the potential risks associated with Water VBAC, as well as manage the expectations and behaviour of friends, family and the health care professionals involved in their care.

CONCLUSIONS: for the women participating in this research, actively pursuing Water VBAC constituted a means of asserting their autonomy over the childbirth process.

The value accorded to being able to exercise choice and control over their childbearing experience was high.

These women’s accounts indicated that information-giving and shared decision-making require improvement, and that inconsistencies in the attitudes of health care professionals need to be addressed.

 

The use of water immersion in the facilitation of ‘normal labour’

Abstract: 

In light of current societal and professional concerns regarding the medicalisation of childbirth and an apparent clinical culture of anxiety and fear of litigation, emerging evidence emphasises the importance of promoting normality within clinical practice, and the need for individualised, client-centred choice and control. 

This article examines the use of water immersion as a facilitator of normal labour and birth. In defining the concept of normality, the article discusses the advantages of water immersion in decreasing maternal pain and use of other analgesics, critically increasing maternal control and satisfaction, and limiting medicalised intervention need. 

Furthermore, supporting the physiological advantages of relaxation and maternal movement linked to the use of water in labour,water immersion promotes improved fetal position and enhanced labour progress. 

Importantly however, the article further identifies current hindering factors to facilitating water immersion implementation, critically the current lack of sound methodological evidence and research rigor regarding potential adverse neonatal outcomes.

It concludes, despite obvious promotion of normality in childbirth, that further robust qualitative and quantitative research is needed to clarify the overall appropriateness of this practice. This would help practitioners to decide if this method is safe and be more informed of the risks and benefits before recommending it to women.

Introduction

The drive towards promoting normality in labour is evident in current research and policy drivers (RCM 2013; Downe 2008). However, when reading the literature around normal birth, it is apparent that no single set of criteriarepresents an accepted definition of ‘normal labour’ (National Institute of Clinical Excellence [NICE] 2007; Royal College of Midwives [RCM] 2013). 

This debate around what constitutes normality in labour has dominated research and care provision for decades, but, for the purpose of this review, the Midwifery Care Working Party (MCWP) definition will be utilised as the referent. 

This definition states that ‘normal labour’ is spontaneous in onset and progression, without the use of spinal, epidural or general anaesthesia, or medicalised intervention (MCWP 2007).Of particular interest in the support of normality in labour is the issue of medicalised intervention.

For instance, environmental pressures, such as how care is co-ordinated and led,can hinder the process (Russell 2011) and has inadvertently shifted the focus away from normality. Empowering women to take the lead in their own birthing experience, gain personal control and as a result manage their pain more effectively, underpins the definition of normality, whilst also overcoming and eliminating the need for medicalisation (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/Royal College of Midwives (RCOG/RCM 2006). 

Adequate pain relief, such as epidural and pethidine (Nystedt, Edvardsson & Willman 2004; Cho, Lee & Ernst 2010), may induce a more positive birthing experience and personal control; however such methods do not promote normality. For this reason, practices such as water immersion as a non-medicalised method of personal control, may advantageously promote such concepts. 

This review aims to present an overview of current literature around the benefits and disadvantages of using such a method to manage labour pain with an emphasis on critiquing methodological strengths and weakness.

Water immersion and pain relief

Much of the research into pain relief facilitation in childbirth concentrates on comparing the outcomes of water immersion with no intervention during the first stage of labour, in the form of unblinded randomised controlled trials (RCT) (Benfield et al. 2001; Cluett, Pickering, Getliffe & Saunders 2004; Eckert, Turnbull & MacLennan 2001; Ohlsson et al. 2001). 

Despite the limitation of unblinded methodology in these studies, due to the nature of the intervention, collectively they conclude that water immersion has beneficial pain relief implications in comparison with no intervention, and a positive impact on maternal control and normality.

Barbosa da Silva, Vasconcellos de Oliveira and Nobre (2009), in comparing pain relief magnitude in first stage bathing and non-bathing women, conclude that pain is less apparent, and pain progresses lower in bathing cohorts, but overall pain relief satisfaction is highly significant (Pagano et al. 2010; RCOG/RCM 2006). 

However, as this study only involved nulliparous women (first time pregnant)these findings only offer limited insights intothe women’s evaluation of labour pain. The study acknowledges the implications of using such a restricted sample group in representing the entire birthing population.

Regardless of these limitations, the reported reduction in intensity of pain and use of additional analgesia, as concluded within the study’s findings, is indicative of the potential for water immersion to contribute to the promotion of normality in labour by reducing medicalisation. 

This has been replicated by other studies where a decrease in opioid use (Mollamahmutoglu et al. 2012; Cluett, Nikodem, McCandlish & Burns 2009) and incidence of epidural and spinal anaesthetics (Cluett & Burns 2009; Burns et al. 2012) has been concluded. 

Women’s perception of water immersion efficacymay differ prior to commencement of this activity, therefore, this could influence their perception of pain relief (Cluett, Nikodem, McCandlish & Burns 2009); further research is needed to explore this hypothesis.

One qualitative study by Maude and Foureur (2007), which involved interviews with five women who experienced water birth at different post-natal periods, suggests that the anticipation of getting into water and consequential relaxation accelerates the rate of cervical dilation. 

Due to induced cardiovascular changes, any elevation in anxiety hormones is decreased by a reduction in blood pressure, further facilitated by an increased level of endorphins (Benfield 2002; Cluett et al. 2009). Relaxation and a sense of personal control as a response to this, is arguably the main basis for pain relief in water immersion. 

Literature evidence agrees that pain is not eliminated by water; however, relaxation provides a release from the pain experience, and a sense of comfort and satisfaction (McNeil & Jomeen 2010). A larger range of maternal movement improves normal labour progression and there are reported improvements in fetal position and flexion (Cluett et al. 2009; Burns 2004). 

However, the methodology of Maude and Foureur’s (2007) study, in conducting differently timed postpartum interviews, raises questions of recall bias, and potential changing of emotions and opinions over time.

A reduction in medicalised intervention

One point, highly illustrated within the literature, includes the impact of water immersion on the reduced need for medicalised intervention such as episiotomy and induction (Burns et al. 2012; Geissbuehler, Stein & Eberhard 2004). Mollamahmutoglu et al. (2012) report that water immersion results in a shorter second stage of labour,with the need for induction of labour being significantly decreased. 

In connection to facilitating normality through a more natural birthing process, large observational retrospective studies, such as Burns et al. (2012), conclude thata reduced need for medicalised interventions is also more prevalent in midwifery-led home water births. Care within the home is arguably another factor in facilitating normality for the birthing woman. However, a lack of a control group for this particular study, limits the reliability of this study’s conclusions.

Second and third stage management and physiological advantages

Despite water being recommended by national guidance (NICE 2007), there appears to be a small amount of evidence available that concerns labouring in water in the first and second stages. Further water immersion research is needed around these stages of labour, especially in relation to risks associated with delivery of the third stage of labour in water.

However, research undertaken with women who have had a water birth, shows a reduction in maternal adverse outcomes and need for specialised care, compared with vaginal delivery controls. A reduced incidence of perineum tears (Burns et al. 2012), maternal infections (Benfield et al. 2001) and postpartum haemorrhage (Mollamahmutoglu et al. 2012; Benfield 2002), are some of the reported outcomes,all of which promote normality and could, in addition, improve the pain experience.

Definition discrepancies

In analysis of the evidence, various definitions for water immersion can be identified, indicating a lack of homogeneity in research literature. Differences in the size of baths/pools, the depth of water and length of time exposed to the intervention, all contribute significantly to the degree of exposure experienced; however, little attention to date has been paid to these factors. Benfield et al. (2001) conducted a RCT study which exposed its participants to water for exactly an hour.

This, therefore, increased the consistency of their exposure findings; however,the authors state that the pool was shallow in comparison to those generally used on labour wards, thereby limiting the reliability and appropriateness of their findings to practice. Other studies also highlight similar weaknesses. Eckert et al. (2001) used a larger pool during its intervention; however, exposure time varied according to the woman’s preference. 

Significantly, this study also allowed its control group the option of a shower, thereby introducing bias and limiting the reliability of the findings, as exposure to a shower may also have similar pain relief properties as water immersion (Stark & Miller 2009).

Barriers to practice implementation

Interestingly, one factor apparent within the evidence is the lack of investigation into the effects of temperature control, including inconsistencies in temperatures usage and the effect on any potential outcomes. NICE (2007) recommends a water temperature no higher than 37.5c, and advises this should be monitored hourly to ensure maternal comfort and apyrexia (absence of a fever).

Eckert et al. (2001) recognised the importance of temperature control in their RCT study; however,they concludedthat only 50 per cent of the 85 women in the intervention group had their temperatures recorded hourly. In comparison, Benfield et al (2001) assessed water temperature on strict fifteen minute intervals; however, the temperature was allowed to escalate as high as 38c. 

Taking these inconsistencies into account, analysis of the overall literature regarding temperature control and potential pain relief is difficult, and the ability to comment on this specific factor and its relevance in facilitating normal labour remains limited. Evidently, further research is needed in order to eliminate the discrepancies in the methodology, thereby allowing results to be more comparable.

Directly linked to the issue of temperature monitoring is the importance of fetal monitoring. Interestingly, only one study has been found that specifies how fetal heart monitoring was conducted during labour (Mollamatutoglu et al. 2012). On the other hand, a quantitative study conducted by Carpenter and Weston (2012), investigating the differences between respiratory distress in water and land birth neonates, concludes that, despite no significant difference in initial APGAR scores, water immersed neonates have more severe abnormal changes identified through x-ray. 

As this study involved a higher proportion of water birth inspected x-rays in comparison to land birth, this limits the rigor of the methodology, and the exclusion of co-morbidities, such as encephalopathy and congenital heart disease, indicates potential confounding factors. However, the study does conclusively identify the need of further research into potential adverse neonate outcomes after initial APGAR assessment. 

The lack ofstudies into this phenomenon is widely recognised in the literature; the only study to extend assessment over the immediate neonatal period was conducted by Cluett et al. (2004), and thisstudied babies only up to day ten postpartum. Higher incidence of resuscitation (Eckert et al. 2001) and near-drowning (Pinette, Wax & Wilson 2004) further question water immersion as a safe facilitator of normal birth; however, conclusive evidence regarding neonate outcomes is scarce to date; a reliable evidence-based recommendation for practice can only be made once further research has been conducted.

Potentially the largest barrier to water immersion provision so far, does not involve the actual use of water, but the attitudes of the professionals in general and midwives in particular towards its use. Lack of confidence, limited training and pressures from the ward environment seem, on occasions, to override the professional requirement for midwives to facilitate a woman’s choice (Russell 2011).

Working in a medical environment, which super-values intervention over the promotion of a natural birth, has also been identified as an important barrier (Russell 2011).Subsequently, it can be inferred that institutional factors are key in influencingtheuse of water immersion and its potential role in normality facilitation. 

However, the study by Russell (2011) only used a small sample size and findings cannot be readily generalised across the NHS or the entire midwifery profession. Other studies scoping current practice would help understand the use of water in labour in the UK.

Conclusion

As concluded by the current evidence base, research literature largely concurs that water immersion during the first stage of labour is a beneficial, natural method of pain relief. 

This is due to a decreased need for medicalised interventions and additional analgesia, and an increase in personal control and relaxation, consequently facilitating normality in childbirth. 

Lack of evidence on the latter stages of labour, the influence that temperature might have on the labour and/or the baby, and the implications of bathing tub dimensions, require that well conducted, methodologically strong and varied studies of all potential outcomes are carried out.

Despite numerous gaps in the evidence, one significant, largely inconclusive area remains: the lack of research into adverse neonatal outcomes and, specifically, any longer term detrimental effects. Achieving a better understanding of those, could prove advantageous in increasing the uptake of water immersion during labour as facilitator of normality in childbirth.

References

Barbosa da Silva, F.M., Vasconcellos de Oliveira, S.M.J. & Nobre, M.R.C. 2009. ‘A randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of immersion bath on labour pain’, Midwifery 25, 286-294.

Benfield, R.D. 2002. ‘Hydrotherapy in labor’, Journal of Nursing Scholarship 34(4), 347-352.

Benfield, R.D., Herman, J., Katz, V.L., Wilson, S.P.& Davis, J.M. 2001. ‘Hydrotherapy in Labor’, Research in Nursing & Health 24, 57-67.

Burns, E.E., 2004. ‘Water: what are we afraid of?’, The Practising Midwife 7(10), 17-19.

Burns, E.E., Boulton, M.G., Cluett, E., Cornelius, V.R. & Smith, L.A. 2012. ‘Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study’, Birth 39(3), 192-202.

Carpenter, L. & Weston, P. 2011. ‘Neonatal consequences from water birth’, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 48, 419-423.

Cho, S.H., Lee, H. & Ernst, E. 2010. ‘Acupuncture for pain relief in labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 117, 907-920.

Cluett, E.R. & Burns, E.E. 2009. ‘Immersion in water in labour and birth’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2, 1-56.

Cluett, E.R., Pickering, R.M., Getliffe, K, & Saunders, N.J.S.G. 2004. ‘Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour’, British Medical Journal 328(7435), 1-6.

Cluett, E.R., Nikodem, C.V.C., McCandlish, R.E. & Burns, E.E. 2009. ‘Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1, 1-33.

Downe, S. 2008. Normal Childbirth, evidence and debate (2nd edition). Oxford: Churchill Livingstone.

Eckert, K., Turnbull, D. & MacLennan, A. 2001. ‘Immersion in water in the first stage of labour: a randomised controlled trial’, Birth 28(2), 84-93.

Geissbuehler, V., Stein, S. & Eberhard, J. 2004. ‘Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years’ Journal of perinatal medicine 32(4), 308-314.

Maternity Care Working Party. 2007. ‘Making normal birth a reality-consensus statement from the Maternity Care Working Party-our shared views about the need to recognise, facilitate and audit normal birth’. London: Maternity Care Working Party.

Maude, R.M. & Foureur, M.J. 2006. ‘It’s beyond water: stories of women’s experiences of using water for labour and birth’, Women and Birth 20, 17-24.

McNeil, A. & Jomeen, J. 2010. ‘“Gezellig”: a concept for managing pain during labour and Childbirth’, British Journal of Midwifery 18(8), 515-520.

Mollamahmutoglu, L., Moraloglu, O., Ozyer, S., Su, F.A., Karayalcin, R., Hancerlioglu, N.,Uzunlar, O., & Dilmen, U. 2012. ‘The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery’, Journal of Turkish German Gynecological Association 13, 45-49.

National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2007. ‘Intrapartum care-care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth’. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

Nystedt, A., Edvardsson, D., & Willman, A. 2004. ‘Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour and childbirth- a review with a systematic approach’, Journal of Clinical Nursing 13, 455-466.

Ohlsson, G., Buchhave, P., Leandersson, U., Nordstrom, L., Rydhstrom, H. & Sjolin, I. 2001. ‘Warm tub bathing during labor: maternal and neonatal effects’, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 80(4), 311-314.

Pagano, E., De Rota, B., Ferrando, A., Petrinco, M., Merletti, F., Gregori, D. 2010. ‘An economic evaluation of water birth: the cost-effectiveness of mother well-being’, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16, 916-919.

Pinette, M.G., Wax, J. & Wilson, E. 2004. ‘The risks of underwater birth’, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 190, 1211-1215.

Royal College of Midwives (RCM). 2013. ‘Campaign for Normal Birth’. Available online at: http://www.rcmnormalbirth.org.uk/about-the-campaign/definitions-and-the-rcm-position-paper

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/Royal College of Midwives (RCOG/RCM). 2006. ‘Immersion in water during labour and birth’. London: Royal College of

Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Midwives.

Russell, K. 2011. ‘Struggling to get into the pool room? a critical discourse analysis of labor ward midwives’ experiences of water birth’, International Journal of Childbirth 1(1), 52-60.

Stark, M.A. & Miller, M.G. 2009. ‘Barriers to the use of hydrotherapy in labor’, Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing 38, 667-675.

Immersion in water in labour and birth | Cochrane Summaries 2012

Elizabeth Cluett, Ethel Burns

This review includes 12 trials (3243 women).

Water immersion during the first stage of labour significantly reduced epidural/spinal analgesia requirements, without adversely affecting labour duration, operative delivery rates, or neonatal wellbeing.

One trial showed that immersion in water during the second stage of labour increased women’s reported satisfaction with their birth experience.

Further research is needed to assess the effect of immersion in water on neonatal and maternal morbidity.

No trials could be located that assessed the immersion of women in water during the third stage of labour, or evaluating different types of pool/bath.

Background:

Enthusiasts suggest that labouring in water and waterbirth increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of care.

Critics cite the risk of neonatal water inhalation and maternal/neonatal infection.

Objectives:

To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about immersion in water during labour and waterbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

Search strategy:

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (30 June 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria:

Randomised controlled trials comparing immersion in any bath tub/pool with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth, in women during labour who were considered to be at low risk of complications, as defined by the researchers.

Health topics:

Pregnancy & childbirth > Care during childbirth > Normal labour & birth Pregnancy & childbirth > Care during childbirth > Routine intrapartum care
Data collection and analysis:

We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One review author entered data and the other checked for accuracy.

Main results:

This review includes 12 trials (3243 women): eight related to just the first stage of labour: one to early versus late immersion in the first stage of labour; two to the first and second stages; and another to the second stage only.

We identified no trials evaluating different baths/pools, or the management of third stage of labour.

Results for the first stage of labour showed there was a significant reduction in the epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia rate amongst women allocated to water immersion compared to controls (478/1254 versus 529/1245; risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99, six trials).

There was also a reduction in duration of the first stage of labour (mean difference -32.4 minutes; 95% CI -58.7 to -6.13).

There was no difference in assisted vaginal deliveries (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05, seven trials), caesarean sections (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.68, eight trials), use of oxytocin infusion (RR 0.64; 95%CI 0.32 to 1.28,five trials), perineal trauma or maternal infection.

There were no differences for Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.58; 95% CI 0.63 to 3.93, five trials), neonatal unit admissions (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.57, three trials), or neonatal infection rates (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94, five trials).

Of the three trials that compared water immersion during the second stage with no immersion, one trial showed a significantly higher level of satisfaction with the birth experience (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.80).

A lack of data for some comparisons prevented robust conclusions.

Further research is needed.

Authors’ conclusions:

Evidence suggests that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of epidural/spinal analgesia and duration of the first stage of labour.

There is limited information for other outcomes related to water use during the first and second stages of labour, due to intervention and outcome variability.

There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring in water or waterbirth.

However, the studies are very variable and considerable heterogeneity was detected for some outcomes.

Further research is needed.

Laboring in water helpful for dystocia

Originally published by Laurie Barclay, MD 
Medscape Medical News. 
Jan. 26, 2004

Laboring in water can be helpful in dystocia, according to the results of a randomized controlled trial published online Jan. 26 in the British Medical Journal.

“Incomplete understanding of labour may lead to unnecessarily early intervention,” write Elizabeth R. Cluett, from the University of Southampton in the U.K., and colleagues.

“Labouring in water under midwifery care may be an option for slow progress in labour, reducing the need for obstetric intervention, and offering an alternative pain management strategy.”

To test their hypothesis that laboring in water can relieve pain and anxiety and thereby reduce the need for interventions, the authors compared outcomes for immersion in water in a birth pool during the first stage of labor with those for standard augmentation including amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin.

Subjects were 99 nulliparous women with low risk of complications and with dystocia, defined as cervical dilation rate less than 1 cm/hour in active labor. Primary outcome measures were rates of epidural analgesia and operative delivery.

Compared with women receiving standard care, those receiving water immersion had a lower rate of epidural analgesia (47% vs. 66%; relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 – 1.01), number needed to treat [NNT] for benefit = 5).

Rates of operative delivery (49% vs. 50%; RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65 – 1.47; NNT = 9 and overall labor length were similar in both groups.

However, significantly fewer women in the water immersion group received augmentation (71% vs. 96%; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 – 0.88; NNT = 4) or any obstetric interventions including amniotomy, oxytocin, epidural, or operative delivery (80% vs. 98%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 – 0.92; NNT = 5).

Women in the water immersion group also reported significantly lower pain scores and higher satisfaction with freedom of movement than did women in the standard care group.

Although more newborns in the water group were admitted to the neonatal unit (6 vs. 0; P = .013), there was no difference between groups in Apgar score, infection rates, or umbilical cord pH.

Limitations of this study include recruitment of only 99 of 220 eligible women, increased difficulty with recruitment toward the end of the trial because of changes in standard care, and sample size too small to detect statistical differences in use of epidural analgesia.

“Delaying augmentation in association with a supportive environment (water immersion) is acceptable to women with dystocia and may reduce the need for epidural analgesia without increasing labor length or operative deliveries,” the authors write.

“A management approach that reduces rates of augmentation and associated obstetric intervention may contribute positively to maternal physiological and psychological health: oxytocin infusion is known to increase the risk of uterine hyperstimulation and fetal hypoxia, and obstetric interventions are associated with lower maternal satisfaction.”

The authors report no financial conflicts of interest. BMJ. Published online Jan. 26, 2004. Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD

Position statement on the use of water immersion for labour and birth – Australian College of Midwives

Australian College of Midwives – 2013

This position statement should be read in conjunction with the Australian College of Midwives’ (ACM) position statement for midwives caring for women who make choices outside professional advice.

The ACM supports the choice of women to have the opportunity to access water immersion for labour and/or birth. The ACM identifies six key principles for the safe use of water immersion for labour and birth.

Key principles

1. Warm water immersion has been used for relieving the intensity of pain associated with labour. Warm water and buoyancy elevates the release of endorphins and facilitates relaxation.

2. There are many benefits of using immersion in water during labour, including increasing women’s feelings of control and satisfaction, less painful contractions and less need for pharmacological analgesia, shorter labour, less need for augmentation, with no known adverse effects for the woman herself.

3. Women should be provided with unbiased evidence-based information during pregnancy about their options for labour and birth, including water immersion in labour and/or birth, in order to make informed choices.

4. Informed decision-making, informed consent, and right of refusal are accepted principles in Australia. Each and every woman has the right to make informed decisions, including consent or refusal of any aspect of her care. Women must be respected in the choices that they make.

5. Midwives have a primary responsibility to ensure that their decisions, recommendations and practices are focused on the needs and safety of the woman and her baby/babies.

