Improved Water Birth Pool Design

In mid-90’s we met with health service ergonomist Sue Hignett to discuss ways our water birth pools could be improved to better serve the needs of mothers and midwives.

This lead to the ground-breaking innovations in design, materials and manufacture that have culminated in todays range of award winning Active Birth Pools.

Design is based upon the dynamics of mothers and midwives as they interact with the pool and each other. Every shape, every curve, every varying degree of rounded corner – there is a reason behind them.

Our new water birth pools take the 5 points outlined on Pg. 2 of the article (below) to new levels of sophistication thanks to the properties of the unique material (Ficore® composite) we now use.

We longer advocate the use of multi-step units as this has proven to present manual handling risks. The pools are now lower and have wider rims which gives mothers better options for getting in and out of the pool.

The new range of water birth pools is not only much more beautiful, but more comfortable, safer and easy to use.

Click here for a PDF of this article

Related Articles:

The world’s first specially designed water birth pools

In 1987 Keith Brainin, Founder and Director of Active Birth Pools developed the world’s first specially designed water birth pool.

A portable pool fabricated from four sections of fibreglass and a waterproof liner designed for home or hospital use.

In 1988 Yehudi Gordon (obstetrician, active & water birth pioneer) asked Keith to design and supply a purpose built birthing pool for the birth unit at the Garden Hospital in North London.

Keith met with obstetricians, midwives and health and safety experts to discuss the considerations that needed to be taken into account.

Issues regarding material, plumbing, infection control, manual handling and shape & size were evaluated.

We followed Michel Odent’s sage advice of making the pool “Big enough but not too big – deep enough but not too deep”.

Midwife Jennifer Starisky supporting a women in labour in front of the world's first water birth pool

1989 Garden Hospital, London

In 1995 Keith met with Sue Hignett, a health service ergonomist who told me that she had some suggestions to make as to how my birth pools could serve mothers and midwives better.

Studies had revealed that by making the rim wider and removing the skirting panel we would dramatically improve the comfort and usability of our water birth pools.

Click Here for a copy of the case study ‘Improving Birthing Pool Design’ published by the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human factors.

1996 NHS Hospital, England

As you can see in the photo above the pool now has the extra-wide rim and cut away profile that are the hallmarks of an Active Birth Pool.

Moving forward to the present….

Fabrication in Ficore composite has enabled us to full realise the potential of the design.

With flowing forms and soft curves this is beyond a doubt the paragon of birth pool design and manufacture!

2015 Meadow Birth Centre, Worcester Hospital

A greater possibility of normal physiological labour and birth

The keyword that defines our approach to water birth pool design is ‘Active’.

If we look up the definition of ‘Active Birth’  we get, “Childbirth during which the mother is encouraged to move around freely and assume any position which feels comfortable”.

Active Birth Pools provide mothers with the space and depth to move freely in the postures natural to labour and birth.

As she moves, she intuitively discovers features that provide support and make her more comfortable.

Other birth pools have elaborately moulded interiors that can be described as an “obstetric chair in a bath”.

These birth pools typically have very little floor space or room to move.

As Sheila Kitzinger wrote in her article ‘The clock, the bed, the chair’ published in 2003:

“Even a recent innovation, the birth pool, does not always permit free movement. In theory, a pool allows a woman, supported by water, to move unencumbered.

Or so it might be thought.

Though published research often refers to mobility as an advantage of being in a pool, some pools are elaborate constructions with seats, handgrips and foot-rests, and movement in them is restricted.”

The pool dictates the position the mother should be in by placing her in a semi-recumbent posture with hand holds and foot rests to fix the arms and legs.

Mothers are positioned in the classic lying back with legs wide-open position but happen to be immersed in water.

The seats in these water birth pools are typically tilted backwards. The mother is immobilised in a position with her pelvis tilted upwards resulting in her  pelvic outlet being up to 30% smaller.

This puts pressure on the sacrum which flexes upward, into a curved position that restricts the diameter of the pelvic outlet inhibiting the baby’s descent.

The birth canal is placed in an “uphill” orientation, forcing the mother to push upward against gravity to give birth to her  baby.

These seats and moulded fittings greatly reduce the space the mother has to move in and restricts her ability to use the positions most beneficial.

The benefits of labouring in water are largely negated. The possibility of a physiological labour and natural birth is greatly reduced.

By contrast the Active Birth Pool gives mothers plenty of room to move with an unobstructed floor area that measures 1200 x 800mm.

A water birth pool should have features and design elements that support the mother as she changes position rather than dictate the position she is in.

Mothers experience maximum advantage of the benefits that water offers to help increase the likelihood of a physiological labour and natural birth.

‘Freedom of Movement video’ 

To see how mothers benefit from complete freedom of movement click on the link above.

This short home made video shows how the mother relates to the pool and the natural flow of movement that ensues. It has been hugely popular on YouTube.

Related information:

Inside the birth pool factory

The reason that our hospital water birth pools are the very best in the world is twofold:

  1. The quality of our designs determines the comfort, function and beauty of our water birth pools.
  2. The quality of engineering, manufacture and service that Design and Form bring to fabrication of Active Birth Pools makes them second to none!

Design and Form manufacture to order by hand using a proprietary material they developed to make up for the inadequacies of commonly used materials.

Seamless, one-piece fabrication in Ficore composite puts Active Birth Pools in a class of their own.

 

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Water Birth Pools: The economic reality and impact

I wrote this article a few years ago.

It seems particularly relevant now.

Claire+Riding

Recent news has highlighted the restrictive financial environment that maternity units will be expected to operate in.

Yet, at the same time midwives are charged with the important task of improving the quality of care and services.

David Cameron has said, “The whole aim of these NHS reforms is to make sure we get the value for the money we put in.”[1]

In the same article, Stephen Dorrell, former Health Secretary commented that, “In real terms, the NHS budget was being broadly maintained, but we’re having to find ways of doing more with the same amount of money.”[2]

The only way of improving maternity services is by optimising facilities, saving money wherever practical and normalising childbirth to a far greater extent.

Studies have shown that women who are supported during labour need to have fewer painkillers, experience fewer interventions and give birth to stronger babies.

After their babies are born, supported women feel better about themselves, their labour and their babies.

A focus on normalising birth results in better quality, safer care for mothers and their babies with an improved experience.

Increasing normal births is associated with shorter (or no) hospital stays, fewer adverse incidents and admissions to neonatal units and better health outcomes for mothers.

It is also associated with higher rates of successful breastfeeding and a more positive birth experience.

These changes benefit not only women and their families but also maternity staff.  Midwives are able to spend less time on non-clinical tasks and more on caring for women and their babies.

Psychologically speaking, and in particular for first time mothers, the less intervention and a more hands on approach with one-to-one support means that mothers will leave hospital feeling held and therefore far better prepared for motherhood.

This again has a domino effect, not just on the welfare of the infant, but also circumventing the need for costly government and LA interventionist approaches in particular for younger mothers post-partum.

What increases the likelihood of normal births?

It is also known that some factors help to facilitate straightforward birth without evidence of additional risks, including one-to-one support, immersion in water for low-risk women, planning for a home birth, care from known midwives, more extensive training of junior doctors, employment of consultant midwives focusing on normality, and support on the labour ward from consultant obstetricians[3].

How can midwives make a case for purchasing birth pools?

The need for more water birth facilities is evident.  The problem is that financial controllers are under pressure to save money.

They will not be easily convinced of the necessity unless you clearly stress that purchasing pools should not be viewed as a cost but rather to make the case that they are a valuable investment and will enable your unit to optimise resources, improve the quality of care and yield a return of significant financial savings.

A birth pool is a simple, inexpensive piece of medical equipment that can have a major impact on the quality of care and cost of having a baby.

The bed is no longer the primary focus of the room: having birth pools in hospitals and delivery suites facilitates pain relief encourages relaxation and therefore confidence and promotes mobility along with soft furnishings such as beanbags.

Princes-Water-Birth-Pool-QEH-Kings-Lynn1 (1)

Importantly, this results in significant financial savings! 

Our cost study has revealed that savings of up to £700.00 per birth can be achieved.

For example, St Richards Hospital in Chichester has three of our birth pools as well as our soft furnishings.

They recently reported their first successful VBAC in the pool for a woman who had previously had twins by c-section.

Depending on complications, a c-section costs between £1,370 and £1,879 in contrast to a normal delivery that is usually between £735 and £1,097.[4]

The experience of hospitals that have birth pools demonstrates that the cost of installing a pool is soon recouped by the savings achieved through reduced use of medical methods of pain relief and shorter hospital stays.

Wherever possible, women should have the opportunity to labour in water, as this is often far more comfortable.

The NHS has advised hospitals to ensure facilities are in place for this: three pools for 1,000 births a year is seen as adequate provision[5].

 

[1] BBC: 19/01/11
[2] BBC 19/01/11 taken from BBC Radio 4 Today programme
[3] Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C.  Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub2
[4] NHS Institute, 2009
[5] NHS Guidelines on Childbirth 26 September 2007

Related information:

Celebrating our 30th Anniversary

Over the past 30 years we have achieved success by caring about every detail and keeping things simple, safe and fit for purpose.

1987: World’s 1st specially designed portable water birth pool

Portable-Birth-Pool-1987

1988: Garden Hospital, London – World’s 1st specially designed hospital water birth pool

Midwife Jennifer Starisky supporting a women in labour in front of the world's first water birth pool

1990: Ether Burns and Sheila Kitzinger campaign to get a water birth pool installed in the John Radcliffe Hospital – the 1st in an NHS Hospital

jr-birthing-pool-opening_1990_oxford

1992 – Deluxe Water Birth Pool, Royal Berkshire Hospital

royal-berkshire-hospital

1995

A turning point in the development of water birth pools as ergonomic design principles are employed for the 1st time.

Active-Birth-Pool-1007

Active-Birth-Pool-1001

Active-Birth-Pool-1002

2003

We’ve advanced the quality of design & manufacture and introduced new pools.

Active-Birth-Pool-1004

Active-Birth-Pool-1006

Active-Birth-Pool-1005

2005: Space Saver Birth Pool

Unknown-1

2007: Active Birth Pool

active-birth-pools-feature-9

2007: Optimal Water Birth Pool

active-birth-pools-feature-90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2009: Amaryllis Water Birth Pool

main_RNS01_Barratt_birth_centre_room_19-1-13_02 (1)

2010: Versatile Water Birth Pool

New_birthing_pool_for_Antrim_Area_Hospital

2011: Princess Pool

Newham Princess Pool 93 copy

2013: Venus Water Birth Pool

bc5

Our new range of water birth pools are a quantum leap forward in every respect

2014: Active Birth Pool

2014: Venus Water Birth Pool

2015: Princess Water Birth Pool

95princes-water-birth-pool-qeh-kings-lynn

2015: Winner – Building Better Healthcare Awards

In their comments the judges praised the quality of our design and manufacturing.

active-birth-pool-award

2017:  30th Anniversary!

SaveSave

SaveSave

How to restore your old birth pool to pristine condition

We’ve been supplying water birth pools to hospitals since 1989.

Many of the pools we supplied in the 90’s are still in active service!

We occasionally receive reports that the pools are not looking as clean and bright as they originally were.

Not to worry.

There is a product called tide mark cleaner that was developed for spas and swimming pools.

You can either use it to remove stains or brighten up the appearance of the pool when necessary.

It will restore your pool to pristine condition.

Here’s a link:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterline-Cleaning-removes-lines-cleaner/dp/B006DFD7VK

For information about cleaning and disinfection procedures please click here.

 

 

SaveSave

The use of water for labour and birth

Health Times: Karen Keast

Water is a life force in more ways than one – it covers more than 70 per cent of our earth and we drink it to survive.

When it comes to using water for childbirth, water birth is still a contentious issue that divides healthcare professionals and organisations alike.

The fact that it’s contentious at all surprises some of Australia’s leading midwives, writes Karen Keast.

There are legends of Egyptian pharaohs being born in water and of South Pacific women giving birth in shallow seas.

The first written report of a water birth in the western world occurred in France in 1803, when a mother experiencing a long and difficult labour was helped to give birth in a tub of warm water.

In the 1970s, Igor Tjarkovsky, a boat builder, investigated the therapeutic benefits of water and installed a glass tank in his home for women to use for childbirth.

featured

French obstetrician Michel Odent went on to pave the future of water birth.

After a mother, using water to ease the pain of her labour, accidentally gave birth in the water, he went on to install a plastic paddling pool in a hospital so more women could enjoy the benefits of water birth while reducing their need for painkillers.

Only a small proportion of women in Australia choose to give birth in water each year although the exact number of water births is not known.

Griffith University Professor Jenny Gamble, a practising midwife of 30 years, says water births have come a long way in Australia but there is still a long way to go.