6. There is no evidence of significant increases in perinatal mortality or morbidity although there are some reports of rare complications. There is limited research on the safety of birth in water and most of the evidence that does exist, is restricted to healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

Achieving best practice

To achieve best practice in the use of water immersion for labour and birth, it is necessary for consumers, professional colleges, education providers, health systems, Australian and State and Territory governments and policy makers to work together to:

  • foster a culture of valuing physical, emotional, social, cultural and spiritual safety in all birth environments;
  • provide women with access to water immersion in labour and/or birth;
  • provide the preparation and education required to ensure that midwives are
    competent and confident to care for women who choose water immersion in
    labour and/or birth;
  • ensure that midwives to work to their full scope of practice;
  • develop evidence-based policies that reflect best practice;
  • undertake more research on immersion in water during labour and birth. In
    particular, no trials have been identified that assess the effect of immersion in water during the third stage of labour.

Resources to guide practice

The ACM recommends the use of the following resources to guide midwives in their practice:

  • Australian College of Midwives, National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral, 2013. Australian College of Midwives, Canberra.
  • Cluett, E.R., et al., Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ, 2004. 328(7435): p. 314.
  • Cluett ER, B.E., Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000111. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111. pub3. , 2009.
  • Hall, S.M., & Holloway, I. M. , Staying in control: Women’s experiences of labour in water. . Midwifery, 1998. 14: p. 30-36.
  • Miller, Y., Thompson, R., Porter, J., Prosser, S., & Fletcher, R. , Findings from the Having a Baby in Queensland Pilot Survey 2009. 2010. Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies, The University of Queensland.
  • RCOG/Royal College of Midwives. Immersion in Water During Labour and Birth (Joint Statement No. 1), 2006. Available from: http://www.rcog.org.uk/womens- health/clinical-guidance/immersion-water-during-labour-and-birth
  • Richmond, H., Women’s experience of waterbirth. The Practising Midwife, 2003. 6(3): p. 26-31.
  • Zanetti-Daellenbach, R.A., et al., Maternal and neonatal infections and obstetrical outcome in water birth. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2007. 134(1): p. 37-43.

Date of Issue; 30th May 2013
Date of Review; 29th May 2016

BMC Pregnancy and childbirth – Immersion in water for pain relief – 2014

Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study

Mirjam Lukasse, Rachel Rowe, John Townend, Marian Knight and Jennifer Hollowell

Abstract

Background: Immersion in water during labour is an important non-pharmacological method to manage labour pain, particularly in midwifery-led care settings where pharmacological methods are limited.

This study investigates the association between immersion for pain relief and transfer before birth and other maternal outcomes.

Methods:

A prospective cohort study of 16,577 low risk nulliparous women planning birth at home, in a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU) or in an alongside midwifery unit (AMU) in England between April 2008 and April 2010.

Results:

Immersion in water for pain relief was common; 50% in planned home births, 54% in FMUs and 38% in AMUs.

Immersion in water was associated with a lower risk of transfer before birth for births planned at home (adjusted RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79–0.99), in FMUs (adjusted RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.50–0.70) and in AMUs (adjusted RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.69–0.88).

For births planned in FMUs, immersion in water was associated with a lower risk of intrapartum caesarean section (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44–0.84) and a higher chance of a straightforward vaginal birth (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.15).

These beneficial effects were not seen in births planned at home or AMUs.

Conclusions:

Immersion of water for pain relief was associated with a significant reduction in risk of transfer before birth for nulliparous women.

Overall, immersion in water was associated with fewer interventions during labour.

The effect varied across birth settings with least effect in planned home births and a larger effect observed for planned FMU births.

Full article is available to read via the link below and is highly recommended, with some very detailed analysis and insight into methods of study with statistical support.

Please click here to read the full publication

bmc-good-version

Exploring breech water birth

Maggie Banks – RM, PhD, ADN, RGON

The paucity of literature on labour and birth in water with breech- presenting babies highlights a need to share (and document) empirical knowledge on the subject to piece together women’s and midwives’ growing experiences.

I was asked recently if leaving a woman in a birth pool to give birth to a breech presenting baby, undiagnosed until on the perineum, was ‘reasonable’ midwifery practice.

The question was qualified in that if the breech baby had been known prior to labour, the birth would definitely not have occurred in water as it is contraindicated in all the waterbirth guidelines in New Zealand.

My initial reaction, though fleeting, was to shrink away and not own my own experiences, knowing that these would be viewed as ‘unreasonable’ given that guidelines were presented as a self-evident truth that could not be argued with, that is, a known breech baby would not be born in water.

The issue of breech presentation and waterbirth is one that I have repeatedly explored in the midwifery and obstetric literature over the years and have found little written on the subject.

What is there usually cites the same source – Herman Ponette, the Belgium obstetrician in Ostend who actively promotes waterbirth with breech babies.1 There is minimal acknowledgement that it occurs in hospitals in the USA and the UK.2, 3

A Google search using the term ‘breech waterbirth’ brings up a handful of consumer stories and the occasional midwifery website which discusses the issue. Of the numerous stories I receive from women and midwives about breech birth, increasingly they involve the use of water.

This article pieces together some knowledge gained from reading, discussions, several of my experiences of, and reflections on, the use of water immersion with breech babies.

Going with the Flow

Initially I had been mindful of Michel Odent’s recommendation of not using deep warm water during breech labour as he warns that the soothing effect of water may mask an unduly painful labour, thereby preventing early detection of what may prove to be a problematic birth.4

My own first experience of using water in a breech labour happened by accident in that the frank breech baby remained undiagnosed until on the perineum. The woman had used the pool unconventionally in labour – she chose to lounge in the pool between contractions and stood during them. Once the breech was diagnosed I asked her to leave the pool and she stood to give birth.

This made me re-look at Michel’s caution. My experience of waterbirth with cephalic presentation had shown me that water immersion only mellows out normal labour pain, not severe or pathological pain, which would indicate the bone on bone painof true disproportion between pelvis and presenting part.

I had to question why this should be any different for a breech presenting baby – and I could not find an answer.

With the same woman’s second frank breech baby, this time diagnosed in pregnancy, she again used the pool unconventionally to relax between her contractions, and she birthed standing on dry land.

These two experiences marked a small shift in the use of water during my attendance at breech labour and birth in that water immersion remained available with a known breech. However, I continued to arrange with women that they would leave the pool for birthing.

This request changed following the birth of Heath, a firstborn presenting as a flexed legs breech. His mother had been deeply relaxed in the pool, assuming a wide open kneeling position leaning over the edge of the pool.

When the baby was visible on the perineum and the urge to push was overwhelming I asked the woman to leave the pool as we had prearranged, which she did.

Whereas she had been strong, independently held her own weight, and was powerful in her pushing, once out of the pool, she needed physical support to be in active birth positions and was unable to relax deeply between contractions as she had previously done in the pool.

The baby was born within half an hour of pushing and all was well but it was clear to me that I had intervened in a physiological birth and this had altered the ease with which the woman gave birth.

This birth occurred some months after the 1st International Waterbirth Conference in 1995.

Publication of Paul Johnson’s classic article 5 on the mechanisms that prevent or, conversely, stimulate breathing in the unborn baby during waterbirth would occur the following year but, in concluding his conference write up, Johnson, a Consultant Clinical Physiologist in the O&G Department at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, wrote:

“…if the onset of labour is spontaneous, and no drugs are administered, a fetus born with its cord intact, into warm, fresh water, not asphyxiated, is inhibited from breathing”6 – a process not dependant on presentation.

Initiation of breathing following waterbirth occurs once the baby surfaces and is exposed to cooler, dryer air and clamping the umbilical cord 6 – again, irrespective of presentation.

Sheila Kitzinger would report his additional comment that “if water births are of psychological and physiological benefit, it is logical that this benefit should apply to high-risk women too”.7

I knew deep water immersion to be a very powerful modality for achieving a relaxed state for the woman, enhancing vasodilation and placental perfusion and, therefore, oxygenation, of the tissues and organs, including the placenta during the normally stressing (not distressing) time of labour.

I had seen women become oblivious to everyone and everything as they sank into the pool. I had come to recognise the depth of sigh on entering the pool that signalled release of pain, fear, social etiquette and conversation – and these observations were irrespective of whether the baby was coming head or bottom first.

The Buoyancy and Warmth of Water

Another dimension was added when I attended a woman with twins, the second baby being a breech presentation. The woman had grown her babies well and began labour spontaneously at 40 weeks.

Due to the heaviness of her abdomen, she was drawn to labouring in water – her bath at home then, when labour was well established and she had travelled to her chosen birth place, the spa bath in the obstetric hospital.

There was a point in her labour where she needed to be more upright than reclining in the spa bath allowed, so we set up my free standing birth pool for her.

With the water up to the level of her breasts she became almost weightless in the pool, and was able to assume her intuitive positioning in a deep squat for the births of both her babies, the second of which had remained breech.

The woman reflected how supportive the water had been and how the upright position engaged her strength and ability to birth well.

Controlling Pelvic Pressure

When vaginal breech birth was a common occurrence 15 years or so ago, epidural anaesthesia was commonly recommended to overcome a premature urge to push. However, discussion with midwifery colleagues indicates a premature urge to push with a term breech baby is rare in woman-controlled positioning.

One woman who did experience significant pelvic pressure from the onset of labour with spontaneous rupture of membranes while having her first baby – a frank breech presentation – provided a piece to the mosaic of the use of water.

She controlled the urge to push by long and slow breathes during contractions and lying on her side on a floor mattress for most of her labour, rising only to crawl to the toilet on her hands and knees. After 12 hours of this, the pressure was overwhelming, even when lying.

While her good progress was evident from the lengthening burgundy buttock crease and her birthing energy, it was not time to use that expulsive energy. A vaginal examination confirmed a thin rim of cervix remained.

While a hands and knees position reduced the pressure, it was not until she lounged in the pool on her abdomen that the pressure again became tolerable. The pool was invaluable for enabling her to resume breathing over the contractions for the next three hours.

In the last hour prior to the birth, the woman commenced her grunting expulsions. As this had not brought her baby to a visible position in that time, I asked her to stand for one contraction to test the power of this feeling.

Simply standing engaged the pelvic pressure enough to bring the baby to almost rumping with the first push.

The second surge saw the baby rumped and progress so the popliteal spaces (back of the knees) were visible. With the next, he was born to the ankles, then descended quickly to wear his ‘perineal hat’ and his head was gently released without perineal trauma. All of this occurred without a contraction as the women responded to the pelvic pressure.

Assessing the Baby

The New Zealand Guideline Group’s best practice evidence-based guideline on breech labour and birth acknowledges that the evidence does not support continuous electronic foetal heart rate (EFM) monitoring by cardiotocography over intermittent auscultation.8

This is because, just as for well women and their babies with no alerting factors, there are no significant differences in standard measures of newborn wellbeing (including cerebral palsy and infant mortality) with continuous EFM in labour for ‘high risk’ situations, which frank or flexed legs breech presentation at term is deemed to be by some.

Only beneficial for its association with a reduced incidence of neonatal seizures, continuous EFM is associated with increased maternal morbidity by way of the accompanying increase in Caesarean and operative birth rates.9

At any given point the midwife needs to know that the baby is coping well with labour by assessment of his movements10 and listening to his heart beat.

As with any other labour for well women and babies, listening can be easily acheived with a Pinard stethoscope (or handheld, waterproof doppler) during water immersion.

Essential Elements of Physiological Breech Birth

Midwives commonly reflect on how their practice changes with attending waterbirths of cephalic presenting babies to become more ‘hands-off ’ during birth.

Confident that the water frequently dissipates urges to explosively push, while also supporting the woman’s perineal tissues and the baby as he is born, the midwife is drawn to a non touch vigilant attendance. This ‘hands off ’ in the absence of problems is the ‘golden rule’ during breech birth.

Maternal effort is an important part of achieving a ‘hands-off ’, spontaneous birth. As with any birthing, the woman needs to be supported to choose positions of comfort in the water which enhance her power and strength – kneeling, squatting, hands and knees or reclining.

Whichever birth position is chosen, the midwife needs to position herself so she can see both the advancing baby and the umbilical cord, and be in a position to palpate the umbilical cord if necessary.

The midwife may need ‘hands on’ for the birth of the head but the support of the water usually ensures gentle and woman- controlled birth of the baby’s head. Due to the reduction in gravity and an accompanying reduction in an urge to push for the head, the woman may need to be reminded to release the baby’s head.

Midwives who regularly attend waterbirths with cephalic presentation frequently reflect that if there is a problem during birth, for example, shoulder dystocia, they will initially try to correct it in the pool.

This avoids delay while utilising the water’s buoyancy so the woman can move easily to adopt very wide open positions that are needed for manoeuvres.

While Pinotte1 notes a reduced need for routine manipulations of the breech baby with waterbirth, in the rare circumstance that a manoeuvre is needed – to bring down stuck arms11 and/or flex, cradle and scoop out the baby’s head12 – these could also initially be done in the pool, again, avoiding delay.

The woman, however, would be asked to get out of the pool if problems were not easily remedied.

The Ongoing Mosaic

For some maternity professionals the issue of vaginal breech birth is no longer worth considering in the wake of the Term Breech Trial13 despite concerns about its methodological flaws.14-17

For others it remains a planned option.18-22 There will, of course, always be undiagnosed breech babies in labour, irrespective of the degree of antenatal scrutiny.

While some consider undiagnosed breech an ‘obstetric emergency’, the manner in which a midwife facilitates
a vaginal breech birth, first diagnosed when birth is imminent, is the sameas if it was diagnosed antenatally and a vaginal breech birth is planned, albeit the latter having obstetric backup available with the birth in an obstetric hospital.

The use of deep water immersion with mal-presentation (read: breech)
is contraindicated in hospital clinical guidelines on waterbirth, and the use of water is absent as a modality in vaginal breech birth guidelines.

Embracing these, giving birth in water to a breech baby would be out of the question for some maternity providers.

Yet others are very specific
 in seeing breech presentation as a positive indication for waterbirth because of the buoyancy afforded to the baby and umbilical cord, both of which are kept warm in the water until surfacing into the cooler air,1,23,24 contraindicated only if the breech labour is not progressive and/
or is complicated.25

Midwifery can have additional knowledge fragments to obstetric knowledge, gained by our deep relationships with women.

Being attentive to women who are called to use water through breech labour and birth and walking side by side with them during this time has added to my understanding of facilitating physiological breech birth.

We need to be able to share the practice wisdom which comes from our experiences, discussions and reflections. We also need to be able to do this without fear of repercussions that may be activated from that disclosure. As a result, we will continue to find ongoing pieces to the mosaic of breech waterbirth.

References:

Ponette H. Breech and twin deliveries in the water. Accessed 20 March 2000. Available at http://www.helsinki. fi/~lauhakan/whale/waterbaby/p6.html
Kitzinger S. Sheila Kitzinger’s letter from England. Birth 1991;18(3):170–171.
Harper B. Waterbirth basics – from newborn breathing to hospital protocols. Midwifery Today 2000;54:9– 10,12–15,68.
Odent M. Birth reborn. Souvenir Press: New York, 1984:103–105.
Johnson P. Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;103(3):202–208.
Johnson P. Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. In, Lawrence Beech BA (ed).Water birth unplugged. Proceedings of the First International Water Birth Conference. Books for Midwives: Cheshire, England, 1996:31–33.
Kitzinger S. Sheila Kitzinger’s letter from England: is water birth dangerous? Birth 1995; 22(3):172–173.
New Zealand Guidelines Group. Care of women with breech presentation or previous Caesarean birth. New Zealand Guidelines Group: Wellington, 2004:xxi, 32.
Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GML. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006066. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD006066.
Banks M. Utilising the unborn baby’s in-labour movements. New Zealand College of Midwives Journal 2003;29:6.
Banks M. Breech birth woman-wise. Birthspirit: Hamilton, New Zealand, 1998:88–89.
Ibid., pp. 90–91.
Hannah M, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicenter trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375–1383.
Glezerman M. Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;194(1):20–25.
Kotaska A. In the literature: combating coercion: breech birth, parturient choice, and the evolution of evidence-based maternity care. Birth 2007;34(2):176–180.
Keirse MJNC. Evidence-based childbirth only for breech babies? Birth 2002;29(1):55–59.
Goer H. When research is flawed: planned vaginal birth versus elective Cesarean for breech presentation. Accessed 14 August 2007. Available at http://www.lamaze.org/ Research/WhenResearchisFlawed/ VaginalBreechBirth/tabid/167/ Default.aspx
Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart J, Alexander S, Uzan S, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;194(4):1002–1011.
Hellsten C, Lindqvist PG, Olofsson P. Vaginal breech delivery: is it still an option? European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2003;111(2):122–128.
Sibony O, Luton D, Oury J, Blot P. Six hundred and ten breech versus 12,405 cephalic deliveries at term: is there any difference in the neonatal outcome? European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2003;107(2):140–144.
Giuliani A, Schöll WMJ, Basver A, Tamussino KF. Mode of delivery and outcome of 699 term singleton breech deliveries at a single centre. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;187(6):1694–1698.
van Roosmalen J, Rosendaal F. There is still room for disagreement about vaginal delivery of breech infants at term. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002;109(9):967–969.
Charkowsky I. In: Napierala S. Water birth: a midwife’s perspective. Bergin & Garvey: London, 1994:181–182.
Enning C. Personal communication, 2008.
Ponette H. The New Aquatic Maternity in Ostend. Accessed 20 March 2000. Available at http://www.helsinki. fi/~lauhakan/whale/waterbaby/p2.html

New Zealand College of Midwives – Use of water for labour & birth

The New Zealand College of Midwives (Inc) supports immersion of women in warm water during labour as a method of pain management.

There is no evidence that remaining in water for the birth of the baby leads to adverse outcomes for the mother or baby where the labour has been within normal parameters.
Definition:Water birth means where a baby is born fully submerged into water.Rationale:

  • Evidence supports immersion in warm water as an effective form of pain relief that reduces the use of narcotics.
  • There is no evidence to suggest that immersion in water during labour or birth in water leads to any detrimental effects for either the mother or her baby.
  • Evidence that immersion in water during labour reduces the length of active labour is inconclusive.
  • Evidence that birth in water reduces perineal trauma or blood loss is inconclusive.

Guidelines:

Midwives offering water immersion for labour and for birth are responsible for ensuring the information given to women is accurate and up to date. The following guidelines are recommended:

  • There are no adverse factors noted in foetal or maternal wellbeing during labour.
  • Baseline assessments of both maternal and baby wellbeing should be done prior to entering the bath/pool and assessments continued throughout the time in water as for any normal labour.
  • Vaginal examinations can be performed with the woman in water.
  • Pethidine should not be given to women labouring in water.
  • The water temperature should be kept as cool as the woman finds comfortable during the first stage of labour (around 35oC) and increased to no more than 37oC for the baby’s birth.
  • If maternal temperature rises more than 1oC above the baseline temperature then the water should be cooled or the woman encouraged to leave the bath/pool. Women need to be aware of this in advance.
  • Water temperature should be recorded as the woman enters the bath/pool and regularly during the time she remains in the pool.
  • Careful documentation should be kept of maternal and water temperatures, FHR and the approximate surface area of the woman’s body submerged.
  • The cord should not be clamped and cut until after the birth of the baby’s body.
  • The baby should be brought to the surface immediately, with the head facing down to assist the drainage of water from the baby’s mouth and nose.
  • The baby’s body can remain in the water to maintain warmth, unless the baby’s condition dictates otherwise. (Note: babies born in water may take slightly longer to establish respirations than those born into air. Maintain close observation of colour, heart rate and respirations.)
  • Third stage should be managed physiologically as for any other low risk birth. If oxytocin is required or third stage is prolonged the woman is assisted to leave the bath/pool.
  • Midwives must ensure that baths and pipes are thoroughly cleaned after use.

References:

Title: Labour and delivery in the birthing pool
Author: Forde, C, Creighton, S, Batty, A, Howden, J, Summers-Ma, S, and Ridgeway, G

Title: Warm tub bathing during labour: maternal and neonatal effects
Authors: Ohlsson, G, Buchave, P, Leandersson, U, Nordstrom, L, Rydhstrom, H, and Sjolin, I
Source: Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Vol 80, pp 311 – 314, 2001

Title: Immersion in water in the first stage of labour: a randomised controlled trial Authors: Eckert, K, Turnbull, D, and MacLennan, A
Source: Birth, Volume 28, No 2, pp 84–93, June 2001

Title: Immersion in water during first stage of labour
Author: Homer, C
Source: Letter to the editor, Birth, Vol. 29, No 1, March, 2002

Title: Waterbirths: a comparative study. A prospective study on more than 2000 waterbirths
Authors: Geissbuhler, V and Eberhard, J
Source: Foetal Diagnosis Therapy, Vol. 15, pp. 291 – 300, 2000

Title: Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth
Author: Nikodem, VC
Source: Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 2000

Title: Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal survey
Authors: Gilbert, R and Tookey, P
Source: British Medical Journal, 319 (7208), pp. 483 – 487, 1999

Title: Birth under water – to breathe or not to breath
Author: Johnson, P
Source: British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 103, 202-208, 1996

Title: Labour and birth in water: temperature of pool is important
Authors: Deans, AC and Steer, PJ
Source: British Medical Journal. 311:390-391, 1995

Title: Waterbirth – An attitude to care
Author: Garland, D
Source: Books for Midwives, 1995. Chesire

Title: Foetal hypothermia risk from warm water immersion
Author: Charles, C
Source: British Journal of Midwifery

Water birth and newborn GBS disease

Judy Slome Cohain

originally published December 2010

Abstract: A single case of early onset newborn Group B Strep was documented among 4,432 hospital births into water in the absence of GBS prophylaxis, suggesting that low risk women giving birth into water have a 300% lower rate of newborn GBS disease newborns than dry, full term births delivered by current GBS guidelines.

Possible explanations include:

1) Inoculating the baby with mother’s intestinal flora at birth protects against GBS infection;

2) Bath water washes off the GBS bacteria acquired during the descent through the vagina;

3) Pool dilutes the GBS among a multitude of other intestinal bacteria which compete with GBS;

4) Early onset GBS disease is prevented by lower level of interventions at water birth which promotes maternal and fetal immune function;

5) Kangaroo care after water birth promotes immune function of mother newborn dyad. Much is still to be learned from research documenting birth into water.

Group B Strep (GBS) inhabits the intestines.

Some minutes before the time of birth, the descending fetal head usually causes fecal matter to be excreted. If the woman is in water, the feces enters the water.

A bathtub can be quickly emptied before the fetal head is born.

If she is in a pool, the warm water is likely to be inoculated with GBS. Warm wet conditions enhance the reproduction of bacteria, increasing their numbers exponentially every few minutes.

If the baby’s is born into the warm, feces-exposed water, the baby is exposed to the mother’s intestinal bacteria.

Exposing the baby to the mother’s own natural flora is known to be one of many protective processes that are meant to take place immediately after birth.

Even so, birthing a baby into a feces soiled pool may be considered by many to be likely to increase the risk of newborn infection.

However, evidence of adverse outcomes is lacking.

A report of 4,030 births into water reports no deaths from early onset GBS and one GBS infection.

(1) Information is lacking as to whether the reported GBS-infected baby may also have had a chromosomal abnormality and/or increased blood loss from a snapped umbilical cord or shoulder dystocia.

When this study was conducted, the full term dry birth rate for GBS disease was six times higher (1 in 588) than the waterbirth GBS rate.

The current full term dry birth GBS rate is three times higher (1 in 1,450) than the reported waterbirth rate.(3)

The Cochrane review (2) includes three additional studies tallying another 402 women who birthed their babies into water for which no cases of newborn GBS infection occurred.

The full term waterbirth GBS rate is therefore, a fraction of the dry birth GBS infection rate even after implementation of the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) protocols.

The rate of early onset GBS disease among newborns born before 37 weeks gestation was 1 in 330(3).

Unfortunately research is lacking for whether this rate could also be lowered by birthing into water.

The 2010 CDC Guidelines (5) begins with the statement : “Maternal intrapartum GBS colonization is the primary risk factor for early-onset disease in infants.”

This statement is derived solely from data from interventive land birth, therefore making an incorrect assumption that all births take place in interventive hospital environments.

The evidence regarding GBS and waterbirth is missing from the CDC Guidelines. Objecting to the hospital waterbirth data on the basis of it not being randomized or a small sample is negated by the fact that there are no RCT trials supporting CDC Guidelines(4) and the largest samples included in the new CDC protocols are nonrandomized samples of 5,000 and 7,600 used to
1
support the low rate of anaphylaxis in women given prophylactic antibiotics. ( 5 )
The CDC(5) states definitively that “GBS also can invade through intact membranes (32,33)”.

The words ‘invade through intact membranes’ explicitly describes GBS making a hole rather than a blood borne mechanism.

This statement contradicts a later statement in the same protocols that early newborn GBS infection following elective CS in the presence of intact membranes is either completely or almost non-existant.

The only references supporting GBS ‘invading thru intact membranes’ are from 1984(6) and 1988(7) and do not refer to full term birth.

The first reports on 15 births less than 1000 g, before 28 weeks and all suffering from symptomatic intrauterine infections before birth.

The second reference states: “10-50% of group B streptococcal infections occur in the presence of intact membranes” which is a wild supposition not supported by any other research.

A mechanism is lacking for how GBS might have crossed both the amnion’s and chorion’s thick cross-linkages in the collagen triple helix that provide strength to the collagen.

The compact fibroblast layers of connective tissue beneath the basement membrane form a fibrous barrier. Interstitial collagens predominate and form parallel bundles of collagen fibrils that maintain the mechanical integrity of the amnion.

As an experienced practitioner knows, even with the aid of a sharp amniohook, it can be challenging to break thru two layers of healthy membranes without the presence of a bulging bag of water.

A close examination of CDC guidelines brings into question why certain dubious research is included and other research missing.

While birthing into water may appear counterintuitive, evidence strongly suggests that it protects babies from GBS disease.

Five possible mechanisms for how water birth may protect against GBS disease are suggested in the abstract.

While infusing women with high doses of IV antibiotics to suppress the GBS before the baby passes through, has been widely accepted as current protocol, the Cochrane review emphasizes the lack of RCT studies and the high risk of bias in the 3 small studies that exist. (4)

Routine antibiotic prophylaxis makes light of the biological adaptive abilities of bacteria.

Bacteria have developed many intriguing mechanisms like selectively pumping antibiotics out of their bodies and even digesting antibiotics for nutrition.(8)

The microorganism producing the antibiotic, must have a mechanism to keep itself unharmed by the antibiotic it produces.

Therefore, perfect antibiotic ‘resistance’, a euphemism for immunity, exists before the antibiotic is created.

GBS disease is increasing.

The overall incidence of early onset GBS disease of the newborn showed an initial downward trend from 2000 to 2003 (0.52 to 0.31 cases per 1,000 live births) followed by an increase from 2003 to 2006 (0.31 to 0.40 cases per 1,000 live birth.(9)

Not only is early onset GBS increasing but late onset GBS which is immune to prophylaxis is also increasing above previous levels (2003–2005).(9)

Finally, adult GBS has increased by 32% and it is predicted that this rate will continue to increase.(9)

Seven percent of adults are allergic to penicillin and therefore already have no effective treatment for the 20% of GBS that is erythromycin- and clindamycin- resistant(4).

In addition, a new disease that causes painful vaginal burning sensation without relief for years, called long-term symptomatic GBS vaginitis, first described in case studies in 1997, is now becoming more and more common and likely involves antibiotic resistant strains of GBS, since antibiotics are not consistently useful to eradicate it.(10)

Hospital Birth into Water data appears to provide the lowest Newborn GBS disease outcomes available without increasing the dangers of antibiotic resistance.

References:

1. Gilbert R.E. and P.A. Tookey. 1999. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ 319: 483–87.

2. Cluett, E.R. and E. Burns. 2009. Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub3.

3. Phares C.R., et al. 2009. Epidemiology of invasive group B streptococcal disease in the United States, 1999-2005. JAMA 299(17): 2056–65.

4. Ohlsson A, Shah VS. Intrapartum antibiotics for known maternal Group B streptococcal colonization. Cochrane Databaseof Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD007467.

5. Prevention of Perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease. Revised Guidelines from CDC. 2010. November 19, 2010/59(RR10);1-32.

6. Desa DJ, Trevenen CL. Intrauterine infections with group B beta-haemolytic streptococci. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984;91:237–9.

7. Katz V, Bowes WA Jr. Perinatal group B streptococcal infections across intact amniotic membranes. J Reprod Med 1988;33:445–9.

8.http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=166B51F8-DE9C-DCF8- 9132AF8A95CA0642 Accessed 1 Sept 2010.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. Trends in perinatal group B streptococcal disease — United States, 2000–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 58(5): 109–12.

10. Cohain, J.S. 2009. Long term Symptomatic GBS Vulvovaginitis — eight cases resolved with freshly cut garlic. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 146(1): 110–11.

Aspects of the humanisation of water birth

23 October 2015: Yesie Aprillia S.Si.T, M.Ke

Originally published 31 January 2011

In the development of modern obstetrics the most important thing to be performed is the humanization of the labor and birth process.

This is an approach focused on the family, patient autonomy and pain management. This effort is essential for fetal and neonate safety.

The Royal College of Gynecologist and Obstetricians published guidelines, protocols were agreed upon, to prevent complications that are not predictable.2, 3

Thus guidelines are absolutely needed by the service provider of water birth. Guidelines or protocols are a main reference when formulating a basic approach to the patient and her family.

Some of the existing research indicates that being in the water during labor and childbirth provides a significant advantage in birth outcomes.

Each maternity unit should have a policy of water birth, including guidelines for patient preparation including information about water birth.

Service providers should be required to provide guidance on the process of childbirth to mother and family.2, 3,4,5,6

Understanding the risk factors that will be experienced by the mother and the baby is important, so that the prospective mother is completely ready to do the water birth.

Labor protocol is a matter that absolutely must be upheld to prevent risks and complications during labor.6

Considering risk for the baby is important.

However, the majority of medical experts believe that this situation is very rare, because babies will not breathe until the baby is exposed to air.7, 8

In 1999, Gilbert, et al published their research in 1996 by taking a sample of 4032 infants born in the water.

This study concluded that the prenatal mortality is not significantly higher than the risk of conventional childbirth.9

In the protocol designed for water birth, the Australian Government also asserts that all health workers involved are responsible for any information given to women candidates in each provider’s water birth techniques.

Data, which is provided, should be accurate and up to date .10 Patients have many birth choices to consider making informed consent important when choosing water birth. 7,8,9

In general, preparing the mother for waterbirth does not differ much than preparing the mother for conventional birth.

A conducive environment for the prospective mother during water birth strongly supports the success of this program. The role of the assisting family is important as well in the preparation of childbirth. 11

Patient Selection

Water birth is generally given to the term pregnant woman with no complications.10, 12

Confinement terms for water birth:

  1. Low-risk pregnancy
  2. No vaginal, urine, or skin infection
  3. Vital sign within normal limits and infants CTG normal (baseline, variability, acceleration)
  4. Warm water is used for relaxation and pain management after cervix dilatation of 4-5 cm or more.
  5. Patients cooperative with birth attendant instruction, including a possible exit from the pool if necessary.

Criteria / Indications 10, 13.14

  1. It is a mother’s choice
  2. Normal pregnancy > / 37 weeks
  3. Single fetus with head presentation
  4. No use of drugs-sedative
  5. Spontaneous broken membranes < 24 hours
  6. Non-clinical criteria such as staff and equipment
  7. No pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia, uncontrolled blood sugar level, etc.
  8. Normal heart rate
  9. Clear amniotic fluid
  10. Spontaneous childbirthing or after using misoprostol or pitocin
  11. There is no bleeding. It is difficult to assess the loss of blood in water birth due to the lack of attendant experience in water birth. If that be the case, some service providers may prefer to deliver the placenta outside of the pool.

Contraindications 10,13,16

  1. Infection that can be transmitted through the skin and blood.
  2. Febrile mother or other evidence of infection.
  3. Herpes genitalis. Herpes is very easily transmitted through water.
  4. Abnormal fetal heartbeat.
  5. Abnormal vaginal bleeding.
  6. HIV, Hepatitis.
  7. Macrosomia.
  8. Meconium. A light or medium meconium can be said normal in childbirth. However if thick meconium appears in the water, the attendant should clear or help the patient out from water birth pool.
  9. Breech presentation of the baby.
  10. Multiple pregnancy.
  11. Babies who are estimated to be born premature (2 weeks more or before the time of confinement)
  12. Condition that needs continual monitoring unless there is a condition where the waterproof transducers (Doppler) are available.

Technical Aspects

Provision facilities and infrastructure of water birth in general can be adjusted with the place where water birth will be implemented.

Clinics, hospitals and even at home can also be good settings for water birth as long as criteria is still met and the rules and guidelines are followed.

Based on the above, the technical procurement of water birth that must be owned: 16

Technical procurements on hand:

  1. Confinement pool
  2. Water pump: electric water pump works more quickly than hand water pump
  3. Water pipe: choose a quite long water pipe in order to reach water sources and confinement pool.
  4. Faucet hose adapter: choose the adapter that is easily removed and not part of other circuits.

Other suggested equipment:

  1. Debris removal Net. It is normal for the mother to defecate during second stage of labor, in this case, use debris removal net to retrieve and dispose of it.
  2. “Y” pipe adapter and End Cap to connect between Faucet adapter and water pipe.
  3. Hand-held Mirror. Many women in labor who start to push in hands and knees position. This position makes the mother unable to see the baby when the baby is born. By placing the mirror at the bottom of the foot and the light to the mirror, the mother can see the birth process easily.
  4. The lamp can be placed in the water directed to the mirror at the top so that the mother can see the birth process easily
  5. Thermometer in the water. This device helps care providers to regulate water temperature.
  6. Submersible water sucker. Portable sucker pipe means that pipes can be used to drain the pond without the need to find a power source.
  7. Gloves of sufficient length to protect care providers while listening to the heart of the baby or checking dilatation.

In addition to standard equipment, some equipment below should also available in the water birth service: 12

  1. Maternal thermometer.
  2. Waterproof Doppler.
  3. Water resistance cloth.
  4. Additional that can help the mother out of the pool if necessary.
  5. Knee bolster, cushion, low stool and birthing balls should preferably be provided so that care providers are comfortable (Burn & Kitsinger 2001).

In 1995, Alderdice et al., conducted research on 4494 retrospective confinement in the water made by midwives in England and Wales. They reported the deaths of 12 infants, 51 cases of illness (respiratory infection).

However, the researchers concluded that no evidence found that confinement in the water is less safe than conventional labor 20 American Academy of Pediatrics 19 mentions that the safety and effectiveness of the baby in water birth cannot be confirmed.

Meanwhile, the British Pediatric Surveillance8 mention deaths or the need for special handling of babies born in water from years 1994-1996.

Some reports of cases21 mention that there were sepsis of the baby because of pool contamination, but the numbers cannot be proven scientifically. Based on that, the procedure to maintain pool water cleanliness needs more attention by each provider of water birth.

Below are the procedures and guidelines quoted from the Australian government for the water birth: 12.

  1. Clean portable swimming pools with disposable liners
  2. In the practice of swimming pools, spa regimens should use solvents in jets, sucker pipes, pipes and filters. Between births the tub must be cleaned by using liquid Chlorine each time it is used.
  3. Cleaning fluid is a liquid that is commonly used in hospitals or who has received approval by the local organization.
  4. Birth tubs should be dried under the air.
  5. Birth tubs before re-use should be cleaned again.
  6. Reinforced with routine maintenance.
  7. Routine testing is done for Legionella in hospital water supply where the test bacteria is adjusted to the recommendations of local government.

Controversy about water birth has been around since 1723. It cannot be not separated from the various research results that have been conducted by various researchers in various countries.

In fact this method is widespread and popular in the community. Use of analgesia during labor is low and comfort earned by the mother during childbirth is a strong attraction for the candidates and the water birth services.

Quality improvement and standardization of services in accordance with guidelines is the key to comfort and safety of this technique. Therefore, researchers should continue to seek accurate information so that hey may develop reasonable guidelines for water birth. Valid research, of course, is supported by good research methods and controls.

Hopefully in the future with the increasing number of randomized and controlled trials we will be able to improve the scientific assessment of water birth. In summary water birth can be one of the best methods of childbirth sought after by expecting family’s aiming for baby’s gentle landing on earth.

References

  1. Grunebaum A, Chervenak Fa. In the baby or the bathwater: which one should be discarded?J. Perinatat.Med 2004; 32:306-7
  2. Alfirevic,Z,et al. Immersion in water during labour and birth (Royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologist/Royal college of midwives joint statement no.1).2006;{5 screen}.. Available from: URL: http:/ www.rcm.org.uk/info/docs/RCOG_RCM_Birth Accessed: May 12,2009
  3. Duley, L.M.M. Birth in Water (RCOG Statement no.1).2001:{3 screens}. Available from: URL: http://www.birthbalance.com/stories/serenity.pdf
  4. Palmer, J. In water during labour and birth. 2001; {4 screens}. Available from: URL: http://www.mybirthdesign.com
  5. Chapman,B. Water birth protocol: Five North Island hospital in NeW Zealand. College of midwives Journal.2004; 30:20-4
  6. Singh U, Schereiner A, Macdermott R, Johnston D, Seymour J, Garland D,et al.Guidelines for Water Birth within the midwifery led unit and at home (Dartford and Gravesham-NHS Trust).2006;{4 screen}. Available from: http//www.darentvalley hospital.nhs.uk . Accessed: May 13,2009
  7. Parker PC, Boles RG. In pseudomonas otitis media and bacterimia following a water birth. Pediatrics 1997; 99:653-4
  8. True about water risk and complications. 2006; {2 screen}. Availabel from: http://www.water birth risk often involve various problems with breathing.htm
  9. Gilbert,RE, Tookey, P.A. In Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal
  10. Garland,D, Choo,YP, and birth –The royal college of midwives.2000;{4 screens}. Available from:URL: http://www.rcm.org.uk/info/docs/RCOG_RCM_Birth . Accesed: May 14,2009
  11. M (Ref not provided – ed. Active Birthpools)
  12. Policy-First stage labour in water. Government of South Australia.2005;{9 screens}. Available from: http://www.health.sa.gov.au/ppg/portals/0/waterbirth_First_Stage_Labour_in_Water_Policy_December_2005.pdf . Accesed: May 14,2009
  13. Guidelines for water at OHSU. Oregon health and sciences university water birth guidelines.2001;{1 screen}. Available from: URL: http://www.data.memberclicks.com/site/wi/OHSU_2001-guidelines.pdf .
  14. Water birth – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Wikipedia foundation,, INC). 2007; {8 screens}. Available from: URL: http:/ www.enwikipedia.org/wiki/water_birth . Accessed: May 14,2009
  15. Anonymus. Waterbirth guidelines.2009;{1 screen}. Available at: URL: http://www.yourwater birth.com/water-birth-pools-liners-c-1.html.
  16. Roberts D. In guidelines for the use of water during labour and in the event of deliveries. Liverpool womens hospital NHS trust. 2002;{4 screen}. Available at:URL: http://www . Accessed: May 14,2009
  17. Burns E, Kitzinger S. Midwifery guidelines for use of water in labour. Oxford Centre for Health Care Research and Development, Oxford Brookes University, 2001
  18. Garland D. Waterbirth-an attidute to care. Cheshire: Books for Midwives,1995
  19. Batton, DG,et al. Underwater births. Pediatrics,2005; 115;5:1413-14
  20. Alderdice F, Renfrew M, Marchant S,et al. Labour and birth in water in England and Wales. BMJ 1995;310:837
  21. Vochem M, Vogt M, Daring G. Sepsis in a newborn due to pseudomonas aeruginosa from contaminated tub bath. BMJ 2001;345:378

MIDIRS: The use of water during childbirth

20 November 2015:

Since the early 1980s use of immersion in water during labour and birth has been increasingly promoted to enable women to relax, help them cope with pain, and maximise their feelings of control and satisfaction1-4.

In 1992 the House of Commons Health Committee recommended all hospitals provide the option of a birthing pool where practicable5. Currently few women give birth in water but the option of immersion or showering during the first stage of labour is commonly available.6-8

Although problems have arise which have been attributed to water use, the results of the most formal evaluations have not clearly associated water use with harmful outcomes for mother or baby 3,9-13.

The lack of robust evidence of harm or benefit means that childbearing women and health practitioners alike are subject to conflicting opinion about the usefulness and safest of water, particularly for birth.

However, a recent observational study over a nine year period concluded that ‘waterbirth was associated with low risks where obstetric guidelines were followed’16.

At present in the UK there is no reliable measurement of the rate of birth in water.
A national survey of maternity units in the UK in 2002 found that 63% (216/342) had a birthing pool8; 67% (228/342) reported having at least one midwife trained to provide support for women giving birth in water and 36% (121/342) said that at least half of the midwives working in their unit were trained to support birth in water.

How is water used during labour?

Water use ranges from informal, for example when a woman in early labour decides to get into her bath at home before going to hospital, to formal use in a specially designed birthing pool. Informal use in a domestic bath or shower is often initiated by a woman herself to help her cope at home before her labour is well established.

Formal use implies either that a woman has actively chosen to use water as part of her plan for labour and/or childbirth or that a health professional, usually a midwife, has suggested use during established labour.

Why water use is promoted

Use of immersion in water during childbirth has largely been driven by pregnant and birthing women17 and supported by midwives. During the first stage of labour it is advocated to shorten labour and help a woman relax and cope with contractions, feel more in control, and to reduce intervention by health professionals3,18-21.

During the second stage, proponents use it to allow perineal tissues to stretch spontaneously, birth to occur with minimum intervention, and to provide the baby with a gentler transition into extra-uterine life. Expectant management of the third stage is likely if a woman is in water.

Limitations on water use

Many health professionals consider that water use during the first stage of labour in uncomplicated pregnancy is unlikely to harm the mother or baby22,23, whilst others have concerns about water use at any point in labour14.

Local clinical guidelines may restrict water use to women considered at ‘low’ obstetric risk7, and other aspects of care may be prescribed, for example when and how to monitor the temperature of the water, the degree of cervical dilatation at which to begin its use24, and whether the immersion is considered safe for all stages of labour6,25.

Problems associated with possible risk of infection or cross infection caused by amniotic fluid, blood, and faeces have been described26-28 and some hospitals have restricted use of birthing pools to women who have tested HIV negative during pregnancy29.

However, at a multi-disciplinary consensus meeting held in London in 1996, it was agreed that mandatory HIV testing for prospective users of birthing pools could be an extreme reaction to the perceived risks and that high standards of pool hygiene would be an appropriate way forward30. Local infection control guidelines should cover the use of water pools25,31 and procedures to minimise risk of cross infection13, 32.

It has been suggested that high water temperature can cause serious changes in feto-maternal haemodynamic regulation and fetal thermoregulation33. It has been reported that fetal tachycardia can be reduced by cooling the water34 and most providers and clinical guidelines specify a temperature range within which the water should be maintained during the first and second stage of labour7,35.

The prospect of a woman giving birth in water can cause anxiety about how to deal with unexpected emergencies such as shoulder dystocia, the need to avoid the baby inhaling water, or being unaware that the umbilical cord has been severed11.

Despite the fact that it denies women choice about birth, one response has been to limit water use to first stage only6. Development of agreed clinical protocols to deal with unexpected complications25 and providing training which allows3 staff to achieve relevant competencies is key to enabling real choice for women about use of water.

There are theoretical risks of increased blood loss, retained placenta, or water embolism, and professional advice is often to conduct the third stage out of water25.

Because water adds to the difficulty of estimating blood loss accurately, it has been proposed that blood loss would be more appropriately estimated as being either more or less than 500ml36 and that the overall physical condition of the woman should be used as the most important indicator to assess the impact of any bleeding37.

In summary, although not universally accepted, first stage water use is less controversial than immersion for the second or third stage of labour22,23,38.

The research evidence

The effects of water use during the first stage of labour on maternal and fetal outcomes have been evaluated in several randomised controlled trials4,9,10,12,13,39 with sample sizes ranging from 60 to 123934.

The use of water has been shown to reduce the rate of augmentation40; however, no trial has been large enough to measure the effect of water use on important neonatal outcomes such as perinatal death or other serious neonatal or maternal morbidity.