Professor Gamble recalls when a new maternity wing opened up at a Brisbane hospital, the then director general who was touring the facility instructed the plugs from the tubs to be removed.

“In his own way, he was saying water births might be a bad thing,” she says.

“Those days are gone. Water has become more accessible to women. There’s quite a lot of evidence to say that water is safe for women.

“More and more hospitals are putting in big tubs and there’s a range of deep tubs. It’s coming but it’s all too slow.”

Advocates of water birth say its benefits include the relaxing effect of warm water and feelings of weightlessness, buoyancy and ease of movement which help to alleviate pain naturally.

Western Sydney University Professor Hannah Dahlen, a privately practising midwife and spokesperson for the Australian College of Midwives, says evidence shows water immersion may also help improve blood flow in the uterus, lower blood pressure, provide less painful contractions and result in shorter labours and fewer interventions.

Professor Dahlen last year published a study in the Journal of Midwifery examining the outcomes of 6144 Australian women who had normal vaginal births in a birth centre over a 12-year period.

Her research compared women giving birth in water with those who gave birth in six other positions out of the water – kneeling or all fours, squatting, side lying, using a birth stool, standing and, the most common birth position in the country – semi-seated.

Professor Dahlen found those who gave birth on a birth stool had almost a one-and-a-half time’s higher rate of major perineal trauma and more than twice the rate of haemorrhage after delivery compared with water birth.

There was no difference in major perineal trauma and haemorrhage after delivery between women who gave birth in water and those who had a semi-seated position.

While those babies born in a semi-seated position had a four-and-a-half time’s higher incidence of five minute APGAR scores less than seven.

APGAR scores, which rate the newborn’s breathing effort, heart rate, muscle tone, reflexes and skin colour, of less than seven at five minutes after birth indicate medical intervention was needed to resuscitate the baby.

“Some studies have shown better outcomes but basically I found no difference to other birth positions,” she says.

“There was no evidence of harm. We want to do more research in Australia.

“We have no evidence to date that it’s harmful but we need more and more evidence to show it’s safe.”

Professor Dahlen says a water birth also provides women with a sense of protected space.

“They talk about how they felt there was a barrier; they felt it was a cocoon where they could feel safe,” she says.

Professor Dahlen says one common concern about water births is that the baby could drown but she says babies are born with a diving reflex, or bradycardic response, that causes them to hold their breath under water.

Professor Dahlen says despite mounting evidence proving the benefits of water birth, they still remain contentious in Australia.

“I have never understood it. I find it fascinating that water is so scary.”

Professor Gamble agrees.

“We’re talking about water, just water – not epidurals, not heavy duty drugs,” she says.

“Thank goodness hospitals are moving towards increasing their remodelling of their maternity suites to include tubs but quite frankly it’s a lot of fuss for something as simple as warm water.”

Professor Gamble says water births are common practice at planned home births, and are used during labour or active birth.

“Some women want to get in and get out for birth, some want to labour in the water and some hop in just for the birth – anything goes.”

Perhaps, most importantly, Professor Dahlen says water births are not about the baby.

“That’s what people get wrong,” she says.

“It’s about the mother and if you have a really happy and relaxed and stress free mother you actually have a baby that’s advantaged – they are born and very placid.

“They don’t often cry – they come up and blink.

“They are breathing fine. They come up all lovely and warm and then go to their mother’s chest.

“I really love water births.”

Related information:

SaveSave

A way to make labour shorter, easier and more comfortable

“Introducing a deep pool of water to the birthing room is a way to make your labour shorter, easier and more comfortable.

It increases your sense of privacy and helps to make your baby’s entry to the world gentle and free from trauma, whether the birth occurs in or beside the pool”

Janet Balaskas – “Water Birth”

During your labour relaxing in a deep pool of warm water can be a wonderful aid.

It’s using a pool mainly for this reason – even if you are not planning a water birth.

A birth pool may help you to manage pain effectively in labour and considerably reduce your need for medical pain relief.

Studies have shown that fewer epidurals are needed when women use a water birth pool.

You are supported by the buoyancy of the water.

This allows you to relax easily and more deeply.

This helps you to cope with contractions and rest more comfortably in between them.

By saving energy you’re less likely to become tired or exhausted.

It’s easier for you to use upright or squatting positions in water than it is on land and to move freely from one position to another as you explore what works best for you.

You are likely to have an increased feeling of privacy and security in the pool.

If you enter the pool at the right time (5-6cms dilation) you can expect a boost in the secretion of the hormone oxytocin.

This will stimulate strong contractions.

The ‘oxytocin wave” when you enter the pool in strong labour lasts for approximately two hours.

You are likely to dilate rapidly during this time.

You may choose to have your baby in water

Welcoming your baby in water can be a joyous and wonderful experience.

However, you may choose to leave the pool for the birth itself.

It’s best for you to keep an open mind, rather than to have a fixed plan to give birth in water, even though the idea may be very appealing.

If you progress well in the pool during labour, or if your birth happens soon after you enter the water, you may wish to stay in the pool for the birth.

Your baby can be born under water without increased risk provided there is good midwifery care and there are no known complications.

Your baby is gently brought to the surface before taking his first breath.

Related information:

SaveSave

The history of Water Birth

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.

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.

 

 
 

SaveSave

Nothing helps mothers cope with pain in labour more effectively

Water birth pools play a vital role in helping mothers experience physiological labour and natural birth.

Nothing helps mothers cope with pain more effectively.

If mothers are not going be reliant on analgesia for pain relief they need other options.

Mothers who enter a pool of warm water in established labour find that they are better able to cope with the pain.

Immersion in warm water has been unequivocally proven to be of great benefit both physiologically and psychologically.

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 & optimise resources.

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 to consider making this safe, effective, low cost option more widely available.

On land mothers contend with the force of gravity which limits movement as labour progresses and they tire.

Many women do not have the fitness to maintain upright postures for lengths of time. (Gupta JK, Hofmeyr GJ, Smyth R 2007).

Mothers who are overweight or obese are often unable to cope with the physical demands.

The transition from the land to water helps revive & energise mothers giving them 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).

This allows her to move in ways not possible on land.

To explore and benefit from the postures natural to labour & birth .

The calming, relaxing effect of the warm water promotes the flow of oxytocin.

This powerful hormone plays a huge role in childbirth.

It causes the uterus to contract and triggers the ‘fetal ejection reflex’.

Immersion in water has a beneficial physiological effect on hormone secretion, including oxytocin surges which can advance dilation and stimulate contractions (Odent 2014).

Related information:

Reasons to consider a water birth

Bridge to Health –  Sian Smith

When considering their birth plan, more and more women are choosing to include the use of water at some stage.

In fact, around 30% of women now plan to use this method either for birthing their baby or as a natural way to reduce some of the intense sensations (pain!) associated with labour.

Here are some of the reasons why:

Water is relaxing!

Being able to bob around in a large pool of warm water is the perfect environment to help you stay calm and relaxed, in a situation most would normally consider pretty stressful.

For many, sliding into a warm bath is the ‘go to’ choice of relaxation after a hard day, so what better way to help you through one of the most physically demanding and memorable experiences of your life?

Additionally, a calmer birth may be less stressful for your baby, as moving from an environment of warm amniotic fluid to one of warm water is a gentle way of introducing them to their new surroundings.

Water is a natural pain reliever

The relaxing effects of water help encourage the body to produce its own pain-fighting substances.

This is beneficial both for Mum and baby; for Mum staying relaxed helps stimulate her natural production of oxytocin (the’ love hormone’ that helps the uterus contract) and endorphins, the ‘feelgood’ hormones that help work as a natural pain reliever.

For baby, a happy and relaxed Mum is more likely to birth quickly with a reduced need for medical intervention.

It reduces stress and anxiety

It is not just the water that helps to relax you. With a waterbirth, often the entire surroundings are altered to create a calming ambience e.g. dimmed lights and hushed voices.

This enables you to go into your own world much more easily than if in a harshly lit room with strange people popping in and out.

Additionally, this type of relaxation helps encourage deep abdominal breathing, preventing you from becoming tense which may make contractions feel more intense.

It reduces the risk of perineal tearing

The warmth of the water helps to promote increased blood flow to the vagina and perineum (the area between the vagina and anus that is susceptible to tearing during childbirth).

This increases flexibility of the tissues and can reduce the likelihood of tearing when birthing the baby’s head.

It allows you to adopt a more ‘active’ birth position

A reason that some women choose a water birth is that it allows you to retain some control throughout the labour process –being aware of the contractions and sensations your body is experiencing, with a reduced chance of medical intervention.

Additionally, the sensation of ‘weightlessness’ that being in the water provides, enables you to move around much more freely than your body has allowed you to for a while!

You are free to adopt almost any position that feels comfortable for you.

The classic image of a labouring woman is that of her laying on her back with her legs in stirrups.

Whilst this is the case for many, it is actually a fairly difficult way to birth your baby as you have to work against gravity to push the baby’s head UP and over the lowest part of the spine – the coccyx.

The best way to counteract this is to work with gravity and adopt a more ‘active’ squatting or modified squatting position.

Being in the water allows you to stay in these positions for longer, as you can lean against the side of the birthing pool for support.

Remaining fit, healthy and active will also help you have as smooth a pregnancy as possible.

Your Osteopath can advise you on exercises that are suitable throughout pregnancy, specifically core, pelvic and lower limb strengthening exercises that will help you be able to adopt active birth positions and use the correct muscles to birth your baby as efficiently as possible.

It is safe!

Of course, water births are not suitable for everyone – the main criteria is that Mum and baby must be healthy, the baby must be in a head-down position, and the pregnancy must be between 37 and 42 weeks.

But as the majority of pregnancies are healthy, a water birth can offer a natural and more in control option to the labour choices a woman has.

And finally, one of the most frequently asked questions regarding waterbirths appears to be ‘will my baby drown underwater?’… to which the answer is no!

The baby receives all of its oxygen via the placenta and hormones circulating through the baby ensure this occurs until the baby is lifted out of the water.

It is also known as the ‘foetal dive reflex’ and allows babies to be underwater for short periods of time up until around 6 months old.

Related information:

The buoyancy of water helps mothers benefit from upright positions

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.

Many women also feel empowered in an upright position, and experience a sense of control over their labour.

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.

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 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.

Related information:

SaveSave

Michel Odent – the birthing pool test

This article first appeared in Midwifery Today, Issue 115, Autumn 2015.

There are many reasons to avoid last-minute cesarean sections that are decided at a phase of real emergency.

They are usually preceded by signs of fetal distress and they are often performed in poor technical conditions.

Furthermore, they are associated with negative long-term outcomes.

For example, according to an American study, women with a full-term second stage cesarean have a spectacular increased rate of subsequent premature births (13.5%) compared to a first-stage cesarean (2.3%) and to the overall national rate (7–8%) (Levine et al. 2014).

There are also serious reasons to avoid prolonged pharmacological assistance during labor, since the probable long-term effects of its different components (particularly drips of synthetic oxytocin) have never been evaluated through valuable scientific studies.

When a woman enters the pool in hard labor, there is an immediate pain relief, and therefore an immediate reduction in the levels of stress hormones.

Since stress hormones and oxytocin are antagonistic, the main short-term response is usually a peak of oxytocin and therefore a spectacular progress in the dilation.

We must add reasons to avoid, when it is possible, prelabor cesareans.

Apart from impaired lung maturation, it appears that the state of stress deprivation associated with “birth without labor” has a great variety of effects on the child, such as a lack of maturation of its olfactory sense (Varendi, Porter and Winberg 2002), which is a guide towards the nipple as early as the hour following birth (Odent 1977; Odent 1978).

Low levels of specific informational substances in the blood of stress-deprived neonates suggest effects on metabolic pathways and development of certain brain structures (Hermansson, Hoppu and Isolauri 2014; Simon-Areces et al. 2012).

It appears also that the milk microbiome and the gut flora of infants are disturbed in a specific way after birth by prelabor cesareans (Azad et al. 2013; Dogra et al. 2015), which is the mode of medicalized birth that disturbs breastfeeding more than all others (Prior et al. 2012; Zanardo et al. 2012).

Unexpectedly, it has been revealed recently that the risk of placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies is statistically significant only if the cesarean has been performed before the labor starts (Downes et al. 2015).

Finally, we are reaching a phase in the history of midwifery and obstetrical practices when an in-labor non-emergency cesarean appears in many cases as the best alternative to drugless childbirth.

In such a context, we understand the need for a new generation of tests in order to decide early enough during labor that the vaginal route is acceptable, without waiting for the phase of real emergency (Odent 2004).

The Basis for the Birthing Pool Test

The birthing pool test is the typical example of a tool adapted to futuristic strategies. It is based on a simple fact.

When a woman in hard labor enters the birthing pool and gets immersed in water at the temperature of the body, a spectacular progress in the dilation is supposed to occur within an hour or two.

If the already well-advanced dilation remains stable in spite of water immersion, privacy (no camera!) and dim light, one can conclude that there is a major obstacle. There is no reason for procrastinations. It is wiser to perform right away an in-labor non-emergency cesarean.

In the early 1980s, I had already mentioned in a mainstream medical journal (Odent 1983) the reason why we originally introduced the concept of birthing pools in the context of a French state hospital.

I had also described the most typical scenario: “We tend to reserve the pool for women who are experiencing especially painful contractions (lumbar pain, in particular), and where the dilatation of the cervix is not progressing beyond about 5 cm. In these circumstances, there is commonly a strong demand for drugs.

In most cases, the cervix becomes fully dilated within 1 or 2 hours of immersion…” At that time, I could only refer to most cases.

Afterwards, I analyzed the outcomes in the rare cases when the dilation had not progressed after an hour or two in the bath. I realized that finally a cesarean had always been necessary, more often than not after long and difficult first and second stages.

This is how I started to tacitly take into account what I had not yet called the birthing pool test.

More recently it happened that I mentioned the birthing pool test during information sessions for doulas.

This is how I learned from a series of reports about births in London hospitals.

It is obvious that many long and difficult labors with the usual range of drugs preceding an emergency cesarean would be avoided if the birthing pool test had been interpreted.

One of these anecdotes is particularly significant.

A woman in hard labor arrived in a maternity unit with her doula while the dilation of the cervix was already well advanced.

Soon after, she entered the birthing pool.

More than an hour later, the dilation had not progressed.

The doula, who was aware of the birthing pool test, was adamant that this woman could not safely give birth by the vaginal route.

A senior doctor was eventually called and diagnosed a brow presentation.

A brow presentation is difficult to diagnose in early labor and is incompatible with the vaginal route. In this case, the doula knew that a cesarean would be necessary, although she could not explain why.

The birthing pool test implies that an internal exam has been performed just before immersion so that, if necessary, a comparison will become possible after an hour or two.

This is an important practical detail, because midwives who are familiar with undisturbed and unguided births in silence, semi-darkness and privacy usually can follow the progress of labor with other criteria than a repeated evaluation of the dilation of the cervix.

Today, we can offer a physiological scenario explaining why immersion in warm water (set to the temperature of the body) makes the contractions more effective during a limited period of time.

When a woman enters the pool in hard labor, there is an immediate pain relief, and therefore an immediate reduction in the levels of stress hormones.

Since stress hormones and oxytocin are antagonistic, the main short-term response is usually a peak of oxytocin and therefore a spectacular progress in the dilation.

After that, there is a long-term complex response, which is a redistribution of blood volume.

This is the standard response to any sort of water immersion.

There is more blood in the chest (Norsk and Epstein 1988).

When the chest blood volume is increased, certain specialized cells in the atria release a peptide commonly called ANP (atrial natriuretic peptide) that interferes with the activity of the posterior pituitary gland (Gutkowska, Antunes-Rodrigues and McCann 1997).

We can all observe the effects of a reduced activity of our posterior pituitary gland after being in a bath for a while: we pass more urine.

This means that the release of vasopressin—a water retention hormone—is reduced.

In fact, the chain of events is not yet completely clarified (Mukaddam-Daher et al. 2002).

We have recently learned that oxytocin—the love hormone—has receptors in the heart (!) and that it is a regulator of ANP (Gutkowska et al. 1997).

In practice, we need to remember that the immediate peak of oxytocin following immersion in warm water will induce a feedback mechanism and eventually the uterine contractions will become less effective after an hour or two.

References:

  • Azad, MB, et al. 2013. “Gut Microbiota of Healthy Canadian Infants: Profiles by Mode of Delivery and Infant Diet at 4 Months.” CMAJ 185 (5): 385–94.
  • Dogra, S, et al. 2015. “Dynamics of Infant Gut Microbiota Are Influenced by Delivery Mode and Gestational Duration and Are Associated with Subsequent Adiposity.” MBio 6 (1): e02419–14.
  • Downes, KL, et al. 2015. “Previous Prelabor or Intrapartum Cesarean Delivery and Risk of Placenta Previa.” Am J Obstet Gynecol 212 (5): 669 e1–6.
  • Gutkowska, J, J Antunes-Rodrigues and S McCann. 1997. “Atrial Natriuretic Peptide in Brain and Pituitary Gland.” Physiol Rev 77 (2): 465–515.
  • Gutkowska, J, et al. 1997. “Oxytocin Releases Atrial Natriuretic Peptide by Combining with Oxytocin Receptors in the Heart.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94 (21): 11,704–09.
  • Hermansson, H, U Hoppu and E Isolauri. 2014. “Elective Caesarean Section Is Associated with Low Adiponectin Levels in Cord Blood.” Neonatology 105 (3): 172–74.
  • Levine, LD, et al. 2014. “Does Stage of Labor at Time of Cesarean Affect Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth?” Am J Obstet Gynecol 212 (3): 360 e1–7.
  • Mukaddam-Daher, S, et al. 2002. “Regulation of Cardiac Oxytocin System and Natriuretic Peptide during Rat Gestation and Postpartum.” J Endocrinol 175 (1): 211–16.
  • Norsk, P, and M Epstein. 1985. “Effects of Water Immersion on Arginine Vasopressin Release in Humans.” J Appl Physiol 64 (1): 1–10.
  • Odent, Michel. 1977. “The Early Expression of the Rooting Reflex.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rome 1977. 1117–19. London: Academic Press.
  • ———. 1978. “L’expression précoce du réflexe de fouissement.” In Les cahiers du nouveau-né, vol. 1–2, edited by E Herbinet. 169–85. Paris: Stock.
  • ———. 1983. “Birth Under Water.” Lancet 2 (8365–66): 1476–77.
  • ———. 2004. The Caesarean. London: Free Association Books.
  • Prior, E, et al. 2012. “Breastfeeding after Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of World Literature.” Am J Clin Nutr 95 (5): 1113–35.
  • Simon-Areces, J, et al. 2012. “UCP2 Induced by Natural Birth Regulates Neuronal Differentiation of the Hippocampus and Related Adult Behavior.” PLoS ONE 7 (8): e42911.
  • Varendi, H, RH Porter and J Winberg. 2002. “The Effect of Labor on Olfactory Exposure Learning within the First Postnatal Hour.” Behav Neurosci 116 (2): 206–11.
  • Zanardo, V, et al. 2012. “Impaired Lactation Performance Following Elective Delivery at Term: Role of Maternal Levels of Cortisol and Prolactin.” J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25 (9): 1595–98.

SaveSave

How a simple pool of water revolutionised childbirth – Michel Odent

The birth of the water baby -…

In 1977, a state hospital near Paris began quietly changing the way women gave birth.

Obstetrician Dr Michel Odent believed that childbirth had become too medicalised and he wanted a more natural approach.

So he introduced a pool to ease the pain of labour and eventually some babies were even born in the pool.

Witness speaks to Dr Odent about the innovation that has become a revolution using the power of water.

Click here to view the video.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank Michel for inspiring me to develop Active Birth Pools.

As he said:

“When asked about the history of birthing pools in hospitals, I mention two key events:

1) In the 1970s when I bought a deep inflatable blue paddling pool and found a convenient space in the maternity unit to install it.

2) The day when Keith Brainin realised that special bath tubs might be designed and commercialized to meet the needs of labouring women.”

A landmark in the history of water birth – Michel Odent

August 21, 1999 should be remembered as a landmark in the history of water birth.

On that day the British Medical Journal published an unprecedented study about “the perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered [sic] in water” (1).

This study is authoritative for several reasons:

  • The conclusions are based on large numbers: the authors traced the 4,032 babies born
    under water in England and Wales between April 1994 and March 1996.
  • The authors belong to a prestigious department of epidemiology and public health
    (Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom).
  • The report has been published in a respected peer review medical journal.

Methods

In order to convince anyone of the seriousness of this study, all midwives should be aware of the sophisticated methods used by the London epidemiologists.

Several inquiries were combined in order to eliminate the effects of under-reporting.

From April 1994 to April 1996, all 1,500 consultant pediatricians in the British Isles were surveyed each month by the “British Paediatric Surveillance Unit” and asked to report whether or not they knew of any births that met the case definition of “perinatal death or admission for special care within 48 hours of birth following labour or delivery in water.”

The findings were compared with reports to the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and death in infancy (a mandatory notification scheme).

At the same time a postal questionnaire was sent to all National Health Service (NHS) maternity units in England and Wales in 1995 and again in 1996 to determine the total number of deliveries in water during the study period.

Results

The main results can be easily summarized and remembered.

There were five perinatal deaths among 4,032 births in water; that is a rate of 1.2 per 1,000. In the context of the United Kingdom this rate is similar for low risk deliveries that do not take place in water.

Furthermore, none of these five deaths were attributable to delivery in water: one stillbirth was diagnosed before immersion; another stillbirth occurred after a concealed pregnancy and unattended homebirth with no previous prenatal care; one baby died aged three days with neonatal herpes infection; one died aged thirty minutes with an intracranial hemorrahage after precipitate delivery; and another one, who died aged eight hours, was found to have hypoplastic lungs at postmortem examination.

There were thirty-four babies admitted for special care; that is a rate of 8.4 per 1,000.

Rates of admission for special care of babies born to low risk primiparous women are significantly higher than for babies born in water.

Birth in water may have caused water aspiration in two babies.

Comments

Compared with well known anecdotes, such as one case of neonatal polycythemia reported in The Lancet in 1997(2), this survey of more than 4,000 babies born (rather than delivered!) in water has been paradoxically ignored by the media, the medical circles and the natural childbirth movement as well.

However, it undoubtedly represents a landmark in the history of the use of water during labour.

From now on midwives should not be the prisoners of strict protocols.

Updated flexible guidelines should accept that “in any hospital where a pool is in daily use a birth under water is bound to happen now and then”(3).

Midwives are far less anxious and invasive wherever a birth under water is considered acceptable if the woman does not have the time or is reluctant to get out of the water during a powerful “fetus ejection reflex.”

The first effect of this study should be to change the focus.

An opportunity is given to recall that the main reason for the birthing pools is to facilitate the birth process and to reduce the need for drugs and other intervention.

In order to control the current epidemic of epidurals the point is to divulge a small number of simple updated recommendations in order to make the most effective use of birthing pools.

Updated recommendations

The main recommendations are based on the fact that immersion in water at the temperature of the body tends to facilitate the birth process during a limited length of time (in the region of an hour or two).

This simple fact is confirmed by clinical observation and by the results of a Swedish randomised controlled study suggesting that women who enter the bath at five centimetres or after (“late bath group”) have a short labour and a reduced need for oxytocin administration and epidural analgesia (4).

Physiologists can offer interpretations.

The common response to immersion is a redistribution of blood volume (more blood in the chest) that stimulates the release by specialized heart cells of the atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP).

The inhibitory effect of ANP on the activity of the posterior pituitary gland is slow, in the region of one to two hours (5).

When a woman is in labour this inhibitory effect is preceded by an analgesic effect that is associated with lower levels of stress hormones and increased release of oxytocin.

Furthermore it is partly via a release of oxytocin that the redistribution of blood volume stimulates the specialized heart cells.

The first practical recommendation is to give great importance to the time when the laboring woman enters the pool.

Experienced midwives have many tricks at their disposal to help women be patient enough so that they can ideally wait until five centimetres dilation.

A shower, that more often as not implies complete privacy, is an example of what the midwife can suggest while waiting.

The BMJ survey clearly indicates that many women stay too long in the bath (the average time was in the region of three hours for women who gave birth in water!).

One reason is that many of them enter the bath long before five centimetres.

The second recommendation is to avoid planning a birth under water.

When a woman has planned a birth under water she may be the prisoner of her project; she is tempted to stay in the bath while the contractions are getting weaker, with the risk of long second and third stages.

There are no such risks when a birth under water follows a short series of irresistible contractions.

The recommendations regarding the temperature should not be overlooked.

It is easy to check that the water temperature is never above 37° C (the temperature of the maternal body).

Two cases of neonatal deaths have been reported after immersion during labor in prolonged hot baths (39.7° C in one case) (6).

The proposed interpretation was that the fetuses had reached high temperatures (the temperature of a fetus is 1° higher than the maternal temperature) and could not meet their increased needs in oxygen.

The fetus has a problem of heat elimination.

At the dawn of a new phase in the history of childbirth one can anticipate that, if a small number of simple recommendations are taken into account, the use of water during labor will seriously compete with epidural anesthesia.

Then helping women to be patient enough and enter the pool at the right time will appear as a new aspect of the art of midwifery.