In addition, there has often been significant cross-over between study groups4,12, reducing the likelihood of identifying clear differences between women allocated to water use and those not.

A systematic review of eight trials41 indicated a statistically significant reduction in the use of pain relief with no such significant difference in the rate of operative deliveries or in neonatal outcomes.

It concluded that while the use of water in the first stage of labour can be of benefit to some women, there is no evidence at present to support or not support a woman’s choice to give birth in water.

Retrospective comparison has been made of women who have used water with those who have not42,43.

However, there are considerable difficulties in interpreting such studies because of the possibility that the results are inherently biased.

In the same way, findings of cohort studies which suggest benefit for water use in terms of pain relief and increased rate of cervical dilatation44-47, or those which indicate differences in rates of maternal and neonatal infection48-50, are also open to criticism.

A recent study16 compared neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality for spontaneous singleton births that took place in water or on land.

This was an observational study over a nine year period and data were obtained through standardised questionnaires for 9,518 births, of which 3,617 were waterbirths and 5,901 landbirths.

Statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups; women who gave birth using water were less likely to suffer serious perineal trauma, use no analgesia and have a lower blood loss than women in the landbirth group.

Maternal and neonatal infection rates were the same for both groups, but more landbirth babies had neonatal complications requiring transfer to an external NICU.

During the study, there were neither maternal nor neonatal deaths related to spontaneous labor.

The authors acknowledge the potential bias that could arise from the self-selection issue but argue that this is well accounted for in the analysis.They conclude that waterbirths are associated with low risks for both mother and child when obstetrical guidelines are followed.

Another study51 based in a centre for low risk women was a retrospective case review over a five year period of 1355 births in water.

When compared with land births over a corresponding period, women who gave birth in water had significantly fewer episiotomies with no evidence of a corresponding rise in lacerations, a reduction in the length of the first stage of labour, no increase in the risk of acquired infection or aspiration pneumonia and considerably lower levels of analgesia use.

Neonatal condition assessed by arterial cord blood pH, base excess and birth weight showed no differences.The authors conclude that this represents a realistic option for women at low risk of complications.

Many reports about water use are case series1,20,52-62 and focus on perceived benefits of water use for the mother, her baby and birth attendant.

These include shorter labour52, less use of pharmacological analgesics46,53, less intervention by care givers19, lower rate of perineal trauma60-62, and increased satisfaction with the experience of labour and birth54.

By contrast, some case reports have highlighted serious problems such as fetal overheating33,34, neonatal sepsis28, near drowning63 or death64.

Overall, reviews of the evidence21,23,65,66 conclude that appropriately large-scale research is still required to evaluate rigorously the physiological effects13, clinical outcomes, and economic impact of water use.

What we don’t know

The current evidence about water use remains quite heavily dependent on case series and comparison studies that include varying sized samples.

Therefore, reliable evidence about efficacy and effectiveness is still equivocal67.

  • Outstanding issues which require evaluation include:
  •  is water use causally associated with an increase in perinatal mortality or serious perinatal morbidity?
  •  at what dilatation should a woman be advised to begin water use?
  •  does the size or shape of the water container affect outcomes?
  •  if water has an effect on important physical/psychological outcomes for mothers or babies, are there particular women who should avoid using water during labour?
  •  to what extent immersion in water affects the length of labour?

Implications for maternity

Water use during the first stage of labour is offered by the majority of maternity care provider units in the UK and most offer support for water birth8.

Introduction of, and sustained suppor t for, water use may have considerable implications for service governance68.

However, not all costs fall to providers of care; a substantial cost burden is likely to be borne by labouring women themselves during informal use in domestic baths and showers or by hiring specially designed pools for use in their home or in a maternity unit.

Most maternity units have installed a water pool for use in labour8 and although installation and maintenance of a specially designed pool in a maternity unit involves obvious financial cost, this may be offset if there is a reduction in analgesia and anaesthetic use44.

There is evidence that formal water use means that at least one midwife will be in constant attendance during the first stage of labour and that at least two will be in attendance for birth7.

This level of staffing may be difficult to sustain and may have implications for equity of care for women who do not use water22.

Clear strategies for the training, preparation and support of staff who offer use of water during labour are recognised as essential7,25,31,37,44.

Key components of these include clarification of the roles of different maternity health professionals, multi-disciplinary development of local protocols, development of guidelines for clinical practice, and short-term secondment of midwives to learn alongside practitioners skilled and experienced in water use.

Implications for practice

Women may choose to use immersion in water during labour and/or birth. Midwives and other maternity care workers should therefore be knowledgeable about the evidence in terms of potential advantages and disadvantages.

Given the current quality of reliable evidence, effective practice is likely to be informed and influenced substantially by shared experience and personal observation.

Disproportionate weight may therefore be placed on perceived disadvantages or advantages and credibility given to outcomes which may not be associated causally with water use.

Practitioners should be alert to the evolving evidence base which underpins the use of water.

  •  Immersion in water during childbirth is a care option women may wish to choose and which health professionals have a responsibility to discuss and support using clear and balanced information.
  •  As with any labour or birth, it is essential to maintain systematic, contemporaneous records and to monitor and record routine observations about the well-being of the mother and the fetus. These data should be used to audit care and gather information about outcomes.
  •  Water temperature should be measured regularly using a thermometer and recorded.The water temperature should be comfortable for the woman and should be not more than 37°C during the first stage of labour and between 36-37°C in the second stage.
  •  Maternal faeces, meconium and blood clots should be removed from the water using a sieve, and effective cleaning of pools before/after use should be carried out to minimise risk of infection or cross-infection.
  •  Birth in water: the baby should be born fully submerged and be brought gently and without delay to the surface so that he/she can make their first respiratory efforts in air.
  •  Comprehensive, large scale research is required to address questions about the safety and effectiveness of using water during labour and/or birth.

Reproduced from Midirs 2005, last revised Jan 2005, review date Jan 2007. Informed Choice is supported by the Royal College of Midwives and the National Childbirth Trust.

References

  1. Odent M. Bir th under water. Lancet 1983;2:1476-7.
  2. Rosenthal MJ.Warm-water immersion in labor and birth. Female Patient 1991;16:35-47.
  3. Balaskas J, Gordon Y. Water birth. London:Thorsons, 1992.
  4. Rush J, Burlock S, Lambert K et al.The effects of whirlpool baths in labor: a randomized, controlled trial. Birth 1996;23:136-43.
  5. House of Commons (1991-92). Health Committee. Second report. Maternity services. HC 29-I. London, HMSO, 1992.
  6. Alderdice F, Renfrew M, Marchant S et al. Labour and bir th in water in England and Wales, BMJ 1995;310:837.
  7. Marchant S,Alderdice F,Ashurst H et al.Labour and birth in water:national variations in practice.Br J Midwifery 1996;4:408-12,429-30.
  8. Gold L. Good Birth Guide. London:Vermillion, 2002.
  9. Schorn MN, McAllister JL, Blanco JD.Water immersion and the effect on labor. J Nurse Midwifery 
1993;38:336-42.
  10. Cammu H, Clasen K,Van Wettere L et al.‘To bathe or not to bathe’ during the first stage of labor. 
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73:468-72.
  11. Gilbert RE,Tookey PA. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: 
surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ 1999;319:483-7.
  12. EckertK,TurnbullD,MacLennanA.Immersioninwaterinthefirststageoflabor:arandomized 
controlled trial. Birth 2001;28:84-93.
  13. Woodward J,Kelly SM.A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of waterbirth versus land birth. 
BJOG 2004;111:537-45.
  14. Chamberlain G. Statement on birth underwater. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1993.
  15. FlintC.Waterbirthandtheroleofthemidwife.In:BeechBALed.Waterbirthunplugged.Hale:Books for Midwives Press, 1996:60-2.
  16. GeissbuehlerV, Stein S, Eberhard J.Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med 2004;32(4):308-14.
  17. Richmond H.Women’s experience of waterbirth. Practising Midwife 2003;6:26-31
  18. Labourandbirthinwater.London:NCT,2002.
  19. Birthwithoutviolence.Reved.London:Mandarin,1991.
  20. Church LK.Water birth: one birthing center’s observations. J Nurse Midwifery 1989;34:165-70.
  21. McCandlishR,RenfrewM.Immersioninwaterduringlaborandbirth:theneedforevaluation.Birth 1993;20:79-85.
  22. Mills MS, Stirrat GM.Water immersion and water birth. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 1996;6:35-39.
  23. Johnson P. Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:202-8.
  24. ErikssonM,MattssonLA,LadforsL.Earlyorlatebathduringthefirststageoflabour:arandomised study of 200 women. Midwifery 1997;13:146-8.
  25. Birthinwater.London:RCOG,2001. http://www.rcog.org.uk [accessed June 2003]
  26. ParkerPC,BolesRG.Pseudomonasotitismediaandbacteremiafollowingawaterbirth.Pediatrics 1997;99:653.
  27. RidgwayGL,TedderRS.Birthingpoolsandinfectioncontrol.Lancet1996;347:1051-2.
  28. Hawkins S.Water vs conventional births:infection rates compared.NursTimes 1995;91(11):38-40.
  29. TrustdemandsHIVtestforpoolbirths.NursTimes1996;92(2):9.
  30. HIVtransmissioninbirthingpools.London:TerrenceHigginsTrust,1996.
  31. Royal College of Midwives. The use of water in labour and birth. London: Royal College of Midwives, 2000.
  32. Schulster L, Chinn RYW. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health care facilities. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003;52/RR-10:20-1.
  33. RosevearSK,FoxR,MarlowNetal.Birthingpoolsandthefetus.Lancet1993;342:1048-9.
  34. DeansAC,SteerPJ.Temperatureofpoolisimportant.BMJ1995;311:390-1.
  35. Waterbirth:anattitudetocare.Hale:BooksforMidwivesPress,1995:66.
  36. Theuseofwaterduringbirth.London:RCM,1994.
  37. Beech BAL.Water birth – a passing fad? Mod Midwife 1997;7(5):11-4.
  38. RosserJ.Iswaterbirthsafe?Thefactsbehindthecontroversy.MIDIRSMidwiferyDig1994;4:4-6.
39.
  39. Ohlsson G, Buchhave P, Leandersson U et al.Warm tub bathing during labor: maternal and neonatal effects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:311-4.
  40. Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K et al. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ 2004;328:314-318.
  41. CluettER,NikodemVC,McCandlishREetal.Immersioninwaterinpregnancy,labourandbirth. The Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews 2004, issue 1.
  42. Burke E,KilfoyleA.A comparative study:waterbirth and bedbirth.Midwives 1995;108:3-7.
43.
  43. Otigbah CM,Dhanjal MK,Harmsworth G et al.A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;91:15-20.
44.
  44. LenstrupC,SchantzA,BergetAetal.Warmtubbathduringdelivery.ActaObstetGynecolScand 1987;66:709-12.
  45. Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA.Warm tub bath after spontaneous rupture of the membranes. Birth 1992;19:57-63.
  46. GeissbuhlerV,Eberhard J.Waterbirths:a comparative study.Fetal DiagnTher 2000;15:291-300. 47.
  47. AirdIA,LuckasMJM,BuckettWMetal.Effectsofintrapartumhydrotherapyonlabourrelated parameters. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;37:137-42.
48.
  48. AndersenB,GyhagenM,NielsenTF.Warmbathduringlabour.Effectsonlabourdurationand maternal and fetal infectious morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;16:326-30.
  49. Eriksson M, Ladfors L, Mattsson LA et al.Warm tub bath during labor.A study of 1385 women with prelabor rupture of the membranes after 34 weeks of gestation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:642-4.
  50. FordeC,CreightonS,BattyAetal.Labouranddeliveryinthebirthingpool.BrJMidwifery 1999;7:165-71.
  51. Thoni A, Moroder L.Waterbirth: a safe and natural delivery method: experience after 1355 waterbirths in Italy.MidwiferyToday 2004;70:44-8.
  52. Garland D, Jones K.Waterbirth,‘first stage’ immersion or non-immersion? Br J Midwifery 6 1994;2:113-20.
  53. Rosenthal M.The use of warm immersion in labour at the Family Birthing Centre of Upland (California). In: Beech BAL edWater birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:92-5.
  54. HaddadF.Labourandbirthinwater:anobstetrician’sobservationsoveradecade.In:BeechBALed. Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:96-108.
  55. BurnsE,GreenishK.Poolinginformation.NursTimes1993;89(8):47-9.
56.
  56. Nightingale C.Water and pain relief – observations of over 570 births at Hillingdon. In: Beech BAL ed.Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:63-9.
57.
  57. Muscat J.A thousand water births:selection criteria and outcome.In:Beech BAL ed.Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:77-81.
58.
  58. AdamM.WaterbirthinVienna:facts,thoughtsandphilosophyoftheGeburtshausNussdorf.In: Beech BAL ed.Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:82-7.
59.
  59. UllerA.WaterbirthinDenmark.In:BeechBALed.Waterbirthunplugged.Hale:BooksforMidwives Press, 1996:119-29.
  60. Brown L.The tide has turned: audit of water birth. Br J Midwifery 1998;6:236-43.
  61. GarlandD,JonesK.Waterbirth:supportingpracticewithclinicalaudit.MIDIRSMidwiferyDig 2000;10:333-6.
  62. Burns E.Waterbirth. MIDIRS Midwifery Dig 2001;11(suppl 2):S10-3.
63.
  63. Nguyen S, Kuschel C,Teele R et al.Water birth – a near-drowning experience. Pediatrics 2002;110:411-3.
  64. RobinsonJ.AwaterbirthdeathinSweden.AIMSJ1993;5:7-8.
  65. GarlandD,JonesK.Waterbirth:updatingtheevidence.BrJMidwifery1997;5:368-73.
  66. BeakeS.Waterbirth:aliteraturereview.MIDIRSMidwiferyDig1999;9:473-7.
  67. Grunebaum A, Chervenak F.The baby or the bathwater: which should be discarded? Perinat Med 2004;32(4):306-7.
  68. JenkinsR.Assessingtheeffectofanewhealthtechnology.In:BeechBALed.Waterbirthunplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:53-8.

The effect of waterbirth on neonatal mortality and morbidity: a systematic review protocol

8 December 2015:

Rowena Davies, RM, BA 1, 2

Deborah Davis RM, PhD1, 2

Melissa Pearce RM/RN, BNurs, GDipMid, GCertMid, MMidwifery2, 3

Nola Wong, RM/RN2, 3

1. Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra

2. The Australian Capital Regional Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Practice: an affiliate centre of the Joanna Briggs Institute

3. Centenary Hospital for Women and Children, Canberra

Corresponding author: 

Rowena Davies

u3053358@uni.canberra.edu.au

Review question/objective

The objective of this research is to systematically review the evidence regarding the effect of waterbirth, in comparison to land birth, on the mortality and morbidity of neonates born to low risk women.

Background

Waterbirth and water immersion in labor are two distinct phenomena; however they are often confounded. Some women use water immersion in labor as a strategy to manage their labor pain but leave the bath prior to the birth of their baby.

As the name implies, however, waterbirth occurs when a baby is born underwater. This can happen either intentionally or accidentally, for example when a woman uses water immersion during labor and remains in the water to birth her baby.

Although the definitions of waterbirth and water immersion are simple to separate, descriptions of their use during a woman’s labor are often merged. 1,2

Given this, it is not surprising that research attempting to describe the benefits and risks of both water immersion and waterbirth is interwoven.

In many instances, discussion of waterbirth is confused by focusing on the benefits of water immersion for the woman and the risks of waterbirth to the neonate, two separate issues.

Water immersion in labor

Water immersion in labor has been used by many generations of women and is common practice in many birthing suites.3 Current research describes benefits for women using water immersion in labor including: increased relaxation4, pain relief5,6, maximized maternal satisfaction7, reduced length of labor2,3,5,8,9, reduced intervention3,10,11, increased spontaneous birth 12,13 and reduced first and second degree perineal tears.13,14

The buoyancy enabled by the water allows women to move easier during labor and potentially optimizes labor progress.3,6 Water immersion may also be associated with improved uterine perfusion, less painful contractions and a shorter labor.3,15,16

A Cochrane systematic review of eight trials comparing water immersion in labor with controls showed that water immersion resulted in a significant reduction in epidural analgesia use (478/1254 versus 529/1245; risk ratio [RR] 0.90; 95% [Confidence Interval [CI] 0.82 to 0.99, six trials]), a reduction in duration of the first stage of labor (mean difference -32.4 minutes; 95% CI -58.7 to -6.13, seven trials) with no difference in assisted vaginal birth (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05, seven trials), caesarean sections (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.68, eight trials), use of oxytocin infusion (RR 0.64; 95%CI 0.32 to 1.28, five trials), perineal trauma (intact perineum, 236/678 versus 200/659, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.35, five trials) or maternal infection (15/647 versus 15/648, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.96, five trials). 5 There have been no studies that have identified any adverse effects of water immersion in labor for the woman or the neonate.

Waterbirth

The benefits to women of using water immersion in labor are evident. However, the practice of birth underwater remains controversial and the debate polarized, with research providing conflicting information and mixed results.

As a result of this confusion, many birthing units in Australia provide water immersion in labor as an option for women; however, implementing waterbirth policies remains a slow and complex process.17,18

The trend of waterbirth

The first recorded waterbirth occurred in France in 1803.19 After laboring for 48 hours, an exhausted woman used a warm bath and birthed a healthy baby.1 In the early 1980s, waterbirths became more popular as water immersion was promoted to help women relax and cope with their labor.20, 21

Currently, few women birth their baby underwater; however water immersion in labor is commonly available.20 Baths and birthing pools were integrated into the United Kingdom’s mainstream maternity units in 1992 after the House of Commons Health Committee recommended that all women have access to water for labor and birth.12

Their national practice guidelines also support the use of baths and birthing pools in labor.22 Within Australia, 14 of 19 birthing centres provide bath facilities.23 Further, waterbirth tends to be supported by midwives as it represents a birthing option congruent with midwifery philosophy.7,24

Concerns about waterbirth

In an uncomplicated pregnancy, water immersion is unlikely to harm the woman or her baby.5 Given this, many birthing units will restrict water immersion in labor to women with a low risk pregnancy.

Regarding waterbirth, commentators have developed a list of contraindications; however, due to a paucity of research in this area, this is based largely on opinion.18 Even so, the option to waterbirth remains restricted to women with a low risk pregnancy. Individual birthing units develop specific waterbirth protocols suiting their own circumstances and existing policy.

In a review of the evidence on waterbirth, Young and Kruske (2013) identified five main areas of concern: a perceived risk of neonatal water aspiration, neonatal and maternal infection, neonatal and maternal thermo-regulation, skills of attending midwives and emergency procedures in the event of maternal collapse. They concluded there was no evidence supporting these concerns.25

Although the practice of waterbirth has been linked to increased risk to the neonate1, 26-28 there is no high level evidence available to support this issue.20,29 The association between waterbirth and adverse neonatal outcomes comes largely from case reports. 28,30,31

These highlight the potential risks to the neonate from waterbirth, including: neonatal respiratory distress, neonatal infection, umbilical cord avulsion, hyponatremia, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, fetal thermoregulation and water embolism.1,26,28,32,33

There are also numerous articles providing commentary about a perceived lack of adequate research and potential disregard for adverse neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.18,32, 34-36 Both case studies and commentary are at risk of author bias and represent a low level of evidence upon which to build waterbirth policy and protocol.

The above neonatal outcomes, as described within the literature, will form the basis of the reviewers search and discussion concerning potential neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.

Current evidence and policy

Simpson (2013)37 conducted a systematic review of neonatal outcomes following waterbirth; however, only two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two systematic reviews and case reports were reviewed.

A number of observational studies have been conducted on waterbirth but these were not included.37Also, no meta-analysis was conducted. The Cochrane systematic review by Cluett and Burns (2009) was similarly limited to RCTs. 5 Another systematic review, conducted in 2004, searched for complications that could be associated with waterbirth and was not limited to RCTs.1

They reviewed 16 articles and concluded that waterbirth may be associated with complications that are not seen with land birth, however, outcomes from water immersion and waterbirth are confounded.1 The quality and rigor of this review has also been called into question.35

There are two known RCTs comparing outcomes after waterbirth and land birth: an Iranian study of 106 women38 and a pilot study conducted in the UK.29 Both trials are small and therefore offer limited evidence. Woodward and Kelly (2009) reported that a larger RCT is possible and acceptable to women; however no further trial has been conducted hence raising concerns over feasibility.29

Published guidelines for health practitioners argue that there is insufficient evidence to guide waterbirth practice. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists offer a cautious review, suggesting that there is little evidence of waterbirth offering any benefits and advise caution when interpreting any current studies due to small sample sizes.39

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2014) state that waterbirth “should be considered an experimental procedure that should only be performed within the context of an appropriately designed clinical trial with informed consent”40(p.914). However, it is unlikely that a RCT could ethically be conducted on this practice.

Other protocols agree that there may be no benefit, but argue that there is also no adverse effects directly attributed to waterbirth. A joint statement released by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (RCOG) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) support women laboring in water while acknowledging the lack of evidence supporting waterbirth and the rarity of complications.41

The Queensland Normal Birth guidelines also discuss waterbirth stating there is no evidence of increased adverse effects for the woman or fetus; however they acknowledge there is inadequate evidence to either support or not support, a woman’s choice to birth underwater.42

Young and Kruske (2012) confirm that Australia’s individual state policies lack contemporary, high quality evidence and do not encourage or provide guidance for women or their health care providers. 43

The current state of opinion and evidence of the benefits and risks of waterbirth for the neonate requires a thorough systematic review to be conducted. Current evidence is contradictory and the lack of robust systematic evidence regarding waterbirth allows the growth of conflicting opinion about its safety.

Given the scarcity of reliable evidence, anecdotal shared experiences and personal observation has influenced policy and practice. 20 A review of current literature focusing on high level evidence and maintaining clear and thorough search guidelines is needed to advance our understanding of the effect of waterbirth on neonatal outcomes.

Keywords

Waterbirth; neonatal outcomes; mortality; morbidity

Inclusion criteria

Types of participants

This review will consider studies that include low risk, healthy, pregnant women who labor and birth spontaneously, at term (37-42 weeks), with a single baby in a cephalic presentation.