Michel Odent, MD founded the Primal Health Research Centre in London and developed the maternity unit in Pithiviers, France, where birthing pools are used. He is the author of ten books published in twenty languages. Two of them—Birth Reborn and The Nature of Birth and Breastfeeding—were published originally in the United States. His most recent book is The Caesarean.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Economic impact of water birth pools

The only way of improving maternity services is to optimise facilities, save money wherever practical and normalise childbirth to a far greater extent.

Studies have shown that women who are supported during labour need to have fewer painkillers, experience fewer interventions and give birth to stronger babies.

After their babies are born, supported women feel better about themselves, their labour and their babies.

A focus on normalising birth results in better quality, safer care for mothers and their babies with an improved experience.

Increasing normal births is associated with shorter (or no) hospital stays, fewer adverse incidents and admissions to neonatal units and better health outcomes for mothers.

It is also associated with higher rates of successful breastfeeding and a more positive birth experience.

These changes benefit not only women and their families but also maternity staff.  Midwives are able to spend less time on non-clinical tasks and more on caring for women and their babies.

Psychologically speaking, and in particular for first time mothers, the less intervention and a more hands on approach with one-to-one support means that mothers will leave hospital feeling held and therefore far better prepared for motherhood.

This again has a domino effect, not just on the welfare of the infant, but also circumventing the need for costly government and LA interventionist approaches in particular for younger mothers post-partum.

What increases the likelihood of normal births?

It is also known that some factors help to facilitate straightforward birth without evidence of additional risks, including one-to-one support, immersion in water for low-risk women, planning for a home birth, care from known midwives, more extensive training of junior doctors, employment of consultant midwives focusing on normality, and support on the labour ward from consultant obstetricians[3].

How can midwives make a case for purchasing birth pools?

The need for more water birth facilities is evident.  The problem is that financial controllers are under pressure to save money.

They will not be easily convinced of the necessity unless you clearly stress that purchasing pools should not be viewed as a cost but rather to make the case that they are a valuable investment and will enable your unit to optimise resources, improve the quality of care and yield a return of significant financial savings.

A birth pool is a simple, inexpensive piece of medical equipment that can have a major impact on the quality of care and cost of having a baby.

The bed is no longer the primary focus of the room: having birth pools in hospitals and delivery suites facilitates pain relief encourages relaxation and therefore confidence and promotes mobility along with soft furnishings such as beanbags.

Importantly, this results in significant financial savings! 

Our cost study has revealed that savings of up to £700.00 per birth can be achieved.

For example, St Richards Hospital in Chichester has three of our birth pools as well as our soft furnishings.

They recently reported their first successful VBAC in the pool for a woman who had previously had twins by c-section.

Depending on complications, a c-section costs between £1,370 and £1,879 in contrast to a normal delivery that is usually between £735 and £1,097.[4]

The experience of hospitals that have birth pools demonstrates that the cost of installing a pool is soon recouped by the savings achieved through reduced use of medical methods of pain relief and shorter hospital stays.

Wherever possible, women should have the opportunity to labour in water, as this is often far more comfortable.

The NHS has advised hospitals to ensure facilities are in place for this: three pools for 1,000 births a year is seen as adequate provision[5].

[1] BBC: 19/01/11
[2] BBC 19/01/11 taken from BBC Radio 4 Today programme
[3] Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C.  Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub2
[4] NHS Institute, 2009
[5] NHS Guidelines on Childbirth 26 September 2007

SaveSave

Using Water During Labor and Birth 

Originally published by Jessica Vogtman: November 27, 2016
Humans have an integral relationship with the element of water.
It runs through our veins, we are born of it, and it is necessary for our survival.
We are drawn to it for escape, adventure, release, and cleansing.
As a woman is preparing to give birth, water is a means of release from the weight of her growing belly, and the means to ease her aching muscles.

Water is a great coping tool in labor, whether through a shower or tub. (For the sake of this paper we will only be mentioning the use of a tub.)

The use of water in labor can aide in pain management by increasing relaxation, decreasing strain on muscles, and creating freedom of movement.

The mother’s ability to relax her muscles during labor can affect the length of labor and the intensity of contractions.

The more a mother fights and tenses her muscles the worse contractions may feel.
Especially in active labor, the mother may need as many coping strategies as possible.
The birthing tub offers a great respite, and a simple way to relax.

Version 2

The birthing tub is often called, “The midwife’s epidural”, for its effectiveness (Drichta, Owen p. 257).

The warmth of the water helps to ease the pain felt from contractions, relaxing muscles of the pelvic floor and back, and creates a mental space that creates privacy (Drichta p. 258).

It is recommended to maintain water temperature at 96-98 degrees.

Using higher temperatures could cause increased blood pressure, dehydration and lethargy (Drichta p. 258).
The bath is also deeply engrained as a place of mental release in daily routines.

Our bathtubs are typically places of retreat to relax, and the mental association during labor holds true.

Labor is a physically demanding process.

From hours of walking, lunging, squatting, intense contractions, and the possibility of little sleep can make for a grueling marathon on the mother’s muscles.

The warmth of the tub eases both the pain of the contractions and the work of her remaining muscles (Drichta p. 257).

Being in a large tub that covers her belly, the mother is buoyant and freed from the gravity of dry land.

Her pelvic muscles are relaxed and her cervix will continue to dilate, often with more ease as she relaxes.

A mother that is able to relax and mentally release her tension, will have an easier time laboring than a mother that is fighting each contraction.

Being weightless allows the mom to assume positions that could be too taxing on land, such as deep squats using the side of the pool, that will help baby to descend and turn.

She’s able to easily move from one position to the next in response to her labor, while remaining warm and relaxed.

The ease of movement allows the mother to find her own rhythm and coping responses that she would not have had if she was limited to a bed.

dsc_3838-3

Her ability to move through labor gives the mother more control and autonomy during the birth.

She’s able to push in the position that suits her, catch her own baby, and bring baby to chest without outside help or others manipulating her body. She has full confidence and control.

Relaxation, decreased strain on muscles and freedom of movement are gained for the birthing mother with the use of water during labor. The three work together as a pain management strategy, addressing both mental and physical tension that could hinder a birth.

The birthing tub is used at its greatest advantage during late stage active labor through transition.

It is recommended that for every hour spent in the tub, the mother spends at least thirty minutes out of the tub.

This is to ensure that contractions do not slow down, as can sometimes happen.

Often contractions may just feel less intense, but are still actively working.
According to Water BirthInternational, “Getting back in the water after thirty minutes will reactivate the chemical and hormonal process, including a sudden and often marked increase in oxytocin.” (Harper p. 2)
As with other labors, hydration is of the utmost importance. Keep a drink with a straw nearby so the mother can drink at will.

The birth can be completed in the water as well, depending on location (some hospitals only allow laboring in the tub) and as long as the labor is not having any complications (ex:meconium, shoulder dystocia).

Works Cited

Drichta, Jane E., CPM and Owen, Jodilyn, CPM. The Essential Homebirth Guide for Families Planning or Considering Birthing at Home. 2003. Simon and Schuster.

Harper, Barbara. “Guidelines for Safe Waterbirth.”Waterbirth International. p. 2

Jessica Vogtman has lived in Maryland since 2003, and has been a Carroll County resident since 2006. She graduated with a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry from Notre Dame of Maryland University. Upon graduation, she worked as a zookeeper at the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore, where she became immersed in natural living. Jessica developed her passion for birth during her first pregnancy in 2012, and spent the following years educating herself on natural birth and birthing techniques. She is currently certifying as a doula with Birth Arts International.
LIVING HEART DOULA SERVICES

Position Statements on Water Birth

Evidence on the safety of water birth

9 February 2015

Evidence Based Birth – Rebecca Dekker

In April 2014,  waterbirth—an alternative method for pain relief in which a mother gives birth in a tub of warm water—made national headlines.

The event that pushed water birth safetyinto the spotlight was a joint Opinion Statement from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), denouncing the practice.

In their opinion statement, ACOG and the AAP firmly admonished that waterbirth should be considered an experimental practice that should only occur in the context of a clinical research study.

Their conclusion, which echoed a previous AAP Opinion Statement from 2005, was based on their opinion that water birth does not have any benefits and may pose dangers for the newborn.

In response, the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM),(Midwives 2014) the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC), and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) all released statements endorsing waterbirth as a safe, evidence-based option.

Meanwhile, the AABC released preliminary data from nearly 4,000 waterbirths that occurred in birth centers all over the U.S., supporting water birth as safe for mothers and infants.

Despite the response from midwifery organizations and the AABC, hospitals all over the U.S. began suspending or shutting down their waterbirth programs.

At St. Elizabeth’s Regional Medical Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, mothers and families organized rallies and started a change.org petition to bring waterbirth back.

All of this controversy left us with these questions— Is the ACOG/AAP statement based on a complete and accurate review of the literature?

What is the evidence on waterbirth?

Is it safe?

Does it have any potential benefits or harms for mothers and infants?

These are the questions we will address in the Evidence Based Birth article on the evidence on waterbirth.

This article was published July 10, 2014, by Rebecca Dekker, PhD, RN, APRN
© Evidence Based Birth, All Rights Reserved.

Click here for a copy of Rebecca Dekker’s paper on the safety of water birth

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

6 reasons to consider a water birth

Bridge to Health –  Sian Smith

When considering their birth plan, more and more women are choosing to include the use of water at some stage.

In fact, around 30% of women now plan to use this method either for birthing their baby or as a natural way to reduce some of the intense sensations (pain!) associated with labour.

Here are some of the reasons why:

Water is relaxing!

Being able to bob around in a large pool of warm water is the perfect environment to help you stay calm and relaxed, in a situation most would normally consider pretty stressful.

For many, sliding into a warm bath is the ‘go to’ choice of relaxation after a hard day, so what better way to help you through one of the most physically demanding and memorable experiences of your life?

Additionally, a calmer birth may be less stressful for your baby, as moving from an environment of warm amniotic fluid to one of warm water is a gentle way of introducing them to their new surroundings.

Water is a natural pain reliever

The relaxing effects of water help encourage the body to produce its own pain-fighting substances.

This is beneficial both for Mum and baby; for Mum staying relaxed helps stimulate her natural production of oxytocin (the’ love hormone’ that helps the uterus contract) and endorphins, the ‘feelgood’ hormones that help work as a natural pain reliever.

For baby, a happy and relaxed Mum is more likely to birth quickly with a reduced need for medical intervention.

It reduces stress and anxiety

It is not just the water that helps to relax you. With a waterbirth, often the entire surroundings are altered to create a calming ambience e.g. dimmed lights and hushed voices.

This enables you to go into your own world much more easily than if in a harshly lit room with strange people popping in and out.

Additionally, this type of relaxation helps encourage deep abdominal breathing, preventing you from becoming tense which may make contractions feel more intense.

It reduces the risk of perineal tearing

The warmth of the water helps to promote increased blood flow to the vagina and perineum (the area between the vagina and anus that is susceptible to tearing during childbirth).

This increases flexibility of the tissues and can reduce the likelihood of tearing when birthing the baby’s head.

It allows you to adopt a more ‘active’ birth position

A reason that some women choose a water birth is that it allows you to retain some control throughout the labour process –being aware of the contractions and sensations your body is experiencing, with a reduced chance of medical intervention.

Additionally, the sensation of ‘weightlessness’ that being in the water provides, enables you to move around much more freely than your body has allowed you to for a while!

You are free to adopt almost any position that feels comfortable for you.

Hp7

The classic image of a labouring woman is that of her laying on her back with her legs in stirrups.

Whilst this is the case for many, it is actually a fairly difficult way to birth your baby as you have to work against gravity to push the baby’s head UP and over the lowest part of the spine – the coccyx.

The best way to counteract this is to work with gravity and adopt a more ‘active’ squatting or modified squatting position.

Being in the water allows you to stay in these positions for longer, as you can lean against the side of the birthing pool for support.

Remaining fit, healthy and active will also help you have as smooth a pregnancy as possible.

Your Osteopath can advise you on exercises that are suitable throughout pregnancy, specifically core, pelvic and lower limb strengthening exercises that will help you be able to adopt active birth positions and use the correct muscles to birth your baby as efficiently as possible.

It is safe!

Of course, water births are not suitable for everyone – the main criteria is that Mum and baby must be healthy, the baby must be in a head-down position, and the pregnancy must be between 37 and 42 weeks.

But as the majority of pregnancies are healthy, a water birth can offer a natural and more in control option to the labour choices a woman has.

And finally, one of the most frequently asked questions regarding waterbirths appears to be ‘will my baby drown underwater?’… to which the answer is no!

The baby receives all of its oxygen via the placenta and hormones circulating through the baby ensure this occurs until the baby is lifted out of the water.