Low risk pregnancies are defined as pregnancies with an absence of comorbidity or obstetric complication, such as maternal diabetes, previous caesarean section birth, high blood pressure or other illness. Women may be experiencing their first or subsequent pregnancy. The baby must also be well and without any comorbidity or complication.

Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest

The intervention of interest is waterbirth. The comparator is land birth. Women and their babies must be cared for by qualified maternity healthcare providers throughout their labor and birth. The birth setting must be clearly described but can include homebirth, hospital birth or birth center, either freestanding or attached to a hospital.

Types of outcomes

This review will consider studies that include the following neonatal outcome measures:

1. Neonatal mortality- stillbirth or neonatal death within 28 days of birth

2. Neonatal resuscitation or Respiratory Distress Syndrome within 24 hours of birth

3. Neonatal sepsis/infection, including fever and other infection markers, as defined within any studies, within seven days of birth

4. APGAR scores at one, five and ten minutes

5. Admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit or Special Care Nursery, including length of stay

6. Cord pH values – arterial and/or venous taken immediately following birth

7. Cord avulsion

8. Hyponatremia

9. Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy

10. Birth injury

Types of studies

This review will consider studies that compare neonatal outcomes for both waterbirth and land birth including randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Descriptive studies that do not include a comparator will be excluded.

Search strategy

The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. A three step search strategy will be utilized in this review. An initial search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the article.

A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference lists of all identified reports and articles will be searched for additional studies.

Studies published in English within the last 15 years (from 1999) will be considered for inclusion. This ensures that retrieved studies will provide recent, up-to-date evidence that will reflect more contemporary practice and policy.

References

1. Pinette MG, Wax J, Wilson E. The risks of underwater birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol.2004; 190(5): 1211-5.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.007 PMid:15167820

2. Thoeni A, Zech N, Moroder L, Ploner F. Review of 1600 water births. Does water birth increase the risk of neonatal infection. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.2005; 17(5): 357-61.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767050500140388 PMid:16147851

3. Otigbah CH, Dhanjal MK, Harmsworth G, Chard T. A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.2000; 91(1): 15-20.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00238-9

4. Maude R, Foureur M. It’s beyond water: stories of women’s experience of using water for labour and birth. Women Birth.2007; 20(1): 17-24.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2006.10.005 PMid:17174165

5. Cluett ER, Burns E. Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews.2009; (2): doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub3.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub3

6. Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T, Alfirevic Z, Gates S. Newburn M. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2012. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub.2.
7. Richmond H. Women’s experience of waterbirth. Pract Midwife.2003; 6(3): 26-31.

PMid:12677840

8. Richmond H. Theories surrounding waterbirth. Pract Midwife.2003; 6(2): 10-3.

PMid:12621866

9. Cortes E, Basra R, Kelleher CJ. Waterbirth and pelvic floor injury: a retrospective study and postal survey using ICIQ modular long form questionnaires. Euro J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.2011; 155(1): 27-30.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.11.012 PMid:21185644

10. Lukasse M, Rowe R, Townend J, Knight M, Hollowell J. Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low-risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.2014; 14(60): doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-60.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-60

11. Mollamahmutoglu L, Moraloglu O, Ozyer S, Su FA, Karayalcin R, Hancerlioglu N et.al. The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc.2012; 13(1): 45-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2012.03 PMid:24627674 PMCid:PMC3940223

12. Burns E, Boulton M, Cluett E, Cornelius V, Smith L. Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool; a prospective observational study. Birth.2012; 39(3): 192-202.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00548.x PMid:23281901

13. Henderson J. Labouring women who used a birthing pool in obstetric units in Italy: prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.2014; 14(17): doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-17.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-17

14. Pagano E, De Rota B, Ferrando A, Petrinco M, Merletti F, Gregori D. An economic evaluation of water birth: the cost-effectiveness of mother well-being. J Eval Clin Pract.2010; 16(5): 916-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01220.x PMid:20590979

15. Garland D. Waterbirth in the United Kingdom. Midwifery Today Int Midwife.2000; 54(1): 26.

PMid:11189584

16. Geissbuhler V, Eberhard J. Waterbirths: a comparative study. A prospective study on more than 2,000 waterbirths. Fetal Diagn Ther.2000; 15(5): 291-300.

PMid:10971083

17. Dahlen HG, Dowling H, Tracy M, Schmied V, Tracy S. Maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst low risk women giving birth in water compared to six birth positions on land. A descriptive cross sectional study in a birth centre over 12 years. Midwifery.2013; 29(1): 759-764.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.002 PMid:22884894

18. Veltman L, Doherty D. Safety and underwater birth? What every risk manager should know. Journal Healthc Risk Manage.2013; 32(4): 16-24.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.21106 PMid:23609973

19. Embry M. Observation sur un accouchement termaine dans le bain. Ann Soc Med Prat Montpellier; 5(1): 13.
20. MIDIRS. The use of water during childbirth. MIDIRS.2005; Retrieved from: www.waterbirth.org/assest/documents/MIDIRS%20waterbirth.pdf. Accessed 4.3.14.
21. Odent M. Birth under water. Lancet.1982; (2): 1476-7.
22. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Intrapartum Care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. London.2007; NICE. Retrieved from www.nice.org.ul/CGo55. Accessed 6.3.14.
23. Laws PJ, Lim C, Tracy S, Sullivan EA. Characteristics and practices of birth centres in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol.2009; 49(3): 290-295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01002.x PMid:19566562

24. Meyer SL, Weible CM, Woeber K. Perceptions and practice of waterbirth: a survey of Georgia midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health.2010; 55(1): 55-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.01.008 PMid:20129230

25. Young K, Kruske, S. How valid are the common concerns raised against water birth? A focused review of the literature. Women Birth.2013; 26(2): 105-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2012.10.006 PMid:23182130

26. Carpenter L, Weston P. Neonatal respiratory consequences from water birth. J Paediatr Child Health.2012; 48(1): 419-423.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02241.x PMid:22085259

27. Gilbert RE, Tookey PA. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ.1999; 319(7208): 483-487.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7208.483

28. Kassim Z, Sellars M, Greenough A. Underwater birth and neonatal respiratory distress. BMJ.2005; 330(1): 1071-2.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1071 PMid:15879398 PMCid:PMC557235

29. Woodward J, Kelly SM. A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of waterbirth versus land birth. BJOG.2004; 111(6): 537-45.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00132.x PMid:15198780

30. Cohain JS. Waterbirth and GBS. Midwifery Today Int Midwife.2010; (96): 9-10.

PMid:21322437

31. Schafer R. Umbilical cord avulsion in waterbirth. J Midwifery Womens Health.2014; 59(1): 91-4.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12157 PMid:24588881

32. Davies MW. Water births and the research required to assess the benefits versus the harms. J Paediatr Child Health.2012; 48(9): 726-729.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01781.x PMid:20598065

33. Eckert K, Turnbull D, MacLennan A. Immersion in water in the first stage of labor: a randomised controlled trial. Birth.2001; 28(2): 84-93.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2001.00084.x PMid:11380379

34. Batton DG, Blackmon LR, Adamkin DH, Bell EF, Denson SE, Engle WA. Underwater births. Pediatrics.2005; 115(1): 1413.

PMid:15867054

35. Keirse M. Challenging Water Birth? How Wet Can It Get? Birth.2005; 32(4): 318-322.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00390.x PMid:16336374

36. Schroeter K. Water births: a naked emperor. Pediatrics.2004; 114(3): 855-8.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0145 PMid:15342864

37. Simpson KR. Underwater birth. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs.2013; 42(5): 588-94.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1552-6909.12235 PMid:24004064

38. Chaichian S, Akhlaghi A, Rousta F, Safavi M. Experience of water birth delivery in Iran. Arch Iran Med.2009; 12(5): 469-471.
39. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists. Warm water immersion in labour and birth. College Statement.2011. Retrieved from . www.ranzcog.edu.au/college-statements-guidelines.html#obstetrics. Accessed 24.4.14.
40. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Immersion in water during labour and delivery. Committee opinion No. 594. Obstet Gynecol.2014; 123(4): 912-5.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000445585.52522.14 PMid:24785637

41. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Midwives. Immersion in water during labour and birth. Joint Statement.2006. London: Author.
42. Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Clinical Guidelines Program. Normal Birth. 2012. Retrieved from www.health.qld.gov.au/qcg/documents.g_normbirth.pdf. Accessed 3.3.14.
43. Young K, Kruske S. Water immersion in Queensland. Evidence, Access and Uptake.2012; Queensland Centre for Mothers and Babies: University of Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.qcmb.org.au/media/pdf/Water%20Immersion%20Report.pdf. Accessed 21.5.14.

MANA and CfM Issue Joint Position Statement on Water Birth

18 February 2016: Midwives Alliance

The MANA and CfM Joint Position Statement on Water Immersion During Labor and Birth is a position paper written for a broad audience including midwives and other birthcare professionals, consumers, doulas, childbirth educators, and policy makers.

It is co-authored by the Midwives Alliance of North America and Citizens for Midwifery.

A year of collaborative work has produced a great educational tool that gives concise access to the research and the wisdom of experience that documents the safety, benefits and recommendations for success.

With over 80 citations, including the new study “Maternal & Newborn Outcomes Following Immersion During Waterbirth” by Bovbjerg, Cheyney and Everson, which utilized data from the MANA Statistics project, and research by waterbirth activist Barbara Harper, the position paper is a reference guide to the evidence for the safety of water immersion during labor and birth.

How does the new study using data from the MANA Statistics project help us better understand waterbirth?

The research of Bovbjerg, Cheyney and Everson helps to dispel some of the more publicized concerns about the safety of waterbirth to the baby, including drowning, cord avulsion and respiratory distress.

No deaths in over 6500 water births were attributable to being born under water. There was also no additional risk of maternal infection or hemorrhage.

The MANA Stats study showed that 35% of over 18,000 home and birth center births occurred in water, demonstrating that the midwives contributing to MANA Stats have considerable experience attending and monitoring births in water.

The experience level of the practitioner may be an important factor in the safety of waterbirth.

6,521 waterbirths, including 13 sets of twins, 29 breeches and 327 VBACs, were compared with 10,252 mothers who did not choose waterbirth, making this the largest comparative study on waterbirth to-date.

Additionally, this is the first large waterbirth study of a US population, with its unique healthcare system and demographics.

While the ACOG/AAP Committee Opinion of April, 2014, not recommending water immersion for birth, acknowledged the limitations of the available research on waterbirth, this large US study fills that gap and gives us the best evidence to-date on the safety of birthing in water.

“Maternal & Newborn Outcomes Following Immersion During Waterbirth” by Bovbjerg et al, was published Jan. 20, 2016 in the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health.

JMWH has generously agreed to make this research article open access, so midwives, birth workers, and consumers can read it without needing to buy a subscription to the Journal.

What else can we learn from the MANA/CfM Joint Position Statement?

Evidence and experience show us that mothers choose waterbirth for several reasons.

They report feeling more relaxed, in control, able to move more freely, and, notably, relief from pain.

Especially considering the risks of pharmacologic pain management such as epidural and spinal anesthesia, water immersion during labor and birth may be safer for mother and baby.

“In addition, because water immersion facilitates normal physiologic birth it may also be associated with other beneficial health outcomes for mother and baby, including decreased need for intervention during labor and reduced incidence of surgical/instrumental delivery.”

As in all healthcare and birthcare decisions informed consent/refusal and shared decision making with your care provider is key to determining what is best for each family.

The Joint Position Statement can help in these ways:

  • describes the benefits of water immersion for mother and baby,
  • suggests how these benefits may improve outcomes for families of color,
  • addresses consumer choice and shared decision making,
  • considers client values and individual needs and,
  • lists factors that promote safety and success.

The practical and professional pearls of wisdom make the Factors that Promote Safety and Success section an invaluable tool when considering and planning a waterbirth and we are pleased to be able to share them with you.

The conclusion:

Many families consider water immersion during labor and birth a valuable option.

Current research and experience show waterbirth to be safe for mothers and babies and may provide benefits to both.

“MANA and CfM support the use of water immersion during labor and birth, and believe it should be made available to birthing families across all settings.

MANA and CfM encourage all care providers to become educated about the safe use of water immersion during labor and birth, and to engage in a shared decision making process when discussing the option of water immersion with their clients.” (quote from the statement)

The authors of the joint position statement are:

Jill Breen, CPM, CLC; Justine Clegg, CPM, LM, MS; Nasima Pfaffl, MA, President CfM; Amy Smith, CPM

Thanks also to the consultants on the statement:

Barbara Harper, RN, CD, CCE; Holly Horan, MA; Jennie Joseph, LM, CPM, CEO of Commonsense Childbirth, Inc.; Indra Lusero, JD, MA; Jeanette McCulloch, IBCLC; Shafia M. Monroe, MPH, DEM, CDT, President and CEO of the International Center for Traditional Childbearing (ICTC).

Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery Led Care in Labour: Birth Environment

Practice Points

Ensure that pregnant women receive high quality care throughout their pregnancy, have a normal childbirth wherever possible, are involved in decisions about what is best for them and their babies, and have choices about how and where they give birth (DH 2004).

Respect for a woman’s wishes and her involvement in decision making is essential to her care in pregnancy and labour (NICE 2007; DH 2004). The birth plan should be discussed in full with the midwife looking after the woman in labour.

Hospital is an alienating environment for most women, in which institutionalised routines and lack of privacy can contribute to feelings of loss of control and disempowerment (Lock and Gibb 2003; Steele 1995).

The studies by Green et al. (1990) and Simkin (1992) found that control, or lack of it, was important to the women’s experience of labour and their subsequent emotional well-being.

Trials have demonstrated the benefits to women of having a low-risk, midwife-led area as an alternative to the conventional labour ward (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011; Hodnett et al. 2010; Hatem et al. 2008; Byrne et al. 2000; Hodnett 2000; Waldenstrom 1997; Hundley et al. 1994; McVicar et al. 1993).

The non-labour ward or radically modified environment is associated with lower rates of analgesia, augmentation and operative delivery, as well as greater satisfaction with care and positive effect on care givers (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011; Hodnett et al. 2010; Hodnett et al. 2009).

Midwives should be aware of the influence the physical environment has on their practice (Hodnett et al. 2010).

2 Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour ©The Royal College of Midwives 2012

Birth Environment

The environment in which a woman labours can have a great effect on the amount of fear and anxiety she experiences.

Hospital is an alienating environment for most women, in which institutionalised routines and lack of privacy can contribute to feelings of loss
of control (Lock and Gibb 2003; Steele 1995).

Brown and Lumley (1994) found that the technology and intervention that has now become commonplace on many labour wards was implicated in women’s dissatisfaction with labour. Increased anxiety brought on through loss of control can interfere with the normal effective physiology of labour (Steele 1995).

The studies by Green et al. (1990) and Simkin (1992) found that control,
or lack of it, was important to the women’s experience of labour and their subsequent emotional wellbeing.

It is not easy to separate the influence of the model of care
from the physical environment on the outcomes.

Hodnett et al. (2010) discuss the effect that the physical environment can have on practice, within the supportive social model of care.

In 2009, Hodnett et al. undertook a pilot study aimed to investigate the impact of the physical environment on women and practitioners by making simple but radical modifications to a hospital labour room, which included the removal of the standard hospital bed and the addition of equipment to promote relaxation, mobility,
and calm.

The women were then randomly allocated either the modified or typical
labour room.

Though the pilot was small in numbers, the outcomes indicated that the physical environment modification had a positive effect on women and care providers.

The philosophy of mobilisation in active labour was increasingly supported in the modified environment (Hodnett et al. 2009).

RCM (2008) Birth Centre Standards for England Standard 7.6 sets criteria of
‘An environment that protects and promotes women’s privacy and dignity, respecting

their human rights and provides facilities to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration in labour.’

Respect for a woman’s wishes, and her involvement in decision-making is essential to her care in pregnancy and labour (DH 2007, DH 2004).

National Service framework maternity policy (DH 2004) pledged that service should “ensure that pregnant women receive high quality care throughout their pregnancy, have a normal childbirth wherever possible, are involved in decisions about what is best for them and their babies, and have choices about how and where they give birth” and the choice aspect remains within NHS future plans (DH 2010).

It would appear that women have better physical and emotional labour outcomes when they are involved in the decision making (Hodnett et al. 2010).

Green et al.’s study (1990) found that good information was important to a woman’s birth experience and also to her subsequent emotional well-being.

The decision-making must extend to the woman’s choice of companion(s), who should be made to feel welcome in the labour ward.
3
Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour ©The Royal College of Midwives 2012

Birth Environment

Birth planning is a continuous part of antenatal care.

This requires a focussed discussion about place of birth, at which ‘women should receive clear, unbiased advice and be able to choose where they would like their baby to be born’ (DH 2007; DH 2004).

The recent Birthplace in England study (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011) looked at safety of births planned in 4 different settings: home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units and obstetric units for women with straightforward pregnancies.

It found that birth is safe wherever it takes place but there is a small but increased risk of adverse outcome for the neonate for nulliparous women associated with planned home birth.

The outcomes for multiparous or in other midwife led birth environments were the same. The study did not look into reasons for this and further exploration into the variation is required.

However, this information needs to be included in the discussions with women antenatally. The ‘birth talk’ and associated birth plan are essential opportunities for women and midwives to share information (NICE 2007).

The birth plan should be discussed in full with the midwife looking after the woman
in labour.

Women often find it difficult to ask questions, so midwives need to encourage them to do so, and to act as advocate for the wishes expressed (Kirkham 1986).

Trials have demonstrated the benefits to women of less intervention and more mobility, in having a low-risk, midwife-led area as an alternative to the conventional labour ward (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011; Hodnett et al. 2010; Hatem et al. 2008; Byrne 2000; Hodnett 2000; Waldenstrom 1997; Hundley et al. 1994; McVicar et al.

1993). The philosophy behind the provision of such units is to provide a ‘homely’ environment, where women can take more control and labour is managed with minimal intervention (Hodnett et al. 2010; Hundley et al. 1994).

It has also been found that women who give birth in low-tech, midwife-led facilities, e.g. home or birth centres, require less pharmacological analgesia (Hodnett et al. 2010; Chamberlain et al. 1997; Skibsted and Lange 1992).

Hodnett et al.’s (2010) review found that the alternative birth setting environment is associated with lower rates of analgesia, augmentation and operative delivery, as well as greater satisfaction with care.

There was a non-statistically- significant trend towards higher perinatal mortality in the home-like setting, and the reviewers conclude that ‘an over-emphasis on normality’ may lead to delayed recognition of or action regarding complications.

Walsh (2004) has challenged this conclusion from his own experience and suggests that midwives who work in this environment are ‘astute assessors of normal birth’ and highly skilled practitioners, who are active in performing repeated emergency drills.

Hodnett et al. (2010) found, in their comparison of alternative and conventional labour and birth environments, that staff working in the ‘alternative’ settings all shared philosophies and guidelines that valued midwifery-led care.

The study was not able to explore the separate influences of the physical environment and models of care such as, for example, continuity of caregiver, but concluded that the impacts of midwifery-led care and the nature of the birth setting are fundamentally interdependent in the chain of cause and effect leading to more positive outcomes.
4

Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour ©The Royal College of Midwives 2012

Birth Environment

References
Brown S, Lumley J (1994) Satisfaction with care in labour and birth: a survey of 790 Australian women. Birth 21(1): 4-13

Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2011) Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 343: d7400

Byrne J, Crowther C, Moss J (2000) A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide. Australia Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 40(3): 268-74

Chamberlain G, Wraight A, Crowley P (1997) Homebirths: The Report of the 1994 Confidential Enquiry by the National Birthday Trust Fund. Carnforth, Lancashire: The Parthenon Publishing Group

Department of Health (DH) (2010) Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: HMS

Department of Health (2004) National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. London:DH

Green JM, Coupland VA, Kitzinger S (1990) Expectations, experiences and psychological outcomes of childbirth: a prospective study of 825 women. Birth 17(1): 15-24

Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D et al. (2008) Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hodnett E, Downe S, Edwards N, et al. (2010) Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 9. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA, et al. (2009) Re-conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the Place (Pregnant and Laboring in an Ambient Clinical Environment) pilot trial. Birth 36(2):159-66

Hodnett ED, Hatem M, Sandall J, et al. (2008) Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hodnett ED (2000) Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hundley V, Cruikshank F, Lang G, et al. (1994) Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. British Medical Journal 309(6966): 1400-1404

Kirkham MJ (1986) A feminist perspective in midwifery. In Webb C (ed.) Feminist practice in women’s health care. Chichester: John Wiley

Lock L, Gibb H. (2003) The Power of Place. Midwifery 19(2): 132-139
McVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen-Johnston L, Jagger C, et al. (1993) Simulated home delivery:

a randomised control trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 100(4): 316-33
National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2007) Intrapartum care: management and delivery of care to women in labour. London: NICE

The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) (2008) Standards for birth centres in England: a standards document. London: RCM

Simkin P (1992) Just another day in a woman’s life? Part 2 Nature and consistency of women’s long-term memories of their first birth experiences. Birth 19(2): 64-81

The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery

Leyla Mollamahmutoğlu,1 Özlem Moraloğlu,1 Şebnem Özyer,1 Filiz Akın Su,1 Rana Karayalçın,1 Necati Hançerlioğlu,1Özlem Uzunlar,1 and  Uğur Dilmen2

Objective

To document the practice of labour in water, to assess the effects of water immersion during labor and/or birth (labour stages 1, 2 and 3) on maternal, fetal and neonatal wellbeing and to compare the outcomes and safety with conventional vaginal deliveries and deliveries with epidural analgesia.

Material and Methods

Two-hundred and seven women electing for waterbirth (n=207) were compared with women having conventional vaginal deliveries (n=204) and vaginal deliveries with epidural analgesia (n=191). Demographic data, length of 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage of labor, induction and episiotomy requirements, perineal trauma, apgar scores, NICU requirements and VAS scores were noted.

Results

The 1st stage of labor was shorter in waterbirths compared with vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia but the 2nd and 3rd stage of labor were shortest in patients having waterbirth compared with conventional vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia.

Patients having waterbirth had less requirement for induction and episiotomy but had more perineal laceration. All women having waterbirths had reduced analgesia requirements and had lower scores on VAS.

There was no difference in terms of NICU admission between the groups. Apgar scores were comparable in both groups. There were no neonatal deaths or neonatal infections during the study.
Conclusion

The study demonstrates the advantages of labor in water in terms of reduction in 2nd and 3rd stage of labor, reduction in pain and obstetric intervention such as induction or amniotomy.

Introduction

In 1983, Odent published the results of the first hundred water births in The Lancet (1). It was postulated that anxiety and pain may trigger a stress response during labour (2) leading to reduced uterine activity and dystocia (3). Labouring in water may overcome this stress response by aiding relaxation and relief of pain (4).

Zanetti-Daellenbach et al. revealed that water deliveries performed in a selected low risk collective needed less analgesia had a shorter duration of first and second stages of labour, a lower episiotomy rate and were not associated with any adverse maternal or fetal outcome (5).

The advantages of immersion in water during labour and/or birth include reduced pain, increased functional diameter of the true pelvis, increased quality of contractions, increased release of endorphins, decreased need for opiates, increased movement for the mother as well as improved positioning in different stages of labour (6).

There are also studies that have reported the disadvantages associated with water birth which include maternal and neonatal infections, as well as the possibility of respiratory problems for the newborn (7, 8).

Cluett and Burns in a review of 11 trials concluded that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduced the use of epidural/spinal analgesia, but there was limited data for other outcomes related to water use during the first and second stages of labour (9). They also stated that there was no evidence of increased adverse effects on the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring in water (9).

The aim of this study is to document the practice of labour in water, to assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (labour stages 1, 2 and 3) on maternal, fetal and neonatal wellbeing and to compare the outcomes and safety with conventional vaginal deliveries and deliveries with epidural analgesia.

Materials and Methods

In a prospective clinical trial, the interview and observation techniques were used to study 610 pregnant women who were admitted to Zekai Tahir Burak Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital, between June 2007 and September 2008.

Women electing for water birth (Study Group 1, n=207) were compared with vaginal deliveries with epidural analgesia (Study Group 2, n=191) and women having conventional vaginal deliveries (Control, n=204).

The pregnant women were given comprehensive information on water birth before they were asked to participate in the study. Ethical approval was obtained from the local research ethics committee prior to the study, and written informed consent obtained from all patients.

This study was conducted in accordance with the basic principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

The inclusion criteria were gestational age between 37–42 weeks, no previous history of cesarean section, intact membranes, absence of placental abruption or placenta previa, no malpresentation, normal sized single fetus, and normal results of fetal wellbeing tests. The pregnant women with medical or obstetric risk factors were excluded (n=8).

Women presenting on the delivery suite with painful uterine contractions had an initial cervical assessment. This was taken as the onset of the active phase of labour in all groups. They were assigned to control and two study groups. The women were put in a standardized warm water pool which is large enough to allow the pregnant women move freely.

At the time of delivery the water temperature was set to between 37 and 37.5ºC so that the baby was not stimulated to breathe underwater by the cooler temperature of the pool. Fetal heart monitoring was performed at regular intervals with Doppler or NST. In the second stage of labour, care was taken to ensure the controlled delivery of the head of the fetus.

The newborn was placed gently in the mother’s arms within seconds but without rushing and then the cord clamped and cut. Delivery of the placenta and the membranes was completed outside the pool. After the delivery, the pool was emptied and cleaned with antiseptic solution. Cultures were taken for the determination of pathogenic bacteria.

Demographic data, length of 1st, 2nd and 3rd stages of labor, requirement for induction and episiotomy, perineal trauma, apgar scores, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) requirements and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were noted on a questionnaire.

The women evaluated their birth experience with the VAS (10 cm long VAS from 1 to 10 corresponding to the amount of pain felt by the woman with number 1 for no pain and with number 10 for dreadful pain).

Statistical analysis

Data were evaluated by SPSS for Windows release 15.0 (Chicago Inc.). To compare groups, we used the Chi-square test for categorical variables, Oneway ANOVA and Bonferroni tests for continuous variables that have normal distribution, Kruskall-Wallis oneway ANOVA for continuous variables that have no normal distribution.

As described, variables, frequencies and percentages were given for categorical variables, Mean±standard deviations and median were given for continuous variables. Alpha=0.05 was accepted as a statistically significant value.

In order to detect±2 percentage point difference in VAS scores between groups, for having alpha=0.05, power=0.97, it was predicted that approximately 200 subjects for each group should be taken (NCSS-Pass Pocket Program was used) (Chow SC et al.) (10).

The study groups consisted of 207 water births (Group 1) and 191 vaginal deliveries with epidural analgesia (Group 2), the control group (Group 3) of 204 patients gave birth by the conventional vaginal delivery method at the hospital. The women in the three groups were matched with respect to age, BMI and gestational age (Table 1).

There were 276 primigravidae and 326 multiparous women having water births (Table 2). The mean age of the women were 26.2±5.1, 26.1±4.5 and 25.5±5.1 respectively (Table 1). The mean cervical dilatation at admission in both group 1 (5.3 cm) and group 2 (4.6 cm) was not significantly different from group 3 (4.7 cm).

The duration of the 1st stage of labour was shortest in the conventional vaginal delivery group whereas the duration of the 2nd and the 3rd stages of labour were shortest in the water birth group (Table 1).

There was a highly significant reduction in the induction and episiotomy requirements in the water birth group (Table 1). VAS scores were the lowest in the water birth group, so there was less analgesia requirement (Table 1).

Conversely, the perineal laceration rate was higher in the water birth group, however most of these lacerations were minimal. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures seem to be lower in the water birth group, however the differences were not clinically significant. The decrease in hemoglobin levels as an indication of blood loss during labour were not statistically significant.

The birthweight of the infants were highest, however Apgar scores were slightly lower in the water birth group. There was no difference in the rates of admissions to the NICU between the groups (Table 1). There were no documented neonatal infections. There was no adverse perinatal outcome or neonatal deaths. All the babies were born in good condition.

When primigravidas and multiparous women having water birth are considered (Table 2), the 1st stage of labour is longer in both groups compared with controls, however the 2nd and 3rd stages of labour were the shortest in both primigravidas and multiparous women labouring in water compared with controls. The need for induction and episiotomy for both primigravidas and multiparous women was lowest in water birth group compared with others.

Perineal laceration rates were higher in both groups compared with controls. VAS scores were lowest in the water birth group in both primigravidas and multiparous women. Apgar scores were slightly lower in the water birth group, however NICU admission rates were not statistically different in the water birth group for both primigravidas and multigravidas.

Discussion

Water births have rapidly become one of the most popular birth methods. There is evidence of use of water immersion as a therapeutic medium for physical and psychological illnesses by the Chinese, Egyptians, Japanese and Assyrians, as well as Greeks and Romans (9).

Water immersion during labour, including birth, used for relaxation and pain relief, has a long history. In 1995, the first international water birth conference was held in London, followed by many researches and conferences.

The positive physiological effects of hydrotherapy can facilitate the neurohormonal interactions of labour, reducing pain, and potentially facilitates the progress of labour (11, 12). Water immersion may be associated with improved uterine perfusion, less painful contractions and a shorter labour with fewer interventions (13–15).

Several reports have shown that water immersion shortens the process of labour (1, 15), however some others found no significant difference for the duration of the 1st stages of labour (13, 16–20). The present study also demonstrates that the 1st stage of labour is not shortened by immersion in water in either primigravidas or multigravidas.

Cammu et al., Eckert et al., Rush et al. and Woodward et al. provided data on analgesia and anesthesia use in their studies and found that there was a significant reduction in the incidence of analgesia and anesthesia use among women placed in water during the first stage of labour (16, 17, 19, 20).

In the present study, we have shown that VAS scores indicating the pain felt by the women were lowest among women having water birth, even lower than the women labouring with epidural analgesia. In agreement with these studies, we observed that immersion in water greatly reduces the pain and need for additional analgesia.

Labouring in water has been found to reduce stress hormones and cathecolamines which inhibit oxytocin and labour progress (9). In our study, the duration of the second stage of labour was found to be shorter in water births, consistent with the results of studies of Chaichian et al. and Otigbah et al. (6, 21).

The fetus may be more likely to adopt a more relaxed and flexed position, because the mother can easily explore different positions to maximise her pelvic diameters (22).

The duration of the 3rd stage of labour, which is the delivery of the placenta, is also significantly reduced after water births. This minimizes amount of blood loss during this period.

The lower blood loss in water births can also be explained by the hydrostatic pressure in the pool, by the less severe lacerations or possibly by a facilitated control of the third stage of labour.

In the study, patients having waterbirth had less requirement for obstetric interventions such as induction and episiotomy but had more perineal lacerations. However, the lacerations in water birth group were less severe than those in epidural analgesia and conventional delivery group.

Otigbah et al. found that primigravidas having water births had less perineal trauma and the overall episiotomy rate was 5 times greater in the control group, but overall, more women having water births had perineal tears (21). On the other hand, there are studies which show no difference in perineal trauma (23, 24).

The reason why women having water births had more tears may be explained by the difficulty in accessing the women’s perineum during birth, resulting in more perineal trauma.

However, the widespread belief that with episiotomies 3rdand 4th degree lacerations are avoided is open to question, because in our study episiotomy rates were lowest after water births, and the lacerations were minimal.

There are some concerns about water birth for the fetus. These are thermoregulation during labour, infection and onset of respiration at birth. As the water temperature of the pool does not exceed the maternal body temperature, fetal hyperthermia and associated cardiovascular and metabolic disturbances will not occur (25). None of the newborns in our study took its first breath in water.

This has been explained by the diving reflex which shows that, when the face or especially the glottis comes in contact with fluid, respiration movements are inhibited. Aspiration will occur only when the diving reflex fails, because of anesthesia or severe asphyxia or because of the inappropriate pool temperature.

When we consider neonatal infection, several reported comparative studies, cohort studies and audits report no increased risk of infection to the newborn (5, 19, 21). This is also confirmed by the study that there were no documented neonatal infections.

Overall, water birth does not cause an increased risk of adverse effects to the fetus/newborn.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates the advantages of water birth in terms of reduction in the duration of the 2nd and 3rd stages of labor, reduction in pain and obstetric intervention such as induction or episiotomy.

Labouring in water significantly reduces pain and the requirement of epidural/spinal analgesia.

It is a management approach which contributes positively to maternal physiological and psychological health by reducing the augmentation which is known to increase the risk of uterine hyperstimulation and fetal hypoxia and by reducing the obstetric interventions which are associated with lower maternal satisfaction.

There is no increased adverse effects to the fetus or labouring women.

Water birth may be an alternative birth method that can be offered in selected patients.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

References

1. Odent M. Birth under water. Lancet. 1983;2:1476–7.  [PubMed]
2. Brownridge P. The nature and consequences of childbirth pain. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;59:9–15.  [PubMed]
3. De Punzio C, Neri E, Metelli P, Bianchi MS, Venticinque M, Ferdeghini M, et al. The relationship between maternal relaxation and plasma beta-endorphin levels during parturition. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;15:205–10.  [PubMed]
4. Elizabeth R, Cluett Ruth M, Pickering Kathryn, Getliffe Nigel, James St. George Saunders. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ. 2004;328:314–8. [PMC free article]  [PubMed]
5. Zanetti-Daellenbach RA, Tschudin S, Zhong XZ, Holzgreve W, Lapaire O, Hösli I. Maternal and neonatal infection and obstetrical outcome in water birth. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2007;134:37–43.  [PubMed]
6. Chaichian S, Akhlaghi A, Rousta F, Safavi M. Experience of water birth delivery in Iran. Arch Iran Med. 2009;12:468–71.  [PubMed]
7. Rawal J, Shah A, Stirk F, Mehtar S. Water birth and infection in babies. BMJ. 1994;20:309, 511.[PMC free article]  [PubMed]
8. Geissbühler V, Eberhard J. Experience with water births: a prospective longitudinal study of 9 years with almost 4,000 water births. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 2003;43:12–8.  [PubMed]
9. Cluett ER, Burns E. Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;2:CD000111. [PMC free article]  [PubMed]
10. Chow SC, Shao J, Wang H.  Sample Size Calculation in Clinical Research. Second Edition. Chapman & Hall; New York: 2008. pp. 70–4.
11. Ginesi L, Niescierowicz R. Neuroendocrinology and birth 1: stress. British Journal of Midwifery. 1998;6:659–63.
12. Ginesi L, Niescierowicz R. Neuroendocrinology and birth 2: The role of oxytocin. British Journal of Midwifery. 1998;6:791–6.
13. Schorn MN, McAllister JL, Blanco JD. Water immersion and the effect on labor. J Nurse Midwifery. 1993;38:336–42.  [PubMed]
14. Geissbuehler V, Eberhard J. Waterbirths a comparative study. Aprospective study on more than 2,000 waterbirths. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy. 2000;15:291–300.  [PubMed]
15. Burke E, Kilfoyle A. A comparative study, waterbirth and bed birth. Midwives. 1995;108:3–7.
16. Cammu H, Clasen K, Wettere L, Derde M-P. To bathe or not to bathe during the first stage of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994;73:468–72.  [PubMed]
17. Eckert K, Turnbull D, MacLennan A. Immersion in water in the first stage of labour: a randomised controlled trial. Birth. 2001;28:84–93.  [PubMed]
18. Kuusela P, Koivisto A-M, Heinonen PK. Lammin kylpy synnytyksen avautumisvaiheessa. [Warn tub bath during opening phase of labor]. Suomen Laakarilehti. 1998;11:1217–21.
19. Rush J, Burlock S, Lambert K, Loasley-Milman M, Hutchinson B, Enkin M. The effects of whirlpool baths in labour: a randomised controlled trial. Birth. 1996;23:136–43.  [PubMed]
20. Woodward J, Kelly SM. A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of waterbirth versus land birth. BJOG. 2004;111:537–45.  [PubMed]
21. Otigbah CM, Dhanjal MK, Harmsworth G, Chard T. A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000;91:15–20.  [PubMed]
22. Ohlsson G, Buchhave P, Leandersson U, Nordstrom L, Rydhstrom H, Sjolin I. Warm tub bathing during labor; maternal and neonatal effects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:311–4.  [PubMed]
23. Lenstrup C, Schantz A, Berget A, Feder E, Rosen⊘ H, Hertel J. Warm tub bath during delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66:709–12.  [PubMed]
24. Church LK. Water birth: one birthing center’s observations. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 1989;34:165–70.  [PubMed]
25. Johnson P. Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. BJOG. 1996;103:202–8.  [PubMed]

 

Diving in: a dip in the water for labour and birth policy debate

Megan Cooper RM, BHSc (Honours), Jane Warland RM, PhD Helen McCutcheon RM, PhD.

Abstract

Water immersion for labour and birth is becoming an increasingly attractive option for women.

However, with what has been described as a paucity of research, water immersion policies appear to lack the evidence to ensure confidence in their use, safety in their implementation and importantly, acknowledgement of women’s autonomy to utilise water for labour and birth irrespective of their perceived ‘risk’.

In touching on the difficulties experienced by maternity care providers working within a system largely dominated by a ‘risk adverse’ paradigm, the following paper will highlight the shortfalls of research surrounding water immersion for labour and birth and the difficulties of utilising policies informed almost entirely by this research.

The current paucity of rigorous evidence and the difficulties faced by maternity care providers facilitating the option, highlights that greater emphasis needs to be placed on gaining a substantial evidence-base to inform future water immersion polices with more weight given to both observational data and anecdotal experience.

Future research should focus on both quantitative and qualitative aspects of water use for labour and birth to ensure that policies incorporate the required risk/benefit analysis, the opportunity for shared and informed decision-making and ultimately, the facilitation of woman-centred care.

Should we throw out the bath water?

For many women water immersion (WI) during labour and birth is an attractive and sought after option of care.

Despite the availability of literature surrounding WI for labour and birth many argue that high quality research with which to measure risks and benefits is still lacking.

As the option has become increasingly available, the development of policy to guide and inform care providers in the safe practice of WI for labour and birth has become necessary.

Consequently, policies appear to have been derived from what some describe as a less than substantive evidence-base (Cluett and Burns, 2009).

This has elicited debate as to whether the practice itself and therefore the policies currently informing the practice reflect the required foundational evidence to fulfill the ideal of evidence-based practice.

In touching on the current difficulties experienced by care providers working within in a ‘risk averse’ system the following paper will briefly explore WI for labour and birth, highlight the perceived shortfalls of research pertaining to its practice and discuss some of the difficulties of undertaking research at the level that many believe is required.

The role of qualitative research in informing the practice of labour and birth in water will also be examined with particular reference to the goal of woman-centred care and the need for policy that is reflective of a holistic evidence-base and supportive of women’s experience, satisfaction and choice.

The practice of water immersion for labour and birth

Despite common belief, WI for labour and birth is not a new phenomenon, with history dating back to the Egyptian Pharaohs and the Minoans of Crete (Mackey, 2001). In the 1960’s, Igor Charkovsky, a Russian midwife, began experimenting with the use of water for labour and birth after realising the positive physical and physiological effects of WI (Houston, 2010).

The 1980s saw Michel Odent, a well-known French Obstetrician and arguably the pioneer of modern water birth, establish the first birthing unit allowing women access to baths during labour, many of whom also went on to birth in water

(Houston, 2010). His observations and documented accounts of witnessing women immerse themselves in warm water allowed him to become a major influential figure in the global water birth movement and in the education of practitioners who facilitate the option of WI.

The advantages and benefits of WI during labour and birth have for the most part, not been thoroughly investigated through rigorous research.

Documented benefits include reductions in pharmacological pain relief (Eberhard et al., 2005, Otigbah et al., 2000, Benfield et al., 2001, Cluett and Burns, 2009), reduced blood loss and perineal trauma (Cluett and Burns, 2009) as well as facilitation of dysfunctional labour (Benfield et al., 2010, Cluett et al., 2004).

It has long been held that water immersion facilitates ‘normal’ birth and the latest prospective and descriptive cross sectional research findings provide support for this belief (Burns et al., 2012, Dahlen et al., 2012).

Burns et al. (2012) found that there was a higher frequency of spontaneous birth in nulliparas and greater rates of normal birth in both nulliparous and multiparous women when water was used during labour and/or birth. More specifically, of the 8924 participants almost 90 percent had a spontaneous birth and of these 5192 (58.3%) of women birthed in water.

Further support for benefits of water use come from Dahlen et al. (2012). They found in their Australian descriptive cross sectional study that women birthing in water had lower rates of major perineal trauma and PPH ≥ 500 milliliters when compared with those who used a birth stool on land.

Improved APGAR scores at five minutes were also noted for babies born into water compared to those whose mothers birthed in a semi-recumbent position on land although the authors note that they are unsure as to whether a semi- recumbent position was favoured by practitioners when there were fetal concerns, thereby potentially impacting on the results.

However, what is perhaps most important in terms of these findings is that there were no documented increased adverse outcomes for mothers who utiliszed water during labour and birth nor were there statistically significant increases in unfavourable outcomes for babies born into water.

Anecdotal experience supports these benefits further, with women suggesting greater levels of satisfaction, sense of autonomy and care providers observing less use of pharmacological pain relief and the facilitation of the fourth stage of labour, particularly in the initiation of breastfeeding.

Qualitative researchers have also found that women who birth in water feel protected, safe, relaxed and in control (Benfield et al., 2010, Maude and Foureur, 2007, Benfield, 2002).

For example, one New Zealand interpretive study, conducted by Maude and Foureur (2007), highlighted that WI provided a ‘sanctuary’ or environment whereby women felt protected and sheltered from intervention and interference. Participants also voiced a reduction in the fear of the birthing process and pain.

For many maternity care providers, water use for labour and birth is viewed as a method of providing women an alternative method of pain relief, ease of position changes and relaxation (Gilbert and Tookey, 1999, Meyer et al., 2010, Maude and Foureur, 2007, Woodward and Kelly, 2004, Stark and Miller, 2009).

Although evident throughout the literature, the observation and experience of maternity care providers is often challenged against minimal scientific proof, which to date, is still not entirely definitive.

Conversely, many continue to challenge the use of water for labour and birth claiming that it is neither normal nor natural for land living mammals to birth into water and that there exist too many associated ‘risks’ and adverse outcomes to mother and infant (Kassim et al., 2005, Mammas and Thiagarajan, 2009, Carpenter and Weston, 2011, Pinette et al., 2004).

The most recent published adverse outcomes pertaining to the use of water immersion during labour and birth come from Soileau et al. (2013) and Menakaya et al. (2012). Soileau et al. (2013) documents a neonatal infection and subsequent neonatal demise post a home water birth attributed to a maternal diarrheal infection in the week prior to birth. The infection believed to have been transmitted to the neonate after the mother defecated in the bath during labour.

This provides justification and support for the use of policy and/or guidelines in guiding practitioners in the facilitation of the option. Furthermore, its draws attention to the knowledge and understanding practitioners must attain in order to make decisions that ensure both maternal and neonatal wellbeing and safety when water is used.

Although Menakaya et al. (2012) did not assess maternal or neonatal infections in their retrospective design of 216 Australian women birthing in water, they noted that babies born into water showed a statistically significant difference in APGAR scores less than or equal to seven at one minute and as well as admission to Special Care Nursery (SCN) post birth in the water birth group.

Interestingly, three of the neonates transferred to SCN were admitted for feeding difficulties, issues which cannot be definitely linked to water immersion, one was admitted post a mild shoulder dystocia which presumably required the woman to be evacuated from the bath prior to birth and one for meconium aspiration, suggesting the presence of meconium which is commonly cited contraindication to birthing in water.

The remaining infants were admitted for resuscitation and an apneic event, which are also not unique to infants born in water.

One infant in the control group was admitted to the SCN and was transferred for respiratory distress requiring the longest stay of all infants admitted to the SCN. These findings are dissimilar to those of Mollamahmutoglu et al. (2012) who found no instance of neonatal infection and no significant difference in admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) when comparing infants who were born in water with those who were not. These findings are indicative of the inconsistent and contradictory findings pertaining to the use of water for labour and birth across the literature.

As a result, empirical research has failed to provide a definitive risk/benefit analysis relating to WI for labour and birth particularly in terms of maternal and neonatal infection, neonatal SCN/NICU admission, perineal trauma and the incidence of neonatal drowning and water embolism, as examples.