It is also known as the ‘foetal dive reflex’ and allows babies to be underwater for short periods of time up until around 6 months old.

The benefits of labouring in water for overweight and obese mothers

Excerpt from article published by Big Birtha who provides information and support for bigger mums and mums to be.

All women are more buoyant and supported by water, it’s one of the reasons swimming and aqua aerobics are particularly good forms of exercise while pregnant.

But the benefit is likely to be greater for obese women, as fatter bodies are naturally more buoyant.

The buoyancy and support provided by water eases movement, which may make both maintaining an active labour and facilitating access for monitoring easier.

On land, it is cumbersome and difficult for a heavily pregnant woman of any size to quickly move between kneeling, reclining, sitting, leaning, crouching, turning from front to back etc.

In water, it is simple and easy to shift to whatever position is most comfortable/convenient, even midway through contractions.

Being in water also promotes positions which are more agreeable for birthing. Lying flat on your back on a bed is one of the worst positions to be in during labour.

When you are on your back you are working against gravity; actually trying to push the baby out uphill.

It’s only a slight incline, but it’s there.

To add to the problem, when lying down, your body weight is also resting on your coccyx (tailbone), forcing it into the pelvic cavity and reducing space for the baby.

In water, even if you were to float on your back, you wouldn’t be putting the same pressure on your tailbone, and you are far more likely to take an upright position, crouching or kneeling, for instance; positions which on land are uncomfortable to maintain, but not in water.

This frees up your coccyx to keep out of the way.

It is well documented that warm water reduces pain felt by labouring women, and decreases the use of other pain relief.

Given the issues with providing epidural anaesthesia to obese women, it seems sensible that using water; an effective non-pharmaceutical intervention to help with pain should be an attractive alternative?

Obese women are at increased risk of having longer labours, and of moving on to instrumental delivery and caesarean sections for ‘failure to progress’.

Yet immersion in water has been shown to significantly reduce the length of labour in ‘normal’ sized women.

It doesn’t take much of a leap of imagination to consider that water might help to address this problem, at least in some obese women?

BigBirtha.co.uk...

Active Birth Pools are specially designed for to accomodate bigger mothers enabling them to move and benefit from the positions natural to labour and birth.

Various means of entry and exit from the pool as well as emergency evacuation have been considered and designed for to safeguard  over weight mothers and the midwives who care for them.

Birth under water – Michel Odent

Michel Odent’s groundbreaking report “Birth Under Water” that was published in the Lancet in December 1983 is widely regarded as the seminal moment in time when the use of water for labour and birth entered our consciousness.

I’d personally like to thank Michel for being the inspiration that led me to begin to create and develop water birth pools in 1987 and for facilitating the birth of my son Theo at home in 1988.

Keith Brainin – Founder & Director Active Birth Pools

Birth under water – Michel Odent

Originally published in the Lancet: 1983

Centre Hospitalier Général de Pithiviers, PIthiviers 45300, France

The 100th birth under water in our hospital in June provided my team with an opportunity to summarise our experience of the use of water in an obstetric unit.

Since a report on birth under water in 1805,1 the subject has been rarely broached in the medical literature.

In Pithiviers, a hospital which is, in other respects, a conventional state hospital,2 a small pool has been installed close to the homely birthing room.

This pool is large enough (2m in diameter) and deep enough (about 0.7m) to make it easy for a woman in it to change her posture.

Many parturients feel and irresistible attraction to water. We don’t advise women to try the pool; we simply offer the pool as a possibility.

The water is ordinary mains tap water, at a temperature of 37 °C. The water is not sterilized, and contains no chemicals or additives on any sort.

We tend to reserve the pool for women who are experiencing especially painful contractions (lumbar pains, in particular), and where the dilation of the cervix is not progressing beyond about 5cm. In these circumstances, there is commonly a strong demand for drugs.

In most cases, the cervix becomes fully dilated within 1 or 2 hours of immersion in the pool, especially if the lights are dimmed.

It is possible to check the fetal heartbeat regularly with a small ultrasound stethoscope or with a traditional obstetrical stethoscope. Most women choose to leave the water in the second stage.

We believe that the warm pool facilitates the first stage of labour because of the reduction of the secretion of nor-adrenaline and other catecholamines; the reduction of sensory stimulation when the ears are under water; the reduction of the effects of gravity; the alteration of nervous conduction; the direct muscular stretching action; and peripheral vascular action.

Other factors, however, are difficult to rationalise. We have found, for example, that the mere sight of water and the sound of it filling the pool are sometimes sufficient stimuli to release inhibitions so that a birth may occur before the pool is full.

We have observed that water seems to help many parturients reach a certain state of consciousness where they become indifferent to what is going on around them.

Although nearly all the women who enter the pool leave it before birth, the process of delivery can sometimes be so extraordinarily fast under water, that some parturients do not leave the pool at the second stage.

Birth under water is therefore not exceptional in our unit, although it may not be intentional. During the second stage, immersion in warm water seems to help women to lose inhibitions. Most women cry out freely during the last contractions.

When the birth happens under water, the newborn infant is brought gently to the surface and placed in the mother’s arms. This is always done within seconds but without rushing (I am present at the pool for every underwater delivery).

Our experience confirms that the newborn’s first breathing is triggered by contact with the air and the sudden difference in temperature.

There is no risk of inhalation of water. It is useful to remember that in the human species carotid chemoreceptors are thought to be insensitive at birth, and very likely play no part at the time of the first cry. 3,4,5 Only 2 newborn infants out of 100 needed suction of the upper respiratory tract and a short period of manual ventilatory support.

At the time of first contact, most mothers are in a vertical position, kneeling in the water.  They hold the baby in their arms in such a way that skin-to-skin and eye-to-eye contact are as perfect as possible.

An early demonstration of the rooting reflex is almost the rule, and a first sucking 20 min after the birth is common.

Water seems to facilitate the development of the mother-infant relationship. We cut the umbilical cord and help the mother leave the pool just before expulsion of the placenta.

We consider that there might be a risk of water embolism if the mother were to stay in the pool after this time. In 100 underwater deliveries there were 2 manual removals of placenta (our general rate is less than 1%).

All the presentations were cephalic. In breech presentations, our strategy is to use the first stage as a test before deciding on either a vaginal delivery or a caesarian section: in these cases we prefer not to interfere with drugs or with a bath.

Among the 100 women who gave birth underwater, there were 43 primipara, 37 secundiparas, 14 para 3, 2 para 4, one para 5, one para 6, and one para 7.

The youngest was 19 and the oldest was 43. The average age was 28. The lowest birth weight was 2.15kg and the highest was 4.40 kg, we did not perform any episiotomies.

All the tears (of which there were 29) were first degree. We had no infectious complications, even where the membranes were already broken.

There were no perinatal deaths. One infant was transferred to a paediatric unit one day after the birth with groaning and respiratory failure, symptoms which were diagnosed as subarachnoid haemorrhage after delivery in the posterior position at 37 weeks.

Only one infant was jaundiced and required phototherapy (15mg/dl bilirubin on the second day). One of the infants born under water died suddenly some weeks later, although it was previously considered to be perfectly healthy.

We have found no risk attached either to labour or to birth under water, and in any hospital where a pool is in daily use, a birth under water is bound to happen now and then.

Compared with the supported squatting position in the birthing room, we have found that the end of the second stage of labour can be more difficult under water, particularly for primipara, but immersion during the second half of the first stage of labour is helpful, particularly for parturients having painful and insufficient contractions.

It should be possible for any conventional hospital to have a pool situated close to the birthing room and operating theatre.

The use of warm water during labour requires further research, but we hope that other experience would confirm that immersion in warm water is an efficient, easy, and economical way to reduce the use of drugs and the rate of intervention in parturition.

img_1025

REFERENCES

1. Embry M. Observation sur un accouchement terminé dans le bain. Ann Soc Méd Prat Montpellier 1805; 5: 13.

2. Gillett J. Chilbirth in Pithiviers, France. Lancet 1979; ii: 894-96.

3. Girard F, Lacaisse A, Dejours P. Lestimulus O 2 ventilatoire à la période néonatale chez l’homme. J Physiol (Paris) 1960; 52: 108-09.

4.  Purves MJ. The effects of hypoxia in the newborn lamb before and after denervation of the carotid chemoreceptors. J Physiol 1966; 185: 60-77.

5.  Purves MJ. Chemoreceptors and their reflexes with special reference to the fetus and newborn. J Devl Physiol 1981;  3: 21-57.

 

Sheila Kitzinger – Birth in Water: Just a Fad?

Originally published December 11, 2014

World-renowned social anthropologist and birth activist Sheila Kitzinger (1929-2015) was a strong advocate for birth in water, known as waterbirth.

A voice for the ability for every woman to choose, Sheila believed that waterbirth should be an option in mainstream maternity care.

May0042569. Daily Telegraph. Childbirth Guru Sheila Kitzinger for DT Weekend. Picture shows Sheila Kitzinger MBE, she is an author and social anthropologist specialising in pregnancy, childbirth and the parenting of babies and young children. Picture taken in her bedroom, she does most of her writing in her four poster bed. Location Standlake, Oxfordshire. Picture date 27/09/2012

In this piece for Birth Institute, Sheila outlined some of the myths surrounding the birth method, and provides evidence that, in fact, waterbirth is a safe, effective and empowering birthing option.

Learn how to support women through labor and delivery in water. Become a midwife!

Waterbirth is often discussed as if it were a novelty – and a dangerous one at that. It has been assumed to be something that “dropouts” and “weirdoes” choose, or that it is just a recent, passing phenomenon.

In truth, birthing in water is a safe and widespread practice among hospitals in the UK and Western Europe – including Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

Furthermore, most practices aren’t as new as we think (the Ostend Aquanatal Centre in Belgium has been going strong since the late 80s), and waterbirth practices are here to stay.

Birth in water is safe and effective

Swiss study reveals that when using a pool women require less analgesia, have a lower incidence of perineal trauma, and reduced blood loss at delivery.

NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) concludes that waterbirth ‘provides the safest form of pain relief’.

There is evidence that being in water improves uterine contractility and speeds dilatation.  So, awoman giving birth in water is less exposed to interventions, including artificial augmentation of uterine activity, and is more likely to feel happy about her birth experience afterwards.

Yet that may not only be due to the water.  Labouring women who give birth in water have more one-to-one care from a midwife they have come to know.

This, combined with a relaxed environment in which the pool is used, contributes to the positive results. More first time mothers have spontaneous births in a freestanding midwifery center or at home than those in hospital.

In the UK, the NHS (National Health Service) states that women should be able to use a pool if they wish, and recommends one be available for every thousand women.

This option has become part of mainstream maternity care, and approximately 75% of all hospitals in the UK have installed birthing tubs.

Many community midwives are eager to raise the homebirth rate, and portable pools, designed to be used by just one woman (to avoid cross-infection), are selling well.

Complicated waterbirthing pools are not necessary.

Chairs, stools and other contraptions restrict movement, and when a woman is immobilized she is more likely to need obstetric intervention.

Francoise Freedman of Birthlight in Cambridge suggests using a pool at home to explore yoga movements during pregnancy.

These include hip-openers, kneeling stretches, and those to prevent and ease back pain, and others for ribcage expansion and pelvic floor toning.

The warm water acting as a cushion also makes a comfortable space to practice perineal massage.

Waterbirth is here to stay

Midwives keen on home birth and waterbirth were once seen as dissidents and mavericks.

This has changed now – so much that in the UK, it is common to encourage women to choose to labour, and perhaps give birth, in water and in their own home.  Pregnant women and midwives are being empowered now.

Every midwife-run and staffed birth center for low risk women offers pools, and midwives are beginning to develop the skills to use them. There is a feast of research from which midwives can learn more.

Ethel Burns, Waterbirth Practitioner, Research Midwife and Midwifery Teacher, and I have drawn up recommendations for practice in a paper available from Oxford Brookes University (read it here).

Sheila Kitzinger (1929-2015) was a social anthropologist of birth and an advocate of home births.  She believed that women have the right to decide the place of birth and kind of care they prefer, and to make an informed choice, based on research and their own values.

Women suffering post-traumatic stress after birth would ring her for help, seeking the confidence to deal with it.  For years she worked with mothers and babies in prison and asylum centers.  She lectured all over the world and her books are published in 23 languages.

Exploring movements in Water

Sheila was a keen proponent of water birth.

Her wonderful article gives us examples of the type and range of movements natural to labour and birth that mothers explore in water.

 

The pool in the photos is an original Oval Portable Water Birth Pool circa 1987  – to my knowledge the first specially designed portable water birth pool ever produced.