Furthermore, the ongoing reference to ‘potential’, ‘possible’ and ‘theoretical’ risks throughout the literature as well as throughout policy and guideline documents creates difficulty and uncertainty as to what actually constitutes risk and what is deemed as safe when WI is utilised for labour and/or birth (Kvach and Martonffy, 2012, Mackey, 2001, Pinette et al., 2004).

Watering down practice

Maternity care providers aim as far as possible, to deliver care which is women- centered (Carolan and Hodnett, 2007). Woman-centered care (WCC) incorporates the requirement of a woman making informed choices about all aspects of her care through the sharing of information (Leap, 2009).

Maternity care providers hold information that is vital to the woman but given the need to work within protocols and guidelines, may at times provide information to meet institutional and personal expectations and commitments resulting in what Carolan and Hodnett (2007) describe as “rule following and avoidance of responsibility”.

Although not necessarily a deliberate attempt to limit the information and options available to women, difficulties can arise as maternity care providers walk the fine line between meeting obligations as the woman’s advocate and the demands of institutional policies, guidelines and regulations.

Consequently care providers may forsake their role as the woman’s advocate, and instead support an environment that fosters informed compliance (Carolan and Hodnett, 2007).

Unfortunately the ideal of woman-centredness is often relinquished particularly as birth has become viewed a process that requires management and medical influence (Kitzinger, 2006, Davis-Floyd, 2001).

The burden of ‘proof’ and necessity of evidence to support or refute ‘alternative’ options irrespective of women’s requests and subjective knowingness that they work (Klein et al., 2006) has been significant in the debate surrounding water immersion for labour and birth.

Many of the benefits that water provides the labouring and birthing woman are also what may deter care providers from offering it as an option. Women and care providers alike, have suggested that water provides safety, sanctuary and distance from the rest of world allowing women a sense of control and ownership over their labour and birth (Maude and Foureur, 2007). However, this protection from intervention and intrusion

ultimately means that the contemporary methods of monitoring and gauging progress are no longer as accessible or practical. For many practitioners the inability to monitor and assess women as they normally would results in fear, not only of litigation and ‘what if’s’ (Garland, 1919), but also of the practice itself.

Combatting fear and anxiety could be as easy as encouraging care providers to witness women using water during labour and birth, but opinion and bias in disfavour of water immersion demands the current ‘gap’ in research be bridged.

Furthermore, ethical practice calls for practitioners to dissociate personal bias and views from their practice to ensure women’s autonomy and ability to exercise choice are not downplayed or absent in the facilitation of care (ANMC, 2008, ANMC et al., 2008).

This issue is further complicated by the political climate within which maternity care now exists. Despite many care providers supporting the implementation and practice of WI for labour and birth and having the capacity and accreditation to facilitate the practice, they may be restricted by the lack of institutional resources and support (Garland, 2011) and most commonly, policy that is derived from an aversion of risk and research that has yet to determine with any certainty the safety of using water for labour and birth.

WI for labour and birth, despite putting what feels like an ‘alternative’ slant on care, has the potential as a practice and option of care, to assist care providers such as midwives to re-recognize normal physiological birth and subsequently work towards fulfilling the ultimate goal of woman-centred care.

A drought of evidence?

Water birth, in particular, is frequently associated with perceived risks and dangers and for this reason its use continues to be challenged relative to safety implications for mother and infant as has previously been discussed (Pinette et al., 2004, Kvach and Martonffy, 2012).

The conundrum is yet to be resolved particularly given the perceived paucity of definitive evidence. Yet the option is becoming increasingly demanded and therefore available and as a result, policies are in place to guide care providers in its facilitation, which are probably based (at least in part) on this limited evidence.

Although a number of attempts have been made to undertake research at the ‘gold’ standard, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining WI for labour and birth have suffered from less than optimal sample sizes, selection bias or poorly controlled confounding factors in groups of low risk women who are usually highly passionate and motivated (Woodward and Kelly, 2004, Schroeter, 2004, Cluett and Burns, 2009).

This is evident in the latest Cochrane review that included only 12 suitable studies, and of these, only three examined the use of water during second stage of labour (Cluett and Burns, 2009). Further to this there is currently no population level data being collected anywhere in the world about outcomes of WI nor even how many women choose to use WI in labour and/or birth in water (Pinette et al., 2004).

Undertaking the recommended research on WI and birth particularly such as the RCT suggested by Davies (2010) is complicated given that randomising for such a study brings about ethical and moral concerns.

Hendrix et al. (2009) found this to be the case in their Dutch questionnaire-based study assessing women’s reasons for not participating in an RCT investigating home birth versus hospital birth. Eighty-four women indicated that they did not participate due to a concern that they would be randomised to the ‘wrong’ group.

Woodward and Kelly (2004) attempted to overcome women’s reluctance to participate in their pilot RCT comparing water birth with land birth by including a ‘preference arm’. Their results indicated there were no significant difference noted between women who were randomised and those who chose the ‘preference arm’ and therefore concluded that women would be happy to be randomised in future and similar trials.

However, criticism of this RCT highlights that their sample size was too small and therefore underpowered to determine safety, particularly given that only 10 women birthed in water. Further to this, Keirse (2005) challenges the validity and generalisability given the ‘preference arm’ and the bias that meant only 20 of the 60 women who had a strong preference for one of the two options, were allocated to their preferred option.

Subsequently, randomisation of women to options of care, which elicit both emotive and somewhat passionate views, such as the use of WI in labour and birth, is not ethically or practically feasible particularly where recruitment of large numbers would be required to determine with any certainty the morbidity and mortality of the intervention.

The proposed undertaking of this type of randomised research is further complicated by inconsistency across institutional policies in addition to funding, necessary infrastructure and available accredited staff (Garland, 2011).

Not only does this make it difficult to allow for the option and implementation of WI for labour and birth but it also inadvertently contributes to the lack of evidence in that accessibility is limited and therefore data on resulting outcomes, scarce. Furthermore, where it is consistently highlighted that high quality evidence is deficient, the question must be asked: who or what is informing the policies already in existence?

Initiating a wave of change

It is consistently highlighted that there is insufficient data to inform the practice of labour and birth in water, but is this really the case? It is clear that there is a paucity of evidence in terms of empirical investigation however volumes of anecdotal experience and observational data are available suggesting that water has significant and undeniable benefits to the women, and arguably to the baby.

Despite its availability, little weight is given to this valuable information, information that could be informing the movement forward and providing direction for future investigation of WI for labour and birth.

There is no denying that greater high level research would be advantageous to providing a definitive set of benefits and risks and therefore, greater insight into the relative safety of WI for labour and birth. However, is a RCT the right option?

The suggestion that rigorous evidence is needed to inform policies and guidelines with confidence and reliability could be attributed to what has been termed the ‘medicalisation’ of pregnancy and birth (Brubaker and Dillaway, 2009, Benoit et al., 2010) particularly where the measure of risk is at the forefront of maternity care facilitation.

However, in a risk-averse climate, adverse events whether recognised through well-constructed studies, auditing or anecdotal accounts, are generally the first to be documented so as to prompt review of practice.

Despite this, a search of the literature surrounding WI for labour and birth highlights very few documented adverse outcomes at any level of evidence and of those that are documented; the outcomes cannot always be definitively attributed to the use of water (Pinette et al., 2004, Cluett and Burns, 2009, Byard and Zuccollo, 2010).

What are readily available are anecdotal and observational accounts that suggest that WI has extensive benefits, not only to the woman but also to birth outcomes. It could therefore be argued that quantitative research alone is insufficient to provide answers to myriad of complexities, questions and queries relating to the practice of WI for labour and birth and therefore, insufficient when informing policies particularly where women choose to exercise self-determination and choice irrespective of their perceived risk.

Freeman and Griew (2007) touch on this in their review of one WI policy and its development. Their findings suggest that policy could further be enhanced by placing weight on the views and experiences of consumers and addressing the importance of informed and shared decision making.

This calls for attitudinal change not only to facilitate care that is woman-centred but also to ensure that women’s autonomy is factored into the development and implementation of policies underpinning practice.

The significance and value of qualitative evidence is slowly being realised, particularly in maternity care where WCC is the ideal. Despite this, empirical evidence is still commonly viewed as more rigorous and therefore more reliable.

This is none too clear in the hierarchies of evidence that fail to give weight to qualitative investigation (Spiby and Munro, 2009). However, as health care moves towards patient-centred models, or woman-centredness (Leap, 2009), as is the case in maternity care, there is the need for increasing weight to be also placed on experience and opinion particularly surrounding policy formation and care facilitation.

In light of this, a multi-faceted evidence-based approach to policy development and implementation of WI for labour and birth is likely to be advantageous.

However, before recommendations can be made, a critical analysis of existing policies and their development should occur in order to highlight whether the so-called scarcity of evidence poses difficulties for those involved in WI policy formation and to what extent policy facilitates and/or restricts water use practice and more importantly, women’s autonomy.

Pooling for the future

This paper has touched on the many shortfalls of WI research to date as well as foreseeable difficulties of future research surrounding WI for labour and birth. Future research requires greater emphasis on both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of water use for labour and birth to ensure that policies incorporate both the risk/benefit analysis as well as the opportunity for shared and informed decision-making.

This includes greater exploration of the experiences and perceptions of women and importantly, an examination of current WI policies to determine how they are informed and developed and to what extent they facilitate the practice and support women’s autonomy.

Not only is there the potential for this all-encompassing research to assist maternity care providers in working with autonomy as practitioners and ensuring their ability to advocate for women but there is also the potential for the use of water for labour and birth to have positive outcomes in a system that has an ever increasing rate of intervention and deviation from what can be both a normal and natural process.

References

ANMC 2008. Code of Professional Conduct for Midwives in Australia, Dickson, ANMC.
ANMC, ACM & ANF 2008. Code of Ethics for Midwives in Australia, Dickson, ANMC.
BENFIELD, R. 2002. Hydrotherapy in labor. J Nurs Scholarsh, 34, 347-52.
BENFIELD, R., HERMAN, J., KATZ, V. L., WILSON, S. P. & DAVIS, J. M. 2001. Hydrotherapy in labor. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 57-67.
BENFIELD, R., HORTOBÁGYI, T., TANNER, C., SWANSON, M., HEITKEMPER, M. & NEWTON, E. 2010. The Effects of Hydrotherapy on Anxiety, Pain, Neuroendocrine Responses, and Contraction Dynamics During Labor. Biological Research for Nursing, 12, 28-36.
BENOIT, C., ZADOROZNYJ, M., HALLGRIMSDOTTIR, H., TRELOAR, A. & TAYLOR, K. 2010. Medical dominance and neoliberalisation in maternal care provision: The evidence from Canada and Australia. Social science & medicine, 71, 475-481.
BRUBAKER, S. J. & DILLAWAY, H. E. 2009. Medicalization, natural childbirth and birthing experiences.Sociology Compass, 3, 31-48.
BURNS, E. E., BOULTON, M. G., CLUETT, E., CORNELIUS, V. R. & SMITH, L. A. 2012. Characteristics,Interventions, and Outcomes of Women Who Used a Birthing Pool: A Prospective Observational Study. Birth.
BYARD, R. W. & ZUCCOLLO, J. M. 2010. Forensic issues in cases of water birth fatalities. Am J Forensic Med Pathol, 31, 258-60.
CAROLAN, M. & HODNETT, E. 2007. ‘With woman’ philosophy: examining the evidence, answering the questions. Nursing Inquiry, 14, 140-52.
CARPENTER, L. & WESTON, P. 2011. Neonatal respiratory consequences from water birth. J Paediatr Child Health.
CLUETT, E. & BURNS, E. 2009. Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD000111.
CLUETT, E., PICKERING, R., GETLIFFE, K. & SAUNDERS, N. 2004. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ, 328, 314.
DAHLEN, H. G., DOWLING, H., TRACY, M., SCHMIED, V. & TRACY, S. 2012. Maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst low risk women giving birth in water compared to six birth positions on land. A descriptive cross sectional study in a birth centre over 12 years. Midwifery.
DAVIES, M. 2010. Water births and the research required to assess the benefits versus the harms. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.
DAVIS-FLOYD, R. 2001. The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 75, S5-S23.
EBERHARD, J., STEIN, S. & GEISSBUEHLER, V. 2005. Experience of pain and analgesia with water and land births. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 26, 127-133.
FREEMAN, L. M. & GRIEW, K. 2007. Enhancing the midwife-woman relationship through shared decision making and clinical guidelines. Women Birth, 20, 11-5.
GARLAND, D. 1919. Waterbirth: An attitude to care, Books for Midwives Pr.
GARLAND, D. 2011. Water birth: a way of enhancing and promoting normality. Promoting Normal Birth:Research, Reflections and Guidelines. 1st ed.: Fresh Heart Publishing.
GILBERT, R. E. & TOOKEY, P. A. 1999. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water:surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ, 319, 483-7.
HENDRIX, M., VAN HORCK, M., MORETA, D., NIEMAN, F., NIEUWENHUIJZE, M., SEVERENS, J. & NIJHUIS, J. 2009. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: feasibility of a RCT in The Netherlands. BJOG, 116, 537-42; discussion 542-4.
HOUSTON, J. 2010. Exploring the theories around use of water for labour and for birth. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 20, 343-347.
KASSIM, Z., SELLARS, M. & GREENOUGH, A. 2005. Underwater birth and neonatal respiratory distress. BMJ, 330, 1071-2.
KEIRSE, M. J. 2005. Challenging water birth — how wet can it get? Birth, 32, 318-22.
KITZINGER, S. 2006. Birth crisis, Routledge.
KLEIN, M. C., SAKALA, C., SIMKIN, P., DAVIS‐FLOYD, R., ROOKS, J. P. & PINCUS, J. 2006. Why do women go along with this stuff? Birth, 33, 245-250.
KVACH, E. & MARTONFFY, A. I. 2012. Are there any risks to a water birth?
LEAP, N. 2009. Woman-centred or women-centred care: does it matter? British Journal of Midwifery, 17, 12-16.
MACKEY, M. M. 2001. Use of water in labor and birth. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 44, 733-49.
MAMMAS, I. N. & THIAGARAJAN, P. 2009. Water aspiration syndrome at birth – report of two cases. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 22, 365-7.
MAUDE, R. M. & FOUREUR, M. J. 2007. It’s beyond water: Stories of women’s experience of using water for labour and birth. Women and Birth, 20, 17-24.
MENAKAYA, U., ALBAYATI, S., VELLA, E., FENWICK, J. & ANGSTETRA, D. 2012. A retrospective comparison of water birth and conventional vaginal birth among women deemed to be low risk in a secondary level hospital in Australia. Women Birth.
MEYER, S. L., WEIBLE, C. M. & WOEBER, K. 2010. Perceptions and practice of waterbirth: a survey of Georgia midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health, 55, 55-9.
MOLLAMAHMUTOĞLU, L., MORALOĞLU, Ö., ÖZYER, Ş., SU, F. A., KARAYALÇıN, R., HANÇERLIOĞLU, N.,
UZUNLAR, Ö. & DILMEN, U. 2012. The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery. Journal of The Turkish German Gynecological Association, 13, 45-9.
OTIGBAH, C. M., DHANJAL, M. K., HARMSWORTH, G. & CHARD, T. 2000. A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 91, 15-20.
PINETTE, M. G., WAX, J. & WILSON, E. 2004. The risks of underwater birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 190, 1211-5.
SCHROETER, K. 2004. Water births: a naked emperor. Pediatrics, 114, 855-8.
SOILEAU, S. L., SCHNEIDER, E., ERDMAN, D. D., LU, X., RYAN, W. D. & MCADAMS, R. M. 2013. Case report: Severe disseminated adenovirus infection in a neonate following water birth delivery. J Med Virol, 85, 667-9.
SPIBY, H. & MUNRO, J. 2009. The development and peer review of evidence-based guidelines to support midwifery led care in labour. Midwifery, 25, 163-71.
STARK, M. A. & MILLER, M. G. 2009. Barriers to the use of hydrotherapy in labor. JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 38, 667-675.
WOODWARD, J. & KELLY, S. M. 2004. A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of water birth versus land birth. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 111, 537-545.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Position statement on the use of water for labour and birth 

In light of the publication of recent articles that report the growing demand from women around the world who want to have a natural, drug free, non-medicalised birth (Weiss 2014 and Gilbert 2015) we need to look at ways to help them have this experience.

If they are not going be reliant on analgesia for pain relief they need options to help them cope with the pain to allow a physiological labor to unfold.

Immersion in warm water has been unequivocally proven to be of great benefit both physiologically and psychologically.

It is not important if the baby is born in water.

In fact, water birth should be de-emphasised as it is a controversial issue in many parts of the world.

The key point and main benefit that needs to be made and focused on is how women who enter a warm pool of water in established labour with strong contractions find that they are able to cope with the pain and have a natural birth.

Women have a greater sense of fulfillment and accomplishment and babies experience a non-traumatic birth.

Aside from the obvious benefits to mothers and babies, midwives experience greater job satisfaction and hospitals save money and optimise resources from the reduced use of analgesia, medical intervention and shorter hospital stays.

Nearly a third of women benefited from the use of a water birth pool in the UK in 2014 (National Maternity Survey 2014).

With up to 60% of mothers open to natural birth now is the time for midwives, obstetricians and hospitals to consider making this safe, low cost option available.

Studies have shown that upright labour positions are associated with a reduced second stage, fewer episiotomies or instrumental intervention in contrast to mothers labouring on their backs. (Gupta, Hofmeyr and Shehmar 2012 and Gupta and Nikodem 2000).

Many women also feel empowered in an upright position, and experience a sense of control over their labour (Balaskas 2001).

On land women need to contend with the force of gravity that limits their ability to assume upright postures especially as labour progresses and they feel tired.

Many women do not have the fitness or stamina to maintain upright postures for lengths of time. (Gupta JK, Hofmeyr GJ, Smyth R 2007).

The transition from the land to water helps revive and energise the mother giving her a new lease on life and sense of purpose.

The buoyancy of water supports the mother reducing her relative weight by approx. 33% (Archimedes Principle) allowing her to easily explore the full range of beneficial upright positions in comfort and move in ways that were not possible on land.

The calming, relaxing effect of the warm water promotes the flow of oxytocin, a powerful hormone that plays a huge role in childbirth, causing the uterus to contract and triggering the ‘fetal ejection reflex’.

Michel Odent has expounded upon the beneficial physiological effect that immersion in water during labour has on hormone secretion, including observations that women entering warm water experience oxytocin surges which can advance dilation and stimulate contractions (Odent 2014).

The space, depth and design features of Active Birth Pools allow women to move freely to find and be supported in the upright positions that are most comfortable and beneficial for a physiological labor to unfold.

 

SaveSave

Management of High Risk Women using Birthing Pool and Telemetry

There is evidence that water emersion in labour offers women a safe and effective form of pain relief in labour to those women who meet the criteria (NICE, 2007; NICE, 2014; Garland, 2011).

The use of telemetry provides women greater choice and control over their birth experience to facilitate the use of water (Birthing Pool or Bath) in labour and birth where their pregnancy and labour has been categorised as high risk and requires continuous fetal monitoring.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been written to facilitate continuous fetal monitoring of high risk women in labour and birth who wish to use the birthing pool / water.

Telemetry is a wireless fetal monitoring device which facilitates continuous toco graph (CTG) monitoring where clinically indicated in the first and second stage of labour on a consultant led delivery suite.

Prior to the woman being offered the use of the birthing pool on the Delivery Suite consideration should be given to the plan of care and requirements of the woman and baby having reviewed the fully ante natal history.

The following lists are not exhaustive and full clinical assessment should be made on admission to delivery suite.

Click here for a copy of these guidelines

Hydrotherapy in Labor and Birth

In recent years, professional organizations that represent maternal-child health care providers have taken various positions on the recommended use of immersion hydrotherapy during labor and birth. The resulting lack of consensus has made consistent and equitable access to this non-pharmacologic method for pain relief in labor challenging.

This model practice template was jointly developed by representatives from the American Association of Birth Centers, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North America, National Association of Certified Professional Midwives, and other experts to offer guidance to health care professionals and institutions that provide or are implementing hydrotherapy services. This document is informed by the most current available information and resources that support best practices and serves as an outline of the various roles and responsibilities involved in providing hydrotherapy during labor and birth. Limited information has been published on the efficacy and safety of specific care practices before, during, or after hydrotherapy. However, this document is informed by the methodologically-sound, peer-reviewed studies that have been published to date. The format of this model practice template allows for adaptation depending on the setting and the maternity care professionals involved to support the development of individual practice guidelines and institutional policies and procedures.