Please click here for a copy of Exploring movements in water:

The benefits of using water for labour and birth are well known…

The benefits of using water for labour and birth are well known…

Here are the facts…

  1. Relaxing in a deep pool of warm water can be a wonderful aid in labour. It’s worth having a pool mainly for this reason.
  2. Using a birth pool helps mothers to manage pain in labour and considerably reduces the need for medical pain relief.
  3. The buoyancy of the water supports the mothers body weight allowing her to relax more easily and deeply. They can cope better with contractions and also rest more comfortably in between them.
  4. It’s easier to use upright or squatting positions and move freely from one position to another, than it is on land.
  5. Being in a birth pool gives mothers an increased feeling of privacy and security. This enhances the secretion of hormones which stimulate uterine contractions and act as natural pain killers and relaxants.
  6. Studies show that labours tend to be shorter overall when a woman enters the pool at around 5cms. dilation.
  7. Fewer women need the help of obstetric interventions.

Women who receive less medical intervention generally stay in hospital for a shorter period of time.

The combination of an intervention free birth – with a short hospital stay result in a better experience for mother and baby.

Hospital staff and resources can be employed more efficiently.

 

Importantly – this results in significant financial savings!

A birth pool is a simple, inexpensive piece of equipment that has a major impact on the the quality of care and cost of having a baby.

 

 

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

Some water borne bacteria are tough

Originally published by  Matthew R. Freije in 2013

Water is more prone to bacteria growth after it leaves the public water distribution system and enters a building’s plumbing. There it finds warmer temperatures, stagnation, and smaller pipes, valves and fittings.

Biofilm that forms on valves and fittings and pipe walls not only feeds bacteria but also protects them from the hot water and chlorine that typically would kill free-floating organisms.

Large systems with complex piping networks — like those found in hospitals, hotels and large apartment buildings — are especially prone to bacteria growth, but home plumbing systems are not exempt.

In fact, Legionella bacteria have been found in many home plumbing systems, some of which have been implicated in cases of Legionnaires’ disease.

Closer look at waterborne bacteria

Not all types of bacteria are unhealthy; some actually protect humans from illness. Only the disease-causing (pathogenic) bacteria are a concern, and these include Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Helicobacter pylori, Legionella, E. coli and Mycobacteria avium.

Many pathogens that can be transmitted from water also can be transmitted from food or surfaces or passed from person to person. For Legionella, however, water is nearly always the source.

Transplant patients, smokers, the elderly, persons with underlying disease such as cancer or diabetes, or patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment are many times more likely than a young nonsmoker in generally good health to become infected by waterborne bacteria and to die from that infection.

Modes of transmission

Drinking water is only one of the ways in which harmful bacteria can enter a person’s body.

Some bacteria can be inhaled in small droplets while showering, brushing teeth or washing the face.

Even while washing hands, a person could unknowingly inhale small water droplets that become airborne directly from the faucet or after water splashes against the sink.

Water droplets can enter the lungs and cause infection also by aspiration: contaminated water in the mouth, perhaps while swallowing, gets past the choking reflexes and enters the lungs instead of the esophagus and stomach.

Aspiration is more likely to occur in smokers, because their damaged respiratory tracts fail to keep substances out of the lungs.

Water-related illness associated with skin contact is less common in generally healthy people.

However, Pseudomonas aeruginosa has caused skin rashes in people using swimming pools or whirlpool spas that have not been properly treated to kill bacteria.

All four modes of transmission — ingestion, inhalation, aspiration and skin contact — have one crucial fact in common: The source of the problem is in the water.

If the water is not contaminated, illness will not occur.

Reducing risk

Bear in mind that the following comments pertain only to home plumbing systems. Some methods that are effective in home plumbing systems will not work well in hospitals, hotels or other large buildings.

Chemical disinfection

The disinfectant in a public water supply cannot be relied upon to control pathogens in a home plumbing system.

The free chlorine concentration varies significantly from city to city and even within a given distribution system, depending in part on the distance from the treatment plant to a home.

The water entering some homes may have 1.0 part per million (ppm) free chlorine while others will have 0.2 ppm or less.

Moreover, hot water at faucets and showers is unlikely to have any disinfectant, as chlorine concentrations are likely to dissipate in the water heater.

Although two studies conducted by the Centers for Control of Disease and Prevention (CDC) indicated that city water systems treated with monochloramine are less conducive to Legionella growth than are systems treated with chlorine, more data is needed to draw conclusions, particularly since Legionella have been found in several buildings supplied with monochloramine-treated water.

Point-of-entry (POE) treatment systems are used in some hospitals and hotels to inject chlorine dioxide or copper-silver ions into the plumbing system, or perhaps only into the hot water system.

However, this is not the most desirable or effective option for pathogen control in homes. A single treatment with chlorine or chlorine dioxide may be beneficial for newly constructed systems or systems that have been stagnant for a long period of time.

Following Water Quality Association (WQA) guidelines, the home plumbing system should also be disinfected in conjunction with the installation of a POE filtration system.

Hot water temperatures

The types of bacteria typically found in plumbing systems grow well in warm-water environments but will not multiply above a certain temperature.

For example, in the absence of biofilm, Legionella will not multiply at temperatures above 122 F (50 C) and will die within about 32 minutes at 140 F (60 C). Pseudomonas aeruginosa will not multiply above 108 F (42 C). Mycobacteria will multiply up to about 124 F (51 C).

Keeping water at 140 F (60 C) in large-building plumbing systems will not always control bacteria because of dead areas and other complexities in a large piping network, but studies have shown that high temperatures are effective in controlling Legionella bacteria in single-family residences.

In 95 Chicago-area homes studied by P.M. Arnow’s group*, Legionella were found in water samples collected from plumbing systems at temperatures under 140 F (60 C), but not in a single sample from systems above 140 F (60 C).

Setting the water heater to deliver 140 F (60 C) water to all taps will help to control waterborne pathogens but should not be done if the house is occupied by children or others who may open a hot water faucet unaware of the risk of scalding.

Skin damage will occur in adult males within 15-30 seconds at 130 F (54 C) and within 3-5 seconds at 140 F (60 C). Children and the elderly will scald even more quickly, and they will scald at lower temperatures.

Ultraviolet treatment. Properly sized ultraviolet (UV) disinfection units installed at the point of entry may be effective in controlling bacteria in home plumbing systems.

Whole-building UV has been unsuccessful in solving Legionella problems in large buildings because in those systems a residual disinfectant is required to prevent recontamination from biofilm. However, UV has been effective in controlling Legionella on a single floor of a hospital. Turbid water must be filtered for UV to be effective.

Filters and RO. Typical sediment or carbon filters will not block bacterial pathogens, and dirty ones actually make a good habitat for them. However, hollow-fiber membranes and other devices with a pore size of 0.2 micron or smaller will block bacteria.

At this time, submicron point-of-use (POU) filters are used in some hospitals but not generally in homes. However, several new sub-micron POU and POE filtration products are likely to be introduced, including products for home systems.

Whole-house hollow-fiber membrane systems, already available, provide filtration to 0.02 micron nominal and a flow rate of approximately 11 gallons per minute (gpm). These systems must be backwashed at least once daily.

Reverse osmosis (RO) systems certainly remove bacteria but need to be properly maintained to prevent bacteria growth in tanks and on membranes.

For pathogen control, filters should be evaluated based on: flow rate reduction; independent studies validating their ability to block bacteria; filter life; distance from the point of use (since bacteria could be released from biofilm downstream of the filter); and cost.

Many options are available for pathogen control in home plumbing systems, only a few of which have been discussed in this article.

Remember, it is critical to control waterborne pathogens in homes occupied by the elderly or immuno-compromised.

* “Prevalence and significance of Legionella pneumophila contamination of residential hot-tap water systems,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 152 (1985); 145-151

Matthew R. Freije is president of Solana Beach, CA-based HC Info.

He is a consultant, author and course instructor specializing in waterborne pathogens. Freije earned a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University; a water treatment plant operations specialist certificate from California State University, Sacramento; and is a Certified Water Specialist (WQA). His book Legionellae Control in Health Care Facilities: A Guide for Minimizing Risk has sold in more than 30 countries. Portions of this article were taken from Freije’s new book on home water treatment, due to be released this year.

Legionella – blowing bugs out the water

In recent years, Legionella has made it back into the news, with several reported outbreaks in hospitals across the UK.

As recently as June this year, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was fined £50,000 for failing to control the growth of Legionella in its water systems.

With the spotlight firmly back on the need for bug-free water systems, manufacturers are bringing to market a range of solutions.

Facilities and estates managers should avoid water temperatures and conditions that favour Legionella growth, ensure water cannot stagnate anywhere in the system, remove any redundant pipework that may exist in the network, and stop using any materials that encourage the development of Legionella.

Good offence is the best defence when it comes to water systems.

Options that should be considered include thermal disinfection – maintaining constant high temperatures as well as shock disinfection; chemical disinfection – the presence of an additive like chlorine; good system design to avoid stagnation of water; regular maintenance to remove any sediment from the system; and the use of materials that inhibit the formation of biofilm for the bacteria to feed off.

Guidance on the subject can be found in the latest versions of the Health and Safety Executive’s ACOP L8 and its appended HSG 274 parts 1, 2 and 3, among others.

Legionnaires disease is caused by a bacterium that exists in water and remains inert at temperatures below 25°C.

It proliferates in water circuits at temperatures fluctuating between 25°C and 45°C, meaning hot and cold water systems, air conditioning circuits, and cooling towers are most at risk.

Facilities and estates managers should avoid water temperatures and conditions that favour Legionella growth, ensure water cannot stagnate anywhere in the system, remove any redundant pipework that may exist in the network, and stop using any materials that encourage the development of Legionella.

Active Birth Pools are fabricated in one solid piece of Ficore composite without seams or seals and are impervious to bacteria.

An Active Birth Pool manufactured in Ficore meets or exceeds all relevant regulations and will withstand the rigours of heavy hospital use and disinfection with caustic chemicals.

Ficore is a composite of eight different elements chemically fused during manufacturing and then heat cured at high temperature to create a material that is light in weight but ‘heavy’ in performance.

1. The surface of Ficore is isophthalic neo-pentyl-glycol that is:

a) 50% harder (stronger) than acrylic and fiberglass – materials other birth pools are made from.

b) Able to withstand both continuous heat or hot water of 80 degrees Celsius/176 Fahrenheit, and thermal shock of alternating hot and cold water.

c) Extremely smooth, tactile and warm to the touch.

d) Resistant to most chemicals including acid or alkaline solutions (e.g. lime scale remover) which neither acrylic nor vitreous enamel can withstand.

e) Less slippery than acrylic or fibreglass. Mothers experience better traction and are safeguarded from injury resulting from slipping or falling.

2. Due to Ficore’s high insulation factor Active Birth Pools maintain water temperature 6 x longer than acrylic baths and 12 x longer than vitreous enameled baths.

3. Ficore has an extremely high degree of structural integrity.  It is none flexing, and will not buckle, bow, or change shape under pressure.

4. It will not chip as will vitreous enamel.

5. It is fully repairable.

6. While fibreglass or acrylic birth pools carry only a 1 – 2 year guarantee, we guarantee Active Birth Pools manufactured in Ficore for 20 years.

7.  Ficore is:

  • Approved by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping
  • Approved by Wine Laboratories Limited for long term storage  of high alcohol content wines and spirits
  • Approved by The Water Research Council and the Water Bylaws Advisory Service for the longterm storage of potable water.

Active Birth Pools are not equipped with features such as overflow drains, jets/jacuzzi’s, integral plumbing and heating systems which are in contravention of Health & Safety regulations.

 

The case for the wide-spread development of water birth facilities

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.

ABP15

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.

Vp6

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.

ABP3

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 economic impact

Studies have shown that women who are supported during labour need to have fewer painkillers, experience fewer interventions and give birth to stronger  babies.

A focus on normalising birth results in better quality, safer care for mothers and their babies with an improved experience.

Increasing normal births is associated with shorter (or no) hospital stays, fewer adverse incidents and admissions to neonatal unit  and better health outcomes for mothers.

It is also associated with higher rates of successful breastfeeding  and a more positive birth experience.

These changes benefit not only women and their families but also maternity staff.

Midwives are able to spend less time on non-clinical tasks and more on caring for women and their babies.

Psychologically speaking, and in particular for first time mothers, the less intervention and a more hands on approach with one-to-one support means that mothers will leave hospital feeling held and therefore far better prepared for motherhood.

This again has a domino effect, not just on the welfare of the infant, but also circumventing the need for costly government and interventionist approaches in particular for younger mothers post-partum.

The experience of hospitals that have birth pools demonstrates the savings  achieved through reduced use of medical methods of pain relief and shorter hospital stays.

 

The use of water for labour and birth – Colchester University Hospital

Feeling relaxed, secure and in control and being able to move about freely can make
it more likely for you to have a quicker and more natural birth.

For some women using a birthing pool can offer all of these benefits.

Today more and more women are considering using water for pain relief in labour.

A midwife can support you in using a birthing pool at home or in our midwife-led units
at Colchester General Hospital and Clacton and Harwich hospitals in the community.

Using a birthing pool is likely to increase the chances of a normal vaginal delivery
and therefore we would like to offer this option to as many women as possible.

We have compiled this leaflet to give you and your partner relevant information about
labouring and giving birth in water.

Please talk to your midwife during the antenatal period who will be able to answer any questions you may have.

Please click here to read the full document

 

The use of water during childbirth – MIDIRS

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 ed. Water 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.

 

 

 

 

Waterbirth basics from newborn breathing to hospital protocols

Barbara Harper 2000

Waterbirth is simple.

Within the simplicity of water labor and birth lies a complexity of questions, choices, opinions, research data, women’s experience and practitioner observations.

Over the past five years, as more hospitals within the United States examined waterbirth and created programs to support the use of water for labor and birth, newspaper reporters latched onto the sensationalism of this simple option and published stories of successful waterbirths in local publications.

Reporters do their best to simplify waterbirth and at the same time answer the most common questions. Each story shows a happy, beaming mother, a quiet, peaceful baby and a proud father, who usually successfully sets up a portable birth pool.

The surprise headlines like “Watery Birth” or “Baby’s Birth Goes Swimmingly” or “Junior Makes a Splashy Entrance” are countered with the simple stories of couples who have made this decision for themselves and are proud of it.

The first and foremost question in everyone’s mind and the lead in all these newspaper accounts is simple: How does the baby breathe during a waterbirth?

Inhibitory Factors

Several factors prevent a baby from inhaling water at the time of birth. These inhibitory factors are normally present in all newborns. The baby in utero is oxygenated through the umbilical cord via the placenta, but practices for future air breathing by moving his/her intercostal muscles and diaphragm in a regular and rhythmic pattern from about ten weeks gestation on.

The lung fluids that are present are produced in the lungs and are similar chemically to gastric fluids. These fluids come up into the mouth and are normally swallowed by the fetus. There is very little inspiration of amniotic fluid in utero.

Twenty-four to forty-eight hours before the onset of spontaneous labor, the fetus experiences a notable increase in the prostaglandin E2 levels from the placenta which causes a slowing down or stopping of the fetal breathing movements (FBM).1 With the work of the musculature of the diaphragm and intercostal muscles suspended, there is more blood flow to vital organs, including the brain.

You can see the decrease in FBM on a biophysical profile, as you normally see the fetus moving these muscles about 40 percent of the time. When the baby is born and the prostaglandin level is still high, the baby’s muscles for breathing simply don’t work, thus engaging the first inhibitory response.

A second inhibitory response is the fact that babies are born experiencing acute hypoxia or lack of oxygen. It is a built-in response to the birth process. Hypoxia causes apnea and swallowing, not breathing or gasping.

If the fetus were experiencing severe and prolonged lack of oxygen, it may then gasp as soon as it was born, possibly inhaling water into the lungs.2 If the baby were in trouble during the labor, there would be wide variabilities noted in the fetal heart rate, usually resulting in prolonged bradycardia, which would cause the practitioner to ask the mother to leave the bath prior to the baby’s birth.

The temperature differential is another factor thought by many to inhibit the newborn from initiating the breathing response while in water. The temperature of the water is so close to maternal temperature that it prevents any detection of change within the newborn.

This is an area for reconsideration after increasing reports of births taking place in the oceans, both now and in eras past. Ocean temperatures are certainly not as high as maternal body temperature, yet babies that are born in these environments are reported to be just fine. The lower water temperatures do not stimulate the baby to breathe while immersed.

One more factor that most people do not consider but which is vital to the whole waterbirth and aspiration issue is the fact that water is a hypotonic solution and lung fluids present in the fetus are hypertonic. Even if water were to travel in past the larynx, it could not pass into the lungs based on the fact that hypertonic solutions are denser and prevent hypotonic solutions from merging or coming into their presence.

The last important inhibitory factor—the dive reflex—is associated with the larynx. The larynx is covered all over with chemoreceptors, or taste buds. In fact, the larynx has five times as many taste buds as the whole surface of the tongue.

When a solution hits the back of the throat and crosses the larynx, the taste buds interpret what substance it is and the glottis automatically closes; the solution is then swallowed, not inhaled.3

God built this autonomic reflex into all newborns to help them breastfeed, and it is present until about the age of six to eight months when it mysteriously disappears. The newborn is very intelligent and can detect what substance is in its throat.

It can differentiate between amniotic fluid, water, cow’s milk or human milk. The human infant will swallow and breathe differently when feeding on cow’s milk or breastmilk due to the dive reflex.

All these factors combine to prevent a newborn who is born into water from taking a breath until he is lifted up into the air.

Baby’s First Breath

What initiates the breath in the newborn? As soon as the newborn senses a change in the environment from the water into the air, a complex chain of chemical, hormonal and physical responses initiate the baby’s first breath.

Water born babies are slower to initiate this response because their whole body is exposed to the air at the same time, not just the caput or head as in a dry birth. Many midwives report that water babies stay a little bit bluer longer, but their tone and alertness are just fine. It has even been suggested that water born babies be given the first APGAR scoring at one minute thirty seconds, not at one minute, because of this adjustment.

Several things happen all at once in the baby. The shunts in the heart are closed; fetal circulation turns to newborn circulation; the lungs experience oxygen for the first time; and the umbilical cord is stretched causing the umbilical arteries to close down.

Nursing and medical schools taught their students for years that the first breath was dependent on the pressure of the passage through the birth canal, and then a reflexive opening of the compressed chest creating a vacuum.

That action has no bearing on newborn breathing whatsoever. There is no vacuum created. The newborn born into water is protected by all the inhibitory mechanisms mentioned above and is suspended and waiting to be lifted out of the water and into mother’s waiting arms.

All the fluids present in the lung alveoli are automatically pushed out into the vascular system from the pressure of pulmonary circulation, thus increasing blood volume for the newborn by one-fifth (or 20 percent).

The lymphatic system absorbs the rest of the fluids through the interstitial spaces in the lung tissue. The increase of blood volume is vital for the baby’s health. It takes about six hours for all the lung fluids to disappear.4

Outcomes and Concerns

When we look back at the analysis of the statistics of babies born in water it proves that these inhibitory factors are more than theories. A study conducted in England between 1994 and 1996 and published in 1999 reports on the outcomes of 4,032 births in water. Perinatal mortality was 1.2 per 1,000, but no deaths were attributed to birth in the water. Two babies were admitted to special care for possible water aspiration.5

It is estimated that there have been well over 150,000 waterbirths worldwide between 1985 and 1999. There are no valid reports of infant deaths due to water aspiration or inhalation. In the early days of waterbirth a baby was reported to have died from being born in the water.

This particular newborn death was caused not by aspiration, but by asphyxiation because the baby was left under the water for more than fifteen minutes after the full body was born. At some point the placenta detached from the wall of the uterus and stopped the flow of oxygen to the baby.

When the baby was taken out of the water, it did not begin breathing and could not be revived. On autopsy the baby was reported to have no water in the lungs and its death was attributed to asphyxia.6

This is the reason we bring babies up out of the water within the first few moments after birth. Some people have commented on the long time that some babies remain in the water in the film “Water Babies: The Aquanatal Experience in Ostend.” Videotape is deceiving, but so are our senses. When timed, the film sequence is only forty-seven seconds, but when viewers are asked to judge how long the sequence of immersion for the baby really is, reports range anywhere from one minute to five minutes.

Bringing a baby out of the water too quickly can be just as traumatic, but it can also lead to either torn or broken cords. This has been reported by a number of midwives and doctors.7 If the practitioner does not look for a torn cord the possibility of the baby needing a transfusion increases.

Torn or broken cords can be avoided by bringing baby out of the water slowly and gently. Mothers who want to pick up their own babies need to be reminded not to do it too quickly either.

The inability to accurately assess blood loss in the water is a reason given by some midwives for either not “allowing” the birth to take place in the water or asking mother to get out right away after the baby is born. But blood loss is easy to judge after a few births.

Garland and Jones report in a review of waterbirths at Maidstone Hospital in Kent, England, that midwives are much better at judging and reporting blood loss in the water after experiencing over 500 births.8 A useful way to identify the extent of postpartum hemorrhage is how dark the water is getting.

Can you still assess skin color of the mother’s thighs even though there is blood in the water? A few drops of blood in a birth pool diffuse and cause the water to change color. A waterproof flashlight comes in handy at this point.

Dropping a flashlight onto the bottom of the birth pool allows you to look for bleeding as well as meconium during the birth. It also helps you spot floating debris so it can be removed.

This brings us to the second most frequently asked question among hospital nurses and newspaper reporters: Won’t the mother get an infection?

Some hospitals still restrict a woman from laboring in the water if her membranes are ruptured. Based on the current and past literature, this is absurd. No evidence exists of increased infectious morbidity with or without ruptured membranes for women who labor and/or birth in water. 9 ,10

The oldest reference that researches the possibility of infection during a bath is mentioned in a 1960 American Journal of OB/GYN.

Dr. Siegel posed the question, “Does bath water enter the vagina?” In his experiment he placed sterile cotton tampons into thirty women and then asked them to bathe in iodinated water for a minimum of fifteen minutes.

In all cases when the tampons were removed, there was no iodine present.11 His conclusion states, “We can now stop restricting women from bathing in the later stages of pregnancy and labor.”

Laboring mothers have an advantage when the baby is descending and moving out—nothing is moving up and in. Things that we put into laboring vaginas may cause infections, such as probes, fingers, AmnihooksTM, scalp hooks and so on. Janet Rush, RN, and her Canadian group of investigators have conducted the only randomized controlled trial of the effects of water labor.

They reported that there were no differences noted in the low rates of maternal and newborn signs of infection in women with ruptured membranes.12

Infection control, especially in a hospital setting, requires diligence and the attention to strict protocols between and during births. Cleaning and maintaining all equipment used for a waterbirth will prevent the spread of infection.

In a random study conducted at the Oregon Health Science University Hospital in 1999, cultures were done from the portable jetted birth pool before, during and after birth, as well as from the fill hose and water tap source.

In all instances no bacteria was cultured from the birth pool but the water tap did culture Pseudomonas.13 In a British study of 541 water labors, no serious infections were reported during the three-year period of data gathering.

Again, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the only persistent bacteria discovered in two babies who tested positive from ear swabs. No treatment was necessary.14

Some parents are concerned about mother-to-mother infections or contamination from viruses such as HIV or hepatitis. There is no reason to restrict an HIV-positive mother from laboring or giving birth in water.

All evidence indicates that the HIV virus is susceptible to the warm water and cannot live in that environment.15 Universal precautions still need to be adhered to and proper cleaning of all the equipment after the birth needs to be carried out.

Using disposable liners has become the norm for use with portable birth pools, but attention must also be paid to proper cleaning of drain pumps, hoses, filter nets, taps and any other items that are reused from one birth to the next. The issue of cleaning the jets of permanently installed baths has generated some concern and discussion over the past few years.

Many hospitals remodeled their labor units in the late eighties or early nineties, installing Jacuzzi-type whirlpool baths. These baths are great for women in labor, but often are not deep enough or are situated within very small bathroom spaces, boxed in and making birth in them difficult in all respects.

The protocol for cleaning jetted tubs is simply to completely clean the tub with a quaternary ammonium solution, refill with water and add some kind of brominating agent to circulate through the jet system for a minimum of ten minutes.16

A number of hospitals report that they use a half cup of powdered dish-washing crystals such as Cascade, and it works fine. Lynn Springer, RN, the perinatal coordinator for St. Elizabeth Hospital in Red Bluff, California, chose to install a beautiful corner Jacuzzi brand jetted bath on her unit in 1995.

They have routinely performed monthly cultures of the bath and the jets throughout the past five years of their waterbirth program without any significant bacterial growth. They follow the above-mentioned cleaning protocol and report over 1,000 water labors and 400 births in water.17

When to Enter the Bath

One issue that is repeated in the literature and voiced in the concern of mothers and their midwives is: When should the mother enter the bath?

Many hospitals use the five-centimeter rule, only allowing mothers to enter the bath when they are in active labor and dilated to more than five centimeters.

Some physiological data supports this rule, but each and every situation must be evaluated and then judged. Some mothers find a bath in early labor useful for its calming effect and to determine if labor has actually started.18

The water sometimes slows or stops labor if used too early. On the other hand, if contractions are strong and regular with either a small amount of dilation or none at all, a bath might be in order to help the mother relax enough to facilitate the dilation.