  • I.PURPOSEThe purpose of this model practice template is to assist professionals caring for women who labor and/or give birth in water.
  • II. DEFINITIONS
    • A. Warm water immersion: Immersion in a tub with depth that allows for complete submersion of the abdomen to the breast level.
    • B. Water labor: Use of warm water immersion during any stage of labor up to but not including the birth of the neonate.
    • C. Waterbirth: Use of warm water immersion during the second stage of labor that results in the birth of a neonate entirely underwater, regardless of the location of delivery of the placenta.
  • III. OUTCOME STATEMENT
    • A. Provide increased options for the woman regarding labor and birth and enhance the woman’s satisfaction with the birth experience.
    • B. In the case of water immersion only, enhance the comfort of the woman and ensure the safety of the woman and fetus throughout the first stage of labor.
    • C. In the case of waterbirth, maintain the comfort of the woman and ensure the safety of the woman and fetus throughout labor and birth to achieve a normal, spontaneous, vaginal birth of a healthy newborn under water.
  • IV.BENEFITSWarm water immersion during childbirth provides the woman in labor with alternatives to conventional pain relief strategies and birth methods. Respect for the woman’s autonomy and choice is important. Immersion is strongly associated with and may result in the following:
    • A. Increased mobility.5
    • B. Reduced need for analgesia or anesthesia.6, 7
    • C. Lower episiotomy rates.7, 8
    • D. Decreased likelihood of third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations. 7, 9, 10
    • E. Facilitation of labor progress by diminishing stress and catecholamine production, which can enhance the
  •  
    •   perception of pain and slow the progress of labor.11
    • F. Greater levels of patient satisfaction.9
  • V.RISKSIn predominantly observational studies, investigators did not find increased rates of maternal, fetal, or neonatal morbidity or mortality associated with labor and birth in water.6, 7, 12, 13 However, it is important to ensure that risks are explained to the woman before immersion, including the following:
    • A. Umbilical cord avulsion (tearing). This may occur if too much traction is placed on the cord during waterbirth. Avulsion can typically be managed with little or no negative sequelae if recognized and treated immediately to minimize blood loss. Failure to respond immediately with effective management could result in the need for a neonatal blood transfusion.7, 1416
    • B. Hyperthermia. Elevation of maternal core temperature can result in maternal hyperthermia, which can lead to fetal tachycardia.17 In the absence of infection and with early recognition and intervention, this should resolve upon leaving the tub or cooling the water.16, 17
    • C. Perineal laceration. Waterbirth is associated with a decreased rate of third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations79, 18; however, waterbirth may slightly increase the risk of less significant perineal trauma.18
    • D. Infection. In studies of water labor and waterbirth, investigators have not demonstrated increased overall rates of maternal or neonatal infection following immersion during any stage of labor regardless of the status of membranes during hydrotherapy.6, 7, 13, 18 However, if the tub is not cleaned properly or harbors unusual organisms such as Pseudomonas or Legionella, the woman and/or neonate could acquire an atypical infection.16, 1921
    • E. Neonatal water aspiration. In case reports, researchers demonstrated that when secondary apnea is present (due to fetal hypoxia), neonates may exhibit a gasping reflex at the time of waterbirth that can result in the inhalation of water and potentially make resuscitation and ventilation more challenging.13, 16, 22 If an indeterminate fetal heart rate pattern is detected, further evaluation is indicated.
    • F. Mortality. As with conventional birth, the potential exists for death of the woman or neonate. No maternal deaths have been reported, and only isolated fetal deaths have been attributed to immersion during labor or birth.12, 13, 1618
  • VI.STANDARD REQUIREMENTS TO FACILITATE HYDROTHERAPYDuring the prenatal period, health care providers should discuss the potential use of water during labor and/or birth with all low-risk women as part of an overall discussion and education regarding evidence-based options for pain relief.23 If a woman desires water immersion and/or waterbirth, the health care provider should engage in an ongoing process of informed consent and shared decision making with the woman regarding this option.24 The woman and health care provider should discuss the state of the science, risks and benefits of water immersion and waterbirth, and factors that increase the potential for optimal perinatal outcomes; they should review potential barriers to the use of these options based on the woman’s unique health history (refer to contraindications outlined in section VIII) and preferences. During the informed consent process, the woman and health care provider should discuss issues that include the limited research that is available about waterbirth; the optimal timing and duration of immersion hydrotherapy; and emerging areas of outcomes research, such as seeding the newborn microbiome after waterbirth and any effect of labor or birth in water beyond the standard perinatal outcomes assessed in studies to date.
  • VII.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIAWomen who meet the following criteria are eligible to use warm water immersion during labor and/or birth:
    • A. Cephalic presentation.
    • B. Singleton.
    • C. 37 0/7 weeks’ gestation or greater.
    • D. Category I fetal heart rate or Category II fetal heart rate after review by the maternity care team and with consideration of stage of labor and associated maternal and fetal factors, including baseline fetal heart rate, regular rhythm, and presence or absence of recurrent fetal heart rate decelerations from the baseline.25, 26 Based upon birth setting and maternal and/or fetal risk factors, fetal heart rate can be evaluated using intermittent auscultation and/or waterproof electronic fetal monitoring during water immersion. Interpretation of fetal heart rate assessment should be consistent with established guidelines, such as those published by the American College of Nurse-Midwives,26 the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses,27and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.28
  • VIII. CURRENT PREGNANCY AND LABOR CONDITIONS IN WHICH WATER IMMERSION OR WATERBIRTH IS NOT RECOMMENDED19
    • A. Abnormal vaginal bleeding.
    • B. Maternal fever > 38.0°C (100.4°F).
    • C. Any condition that requires continuous fetal monitoring that cannot be obtained during immersion.
    • D. Active herpes simplex lesion, hepatitis B or C, HIV.
    • E. Musculoskeletal issues or reduced mobility that may prevent the woman from leaving the bath quickly if necessary.
    • F. Epidural analgesia or anesthesia.
    • G. Intrapartum hemorrhage.
    • H. Pregnancy complications or conditions that can complicate birth or transition of the neonate to extrauterine life.
    • I. Administration of opioid or other sedating medications within one hour of hydrotherapy initiation or longer in case of persistent risk to maternal mobility, airway protection, or ability to follow instructions.
    • J. Clinical judgment of the attending provider that the woman’s condition or the fetal status prohibits ongoing immersion.
  • IX. PRECAUTIONS
    • A. Performance of infection control measures in accordance with separate guidelines (see section XVII).
    • B. Universal personal protective equipment should be used according to facility guidelines.
    • C. Any break in maternity care professional or patient skin integrity must be covered with an occlusive waterproof dressing.
    • D. Emergency equipment must be readily available in the room with the laboring woman.
    • E. If the water becomes contaminated with feces or debris, the woman may be asked to leave the tub temporarily until it is removed or the water can be changed and the tub cleaned.
    • F. Prolonged heating of standing water may encourage bacterial contamination. Protocols should include a process for regularly scheduled emptying and cleaning of the tub.
    • G. After each use, the tub and all reusable equipment must be thoroughly cleaned and allowed to dry before next use per institutional guidelines.
  • X. SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR INTRAPARTUM WATER IMMERSION
    • A. Water thermometer.
    • B. Waterproof Doppler and ultrasound gel at tub side for intermittent auscultation or waterproof telemetry on the unit for continuous fetal monitoring if available within the facility.
    • C. Small net, strainer, or basin.
    • D. Small handheld or waterproof mirror.
    • E. Waterproof flashlight.
  • XI. STAFF ROLES
    • A. Responsibilities of the maternity care provider
      • 1)  Maintain current knowledge of the advantages, precautions, contraindications, and current literature regarding the use of immersion hydrotherapy.
      • 2)  During the prenatal period, provide all pregnant women with information about the benefits, risks, and potential harms of hydrotherapy during labor and birth along with other pain relief options. Use an informed consent document to ensure consistency in the presentation of this information. This information should be reviewed again before use of the tub during labor as indicated.
      • 3)  Offer families the option of hydrotherapy and assess the woman’s desire for this option through an ongoing process of assessment and shared decision making.
      • 4)  Counsel the woman on the risks and benefits of water immersion for labor and birth and the institutional protocols for use of the tub.
      • 5)  Perform ongoing assessment of the woman’s condition to determine if labor and/or birth in the water are indicated.
      • 6)  Ensure adherence to evidence-based guidelines for use of water immersion or waterbirth.
      • 7)  Provide shared decision making and ongoing assessment of the evolving process and progress of labor; discuss changes in status that may indicate the need to discontinue use of the tub.
      • 8)  Provide direct supervision of care and birth of the neonate.
    • B. Responsibilities of the registered nurse
      • 1)  Assess the woman’s understanding of the risks and benefits of water immersion for labor and birth and her understanding of institutional protocols for use of the tub; confirm her desire for use of tub for labor and birth.
      • 2)  Before immersion, ensure the woman meets eligibility criteria outlined in section VII.
      • 3)  Maintain the safety of the woman in the tub while providing care and support in collaboration with the attending provider. This includes ongoing assessment for changes that may occur that alter the woman’s eligibility for continued use of water immersion. Care includes assessment of maternal and fetal status consistent with standards of care for a woman in labor.25, 29
      • 4)  Maintain safe tub conditions, including hourly assessment of water temperature. Remove debris and change bath water as needed or as stated in facility protocol.
      • 5)  Establish and maintain safe route of exit from tub to bed and vice versa, and ensure there are no potential hazards (eg, wet floor, equipment).
      • 6)  Ensure availability of additional personnel to facilitate safe exit of the woman from tub if indicated.
    • C. Responsibilities of non-licensed personnel
      • 1)  In an out-of-hospital birth setting, non-licensed personnel may help to support a woman using water immersion for labor and or birth. This birth assistant’s role may extend to monitoring the status of the woman and fetus while in the tub under the supervision of the attending provider. The role of the birth assistant should be consistent with her or his established skill and training and institutional or practice guidelines.
      • 2)  It is recognized that family members and doulas may provide social and emotional support to the woman while she is in the tub. They should be instructed by a member of the health care team on how to call for assistance should they have any concerns or see signs of impending birth. If the woman wants to exit the tub, a health care provider should be informed before she does so.
  • XII. MANAGEMENT OF LABOR IN WATER
    • A. Before immersion, ensure the woman is a candidate for warm water immersion based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (sections VII and VIII).
    • B. The tub should be filled using ordinary tap water without additives (eg, salt, essential oils, sanitizers).
    • C. The water temperature should be assessed hourly.
      • 1)  During the first stage of labor in water, the water temperature should never exceed 37.7°C (100°F) and may be adjusted to cooler temperatures per the woman’s preference.
    • D. The woman in labor may enter or leave the water at any point with assistance.
      • 1)  Record the times that the woman enters and leaves the tub.
      • 2)  The woman should be instructed to use proper body mechanics when entering and exiting the tub and do so only with staff or a support personn attendance.
      • 3)  If complications or changes occur in the maternal or fetal condition that require further assessment or treatment outside of the tub, share this information with the family and assist the woman out of the tub.
    • E. Positioning for comfort in the tub is dependent on the preferences of the woman and the judgment of the provider in consultation with the woman.
    • F. Provide hydration in the form of oral liquids or intravenous (IV) fluids as indicated. All IV or saline lock sites should be covered with an occlusive, water-resistant dressing while the woman is in the tub.
    • G. The well-being of the woman and fetus are assessed and managed in accordance with practice protocols for any other woman during labor, including monitoring maternal vital signs, assessing the fetal heart rate,25, 26 and initiating intrauterine resuscitation strategies when indicated (eg, maternal position changes and IV fluid bolus for fetal heart rate changes or Category II fetal heart rate).
      • 1)  A waterproof Doppler or waterproof electronic fetal monitoring equipment should be used to assess the fetal heart rate.
      • 2)  Waterproof electronic fetal monitoring equipment may be used to verify or clarify if an indeterminate fetal heart rate pattern is present, and this can guide management.
      • 3)  Management of indeterminate fetal heart rate patterns depends on multiple factors. Intrapartum resuscitation techniques such as position change, hydration, and correction of hypotension or tachysystole are instituted as necessary.
    • H. Vaginal examinations may be performed underwater when necessary.
    • I. Intermittent maternal self-administration of nitrous oxide during labor and birth in water is acceptable when available.
  • XIII. MANAGEMENT OF THE SECOND STAGE OF LABOR
    • A. The woman may choose any position in the tub for pushing during the second stage of labor that feels comfortable and that is deemed safe by the attending provider or registered nurse. The health care professional may request adjustments to the position to facilitate observation of progress and/or to maintain assessment of maternal and fetal well-being.
    • B. Water temperature
      • 1)  During the second stage of labor, the water temperature should never exceed 37.7°C (100°F) and may be adjusted based on the woman’s preference within a narrow range of 36.1°C to 37.7°C (97.0°F to 100°F).
    • C. Maternal and fetal well-being should be assessed and documented as they would be for a conventional birth.25
    • D. Fetal heart rate and contraction pattern are assessed in accordance with standard of care recommendations, generally every 5 to 15 minutes.25, 28
    • E. Supporting birth of the neonate
      • 1)  The woman should be supported in the use of spontaneous, physiologic pushing.
      • 2)  The health care provider may use a hands-off or hands-poised position to facilitate birth by controlled, spontaneous, pushing efforts; a hands-on method of birth management may be employed when indicated.
      • 3)  It may not be necessary to feel for the presence of a nuchal cord if the birth of the body quickly follows the head. Loose nuchal cords and other entanglements can be resolved as the neonate is born underwater before the first breath (see section XVI).
      • 4)  The time of birth will be noted when the neonate’s entire body is outside of the woman.
      • 5)  The neonate must be born completely underwater without exposure to air until the face is brought gently and directly to the surface. The neonate’s head must not be resubmerged under water after it has been brought to the surface.
      • 6)  If a woman raises herself out of the water and exposes the head of the fetus to air, she should be assisted/supported to remain out of the water to avoid the potential risk of the neonate gasping underwater with resubmersion.
      • 7)  After birth, assist in bringing the neonate directly and gently to the surface (within 5–10 seconds) to minimize tension on the umbilical cord and to reduce the possibility of avulsion. Cord clamps should be readily available.
      • 8)  Maintain warmth of the neonate through skin-to-skin contact with the woman and submersion of the neonate’s lower extremities, abdomen, and chest. Dry the neonate’s exposed head to reduce heat loss.
      • 9)  Apgar scores should be obtained at one and 5 minutes after birth per routine.
      • 10)  In the presence of stable newborn status and transition to extrauterine life, care of the cord can follow best practices to support delayed cord clamping.
      • 11)  If neonatal resuscitation measures are indicated and this is not possible without cutting the cord, the cord should be clamped and cut, and the neonate removed from the water immediately.
  • XIV. MANAGEMENT OF THE THIRD STAGE OF LABOR
    • A. The third stage of labor may occur in or out of the tub depending on the status of the woman and neonate, provider skill and comfort, and duration of third stage.
    • B. Management of third stage of labor should proceed consistent with standards of care to reduce risk of postpartum hemorrhage. For women at greater risk of postpartum hemorrhage, the third stage should be managed out of the water to support management and accurate quantification of blood loss.
    • C. In cases where the health care providers note increasing darkening or discoloration of the water or any indication of increased bleeding, the woman should be immediately removed from the tub for continued evaluation and treatment. While most elements of the management of the third stage of labor, including active management, can be safely implemented in the tub, initiation of some treatments such as bimanual compression and accurate quantification of blood loss should be performed out of the tub.
    • D. Quantified or estimated blood loss should be recorded in the medical record. If the third stage is completed out of the water, quantification should occur according to institutional standards.
    • E. Postnatal observations of the woman and neonate should be performed in accordance with institutional policies. Most postpartum assessments can be conducted with the dyad in skin-to-skin contact with the woman in the tub.
    • F. Evaluation and repair of perineal lacerations are ideally accomplished on a bed for optimal visualization.
  • XV. EVALUATION AND CARE OF THE NEONATE
    • A. The neonatal resuscitation guidelines of the American Heart Association should be utilized to assess the neonate,29 and Apgar scores should be obtained at one and 5 minutes after birth per routine. If neonatal resuscitation measures are indicated and this is not possible without cutting the cord, the cord should be clamped and cut, and the neonate removed from the water immediately.
    • B. Make certain the neonate remains close to the woman (skin-to-skin) and partially submerged to help maintain body temperature. Dry the neonate’s exposed head to reduce heat loss.
    • C. If neonatal tachycardia (heart rate >160 bpm), bradycardia (heart rate < 100bpm), hyperthermia (temperature >38°C [100.4°F]), hypothermia (temperature <36°C [97.0°F]), tachypnea (respirations >60 per min), grunting, or retracting is noted, the neonate should be taken out of the tub for further assessment.
  • XVI. COMPLICATIONSAs when caring for any woman in labor, the health care professional is responsible for using clinical judgment to respond appropriately when complications arise. If deviations from normal during immersion are observed, the woman should be asked to exit the tub and assisted out of the water for further assessment as necessary to perform standard care assessments and interventions.
    • A. Tight nuchal cord. If a tight nuchal cord cannot be reduced, and the somersault maneuver is ineffective, the woman should be assisted to stand above the water so the cord can be clamped and cut to facilitate birth out of the water. Under no circumstances should a nuchal cord be clamped and cut under water. The woman should remain standing to give birth to the rest of the body and to avoid submersion of the neonate’s head after birth.
    • B. Shoulder dystocia. If a shoulder dystocia occurs in the tub and cannot be resolved with position change, assist the woman out of the tub to complete the birth. Once the neonate’s head is exposed to air, it should not be re-submerged.
    • C. Excessive bleeding
      • 1)  The presence of excessive bleeding into the water should prompt the immediate evaluation of the source.
      • 2)  In the case of excessive bleeding, assist the woman out of the tub for further evaluation. Initiate quantification of blood loss to more accurately assess blood loss volume.
      • 3)  If cord rupture is suspected, the cord should be immediately clamped at the umbilicus and cut. Cord clamps must be readily available. If cord rupture is confirmed, the newborn should be removed from the tub for assessment.
    • D. Loss of consciousness. Emergency procedures must be enacted immediately, and the woman should be removed from the tub quickly and safely. Assign one person to ensure the woman’s head remains above the water surface at all times and activate the emergency response team to help lift the unconscious woman out of the tub and to initiate emergency evaluation and treatment.
  • XVII. INFECTION CONTROL PRINCIPLESDepending on the setting or type of institution, infection control policies and procedures will vary. These guidelines reflect the scant available data on the use and cleaning of tubs for the purpose of intrapartum immersion hydrotherapy.30 The following principles are offered as guidance for the development of needed policies:
    • A. Clean the hydrotherapy tub after each use.
    • B. Before cleaning, don non-sterile, single-use gloves.
    • C. Drain the hydrotherapy tub, remove all debris from the tub, and dispose of debris in an appropriate receptacle based on the type of waste.
    • D. Manually wash all interior surfaces of the hydrotherapy tub using a mild non-abrasive detergent solution and a clean towel or disposable cloth.
    • E. Rinse the tub with warm water to remove all detergent residue.
    • F. Apply a disinfecting agent to all interior surfaces of the hydrotherapy tub using a spray application and ensure all surfaces are thoroughly wetted with the disinfectant. The minimum time that the germicidal agent must remain in contact with the tub surface to achieve the appropriate level of disinfection is prescribed by the product manufacturer and is indicated on the product label. Only use disinfecting agents that are US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered as effective against HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Consult with the preventive medicine department for approval to use products that are not EPA-registered.
    • G. After achieving appropriate disinfection, rinse the hydrotherapy tub with hot water to remove the remaining chemical residue and allow surfaces to air dry.
    • H. Clean and disinfect all multiclient use equipment in contact with the bath water (eg, waterproof thermometers, mirrors) as outlined in F.

DISCLAIMER

This document is specific to considerations regarding hydrotherapy during labor and/or birth and is provided as an educational aid to members of the endorsing organizations and interested maternity care providers. This model practice template is not intended to dictate an exclusive course of management or to substitute for individual professional judgment. It presents recognized methods and techniques of clinical practice that maternity care providers may consider incorporating into their practices. The needs of an individual client or the resources and limitations of a particular setting or type of practice may appropriately lead to variations in clinical care. The information in this document is gleaned from published literature available through April 2016. This document will be reviewed against newly available scientific evidence and/or every 5 years after initial publication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document was developed by a multi-organizational task force hosted by the American College of Nurse-Midwives. Members of the task force were self-identified experts in use of hydrotherapy, researchers who have addressed this topic, and formally appointed representatives from the participating organizations. The organizations formally endorsing this document include the American Association of Birth Centers, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North American, and National Association of Certified Professional Midwives. Contributing authors to this document include the following individuals:

Co-Editors

Lisa Kane Low, CNM, PhD, FACNM, FAAN

Associate Professor, University of Michigan School of Nursing

President, American College of Nurse-Midwives

Elizabeth Nutter, CNM, DNP

Major, United States Army

Representative, American College of Nurse-Midwives

Organizational Contributors

Colleen Donovan-Batson, MS, CNM, ARNP

Director, Division of Health Policy and Advocacy

Midwives Alliance of North America

Cynthia B. Flynn, CNM, PhD, FACNM

Representative, American Association of Birth Centers

Lesley Meenach Rathbun, CNM, FNP, MSN

Director, Charleston Birth Place

President, American Association of Birth Centers

Maria Christina Johnson, CNM, MS, FACNM

Director of Professional Practice and Health Policy

American College of Nurse-Midwives National Office Staff

Kaye Kanne, CPM

Representative, National Association of Certified Professional Midwives

Jenna Shaw-Battista, CNM, PhD, FACNM

Representative, American College of Nurse-Midwives

[Corrections added after online publication November 29, 2016: For Colleen Donovan-Batson: Name and credentials were corrected from “Colleen Batson-Donovan, CPM” to “Colleen Donovan-Batson, MS, CNM, ARNP” and “Public” was removed from the title. For Lesley Meenach Rathbun: Rathburn was corrected to Rathbun.]

Individual Expert Contributors

Roma Allen, MSN, RNC-OB

Carrie F. Bonsack, CNM, DNP

Shaunti Meyer, CNM, MA, MS

Catherine Ruhl, CNM, MSN

Research shows that labouring or giving birth in water provides clear benefits for healthy mothers and their babies.

Wednesday, 06 July 2022

Oxford Brookes University

New analysis of research shows that using a birth pool during labour provides “clear benefits” for healthy mums and their newborn, with less intervention and fewer complications during and after the birth than when compared to labouring and giving birth on land. Mothers also report higher levels of satisfaction with their birth experience.

Dr Ethel Burns of Oxford Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences led a team of researchers, working with Dr Claire Feeley (Oxford Brookes), Dr Priscilla Hall (Emory University, USA) and Dr Jennifer Vanderlaan (University of Nevada, USA). The research looking at 157,546 sets of mothers and babies was published today, in the journal BMJ Open   .

What is water immersion during labour?

Water immersion in a birth pool during labour and birth can be divided into two distinct but overlapping categories. Some women may choose to leave a birth pool before giving birth, and others remain in the birth pool to give birth.  The researchers wanted to compare healthcare interventions during labour and birth between water birth, labouring in water, and standard care with no water immersion.

The research which was reviewed as part of the study included a broad range of interventions and outcomes. These included things like what drugs were given to ease pain, the health of the baby at birth, loss of blood after the baby was born and the condition of mother and baby.

Low tech care option

Dr Ethel Burns, Senior Midwifery Lecturer at Oxford Brookes University said: ”This research shows that it is just as safe for healthy mothers to give birth in water as on land and that there are considerable benefits for mothers who choose to labour in a birthing pool.  Water immersion is an effective method to reduce pain in making it a low-tech way to improve care quality and mothers’ satisfaction with care”.

The authors recommended that future research should include factors that are known to influence interventions and outcomes during and after labour or birth such as how many children a woman has already had, where she gives birth, who looks after her, and the care she receives.