It has been suggested that the bath be used in a “trial of water” for at least one hour, allowing the mother to judge its effectiveness. Women report that often the contractions seem to space out or become less effective if they enter the bath too soon, thus requiring them to leave the bath.

Then again, midwives report that some women can go from one centimeter to complete dilation within the first hour or two of immersion.

Deep immersion seems to be a key factor. If the pool or bath is not deep enough, at least providing water up to breast level and completely covering the belly, then the benefits of the bath may be less noticeable.

The warm water will still provide comfort and the mother will benefit from being upright, in control and drug free, but full immersion promotes more physiological responses, the most notable being a redistribution of blood volume, which stimulates the release of oxytocin and vasopressin.19

Vasopressin can also work to increase the levels of oxytocin.20 The immediate pain reduction felt upon entering the bath is quite noticeable. It is what I refer to as “the ahh effect.”

The smile, the sound and the inner peace that mothers display are unmistakable. This response can happen at any point in the labor, but most notably when contractions are long and strong and close together.

Some midwives who assume there is little or no progress in dilation because the mother is not displaying any outward signs of discomfort are often surprised to find rapid dilation in the first hour of immersion. Having experienced a waterbirth myself, I can verify the incredible difference in perception of pain from the room to the water.

When I am with a woman in labor I generally assess her pain on a scale of one to ten before she enters the bath. Most report at least a six or greater. Then after no less than half an hour, I will make another assessment.

The second subjective answer of course varies from person to person, but the typical response is two to four. The mother is experiencing more than the sum of her physiological responses to warm water immersion. Most women feel inherently safe in the water.

The water creates a wonderful barrier to the outside world. It becomes the woman’s nest, her cave, her own “womb with a view.” If the pool is large enough to include her partner or husband, it then becomes an intimate place for the two of them to labor together and experience the love dance of birth.

If the midwife or physician wants to do a vaginal examination while the mother is in the water, it is much easier for the mother to refuse. Her mobility allows her to move quickly to the other side of the pool. Vaginal exams can be easily done in the water, but to maintain universal precautions, long shoulder-length gloves need to be worn.

The control that women gain by being able to move freely in the water often helps them assess their own progress either by feeling the baby’s movements more intensively or actually being able to examine themselves internally.

Women report that the water intensifies the connection with the baby at the same time that it reduces the pain. They can feel the baby move, descend and push through the birth canal.

The prospect of the midwife becoming an active observer increases as mothers have the ease of mobility in the water and assume more and more responsibility for the birth.

For many reasons, including reducing the risk of infection for the provider, many midwives suggest a hands-off birth for the mother. The water slows the crowning and offers its own perineal support.21 This “minimal-touch” approach also gives the mother a greater sense of controlling her own birth.

Perineal trauma is reported to be generally less severe, with more intact perineums for multips, but in some of the literature about the same frequency of tears for primips in or out of the water.22 23 One of the best benefits of waterbirth is the zero episiotomy rate that is reported throughout the literature.

Rosenthal mentions that episiotomies can be done, but no one else offers this suggestion.7

The combination of being upright, having the mother in a good physiological position to birth her baby, giving her the freedom of control and not telling her to push when her body is not indicating it, all contribute to better perineal outcomes.

The Midwife’s Influence

Midwives have a great deal of influence over the outcome of a birth, from the suggestions they make to a laboring mother to how they handle potential complications. An interesting phenomenon within the waterbirth movement deserves some discussion.

When a mother is laboring undisturbed—about which Odent has written and lectured—she will find her own place and time of birth, whether that place is the bathroom floor, under the piano, on the bed or in the bath.

If practitioners remain silent observers to the process, the baby is born wherever it happens. But when the mother has stated her intentions for a waterbirth and the necessary arrangements have been made to have water available, if then the midwife reminds her as second stage approaches or in the middle of second stage that the bath is ready and waiting if she wants to get back in— is the midwife influencing the mother?

In observing the statistics on waterbirth that Waterbirth International gathers from midwives and doctors, it is hard not to notice the variance from practice to practice.

Those midwives who report an 80 to 90 percent waterbirth rate are usually set up with either a birth center facility that uses easily accessible bathtubs, or every single one of their homebirth clients rent or use portable birth pools.

When the mother is in the midst of her subconscious birth responses and someone tells her that the bath is ready and waiting, she often will immediately dash for the pool and climb in, even in the pushing stage. On occasion she simply states that nothing in heaven and earth can move her beyond where she is.

A midwife’s or physician’s hesitancy for using water for birth can also be felt by the mother and she often acquiesces just to make her practitioner feel more comfortable, instead of following her own instincts and staying in the water. Many women in hospitals get out of the pool because they don’t want to get their midwives “in trouble” by insisting on giving birth in water.

And in the reverse, midwives often must insist that mother get out of the pool because protocols have not been set up for birth or the practitioner is just not comfortable with the process.

The decision to birth in the water should be left up to the mother, but based on sound advice and assessment of fetal well-being by the practitioner. The mother who presents prenatally and insists she is going to have a waterbirth no matter what is usually destined to birth anywhere but the birth pool.

I seriously counsel women who are taking on the system to evaluate their reasons for wanting to birth in water. If they are seeking only to avoid pain, that is a serious red flag and needs to be addressed on many different levels.

If they have experienced one birth already and know what to expect and are looking for a better birth experience, then they are usually open to using the water to be in greater control, and then seeing how they feel at the time of birth.

Flexibility is always required in birth, but especially for those women who add the element of water. In my own case, I wanted to birth in water the first time because I felt it was the best thing I could do for my baby. I hear many women say this, and I consider it a reasonable motivation.

But it is better to focus on the mother and what she needs; the benefit that women derive from being in the water and gaining control over their experience is passed on to the baby. For my second waterbirth, no one could keep me out of the water. I was completely focused on my experience and not the baby’s.

Fathers will often call our office and make all the arrangements for the birth pool rental. On occasion that is because the dad wants his baby to be born in water and no other place, not taking into account what the mother really wants. Usually it all works out just fine, but occasionally it can influence the outcome of the labor.

Protocols

Protocols differ from place to place, but as more experience with waterbirth emerges, we find that some previous reasons for asking a woman to leave the bath prior to birth are no longer hard and fast.

The prescence of meconium used to mean that the mother would have to leave the pool to birth her baby on the bed to facilitate immediate suctioning. This requirement has relaxed a bit as it has been seen that meconium washes off the face of the baby and even comes out of the nares and mouth while the baby is still under the water. DeLee suctioning can still be accomplished as soon as the baby is up in mother’s arms.

Tight nuchal cords were a reason to ask mother to stand for the birth so that the practitioner could cut the cord and then deliver the baby. Now the universal practice is to not even feel for a cord in a waterbirth, unless there has been a very slow second stage and you are afraid of cord compression.

No attempt is made to clamp and cut the cord. The body is birthed and then the cord unwrapped. It is amazing to watch a baby somersault and begin to unwrap its own cord in the expanse of the birth pool.

Breech position was definitely a reason for a more controlled birth or even an automatic cesarean section. But there are practitioners throughout the world who recognize increased safety for the baby if it is born in water.

The most experienced doctor we know is Herman Ponette, an obstetrician who practices at H. Serruys Hospital in Ostend, Belgium. He has attended well over 2,000 waterbirths including breeches and twins.

He uses a frank breech position as an indication for a water birth.24 There are other reports of a few hospitals in the United States attending breech waterbirths, and approximately fifty reported breech births in water at home.25

Shoulder dystocia is considered an obstetric or midwifery emergency by most practitioners. Protocols require mothers who are anticipating large babies to leave the bath. Now there is a growing body of experience that suggests shoulder dystocia can be managed easier in the pool.

Canadian birth attendant Gloria Lemay has written a protocol for management of shoulder dystocia in the water. It appears that tight shoulders happen more often because of practitioners or moms trying to push before the baby fully rotates.

There is no harm in waiting for a few contractions to allow baby to rotate, especially since the baby is not going to be taking a breath. Position changes in the water are so much easier to effect and the mother doesn’t panic but remains calm.

A quick switch to hands and knees or even to standing up with one foot on the edge of the pool if shoulders are really tight can help maneuver baby out.

Prematurity has always been considered a reason for a controlled and monitored bed birth. Some doctors who have experienced the great results of waterbirth for babies born from thirty-six weeks gestation on are now questioning whether waterbirth might be good for some babies who are less than thirty-six weeks gestation.

With the advances for waterproof fetal monitoring there are fewer reasons to require a woman to leave the pool, especially if her baby is tolerating the labor well.

A few cases of waterbirth for thirty-three, thirty-four and thirty-five-week-old babies have been reported.

The Waterbirth Choice

Once a woman has experienced a waterbirth she will more than likely want to repeat the experience. To that end, Waterbirth International gets some pretty interesting referral requests from women all over the world.

If circumstances have changed and the mother is no longer living in a place where waterbirth facilities or practitioners are readily available, she will go to almost any length to recreate the opportunity to give birth in water.

A research project that Waterbirth International has been conducting for ten years is a survey of women who have given birth in water.

One question on the survey form asks: “Would you consider giving birth again in water?” With over 1,500 surveys collected, only one woman answered no to that question.

On her particular survey she emphatically stated no in bold print with two exclamation points and then drew an arrow down to the bottom of the page where in very small print she wrote, “This is number seven, I’m done!”

It is hard to think of another “method” of childbirth that receives such praise from women and practitioners alike. Dr. Lisa Stolper is an obstetrician practicing in the quaint New England town of Keene, New Hampshire.

She began offering waterbirth to her clients at Cheshire Medical Center in October 1998. One year later she reported an overall waterbirth rate of 37 percent for all vaginal births and 33 percent for all births, including cesarean sections.

Her hospital has purchased just one portable jetted birth pool, but they use it for the labor of almost 50 percent of their clients.

They are now considering installing permanent pools to make them available for more women. Her comment about her job as an obstetrician was, “Waterbirth just makes my job so much easier.”

One of the final questions that newspaper reporters pose and birthing couples ask is, why aren’t more hospitals in the United States offering waterbirth?

Hospitals in the United States have made incredible advances in the waterbirth movement in the past five years. Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, New Hampshire, was the first hospital in the country to embrace waterbirth and install a permanent birth pool; the pool was imported from England.

They still offer this option to women and can now look back on almost ten years of great outcomes and lots of satisfied families. The rest of the country has taken some time, with certain areas of the country making greater strides than others.

In almost all cases where there are successful waterbirth programs, certified nurse-midwives have started them. Midwives are more open to exploring the issue with their clients and doing the research necessary to get protocols accepted in hospitals.

Some midwives have even purchased portable birth pool equipment with their own funds in hopes that it would pay for itself by generating more business. In most instances, that investment has paid off.

The whole U.S. movement is at least five years behind the European movement in acceptance in hospital environments, but homebirth midwives in the United States have been offering waterbirth longer than most of their European counterparts.26

The United Kingdom has had the benefit of government-sponsored research and data reporting as well as the Cumberledge Report.27 The House of Commons Health Committee recommended that all hospitals should provide women with the option of a birthing pool.

The underlying philosophy of the Changing Childbirth report recognized that women have the right to choose how and where they wish to give birth. In a 1994 statement, the UKCC stated, “ . . . waterbirth is preferred by some women as their chosen method for delivery of babies.

Waterbirth should therefore be viewed as an alternate method of care and management in labour and one which falls within the midwife’s sphere of practice.”28

The states that have made the most progress for hospital waterbirth are New York, Maine, New Hampshire, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina and Massachusetts. Obviously, the East Coast is changing faster than the West Coast.

It is surprising to some people when they find out that the whole state of California only has a handful of hospitals that provide waterbirth services. More than two thirds of the birth centers in the United States offer waterbirth as an available option.

Mothers who call Waterbirth International wanting advice on how to get their particular hospital to allow them to have a waterbirth are advised that it takes three ingredients to make policy changes within a hospital setting:

1) a motivated mother;

2) an open and supportive practitioner;

3) a compassionate nurse manager or perinatal coordinator who is willing to take on the training of staff and the creation of new policy.

Waterbirth International will supply the necessary research studies, the sample protocols, the pool kits, the videos and the experience to help couples get policy changed, but without these first three components some hospitals will continue to deny the request. Time is the other factor. The more advance notice a hospital is given the better chances there are for change.

There are so many areas of waterbirth to explore. Waterbirth is more a philosophy of nonintervention than a method or way to give birth. Waterbirth combines psychology, physiology, technology, humanity and science.

Waterbirth is ancient and yet new at the same time.

Waterbirth embodies a spiritual aspect of birth that is hard to express. Cynthia, who gave birth in water, said it better: “The water made me so completely connected to my body and my baby.

The water held me and cradled me so that I could surrender more completely to this amazing and wonderful grace that was happening to me. This is the way that God intended childbirth to be.” 29