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

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

Water Birth Pools: The economic reality and impact

I wrote this article a few years ago.

It seems particularly relevant now.

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.

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

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.

 

Setting up a water birth facility

Hospitals in the United Kingdom have been evolving clinical guidelines for the use of water for labour and birth for over 3o years.

The protocols for operational policy that they’ve developed are widely regarded as the benchmark standard internationally.

Below a collection of guidelines and publications to help you create a water birth facility.

Clinical Guidelines – Royal Cornwall Hospital

Clinical Guidelines – Royal Worcester Hospital

Guideline for the Management of Women Requesting Immersion in Water  – Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals

Operational Policy and Clinical Guidelines – Abbey Birth Centre

Birthspace: An evidence-based guide to birth environment design – Queensland Centre for Mothers and Babies

Use of water for labour and birth – Hywel DDA Local health Board

Guidelines for use of pool during labour and delivery – East Cheshire NHS Trust

Guiding principles for midwifery care during normal labour – Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust

Waterbirth care during labour for low risk women – Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals

Waterbirth Guidelines – Midwifery Led Unit, Wirral Hospital

Choosing a Water Birth – East and North Hertfordshire

Birthing pool use of labour and delivery – Wansbeck General Hospital

Water birth and use of water in labour guideline – Buckinghamshire Healthcare

Water for labour and birth guideline – Northern health and Social Care Trust

Immersion in water during labour and birth – NHS Forth Valley

Intrapartum care midwifery led unit – Wirral Women & Children’s Hospital

Guidelines for water birth within the hospital and at home – Dartford & Gravesham NHS

Disinfection and Sterilisation policy (infection control) – Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS FT

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.

 

Water Birth Guidelines and FAQs by Patricia Scott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It states:-

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

United Kingdom Central Council position statement on waterbirths 1994

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

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

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

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

STAGE OF LABOUR?

A. Labour 32°c- 36°c

Birth 36°c- 37°c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. WHEN TO LEAVE THE WATER?

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

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

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

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

In my experience I have never known it.

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

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

Q. HOW OFTEN SHOULD THE FETAL HEART BE MONITORED?

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

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

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

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

During the first stage of labour every 30 mins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wearing gloves is essential:_

TIP

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

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

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

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

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

Q. WHAT OBSERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED?

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

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

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

That she is not over or under heated.

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

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

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

The woman who has mild hypertension.

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

WHAT ABOUT VAGINAL EXAMINATIONS?

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

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

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

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

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

The emphasis should be on the normal mechanism of labour.

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

Equipment required and useful for a waterbirth’-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q WHAT IF THE CORD IS TIGHT AROUND THE NECK?

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

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

Q WHAT ABOUT THE RISK OF THE CORD SNAPPING?

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

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

These suggestions may help. –

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

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

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

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

ESTIMATING BLOOD LOSS IN WATER?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAINTING

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

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

Always have syntometrine available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS THE CONCERN REGARDING WATER EMBOLISM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT ABOUT THE PERINEUM?

Technically conducting a waterbirth is a “hands off procedure”

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHOULDER DYSTOCIA & WATERBIRTH

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

RISK FACTORS: – Exclusion for birth in water

Large for dates baby

Poor progress in first stage, early second stage of labour

Previous history.

Midwives “gut feeling”

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

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

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

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

Remember record keeping relating to shoulder dystocia is very important.

E.g.

Not time of perineal phase of the second stage of labour

Note first indication of the shoulder dystocia

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

Episiotomy attempted or reasons for not performing

Positions used to facilitate delivery

Manoeuvres used to facilitate delivery

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

Baby.

Details of any resuscitation if required.

TWINS & WATERBIRTH

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

HOW DOES THE MIDWIFE LOOK AFTER HER BACK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUGGESTED READING: –

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

RCM 1998 health & Safety representatives handbookRECORD KEEPING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   WOMEN SHOULD BE URGED TO LEAVE THE POOL IF:

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

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

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

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

(Observer newspaper January 28, 2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other studies have confirmed the pain relieving effects of water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How water birth originated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency Evacuation of the Pool – Isle of Wight NHS Trust

Emergency Evacuation of the Pool – Isle of Wight NHS Trust

Whilst this is an acceptable and commonly employed approach to evacuating a women from the pool we feel that it is somewhat laboured and prefer the simpler approach that we have evolved for our water birth pools: Active Birth Pools Approach to Dealing with emergencies.

 

 

 

 

Laboring in water helpful for dystocia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australian College of Midwives – 2013

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

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

Key principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Achieving best practice

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

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

Resources to guide practice

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

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

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

MIDIRS: The use of water during childbirth

20 November 2015:

Since the early 1980s use of immersion in water during labour and birth has been increasingly promoted to enable women to relax, help them cope with pain, and maximise their feelings of control and satisfaction1-4.

In 1992 the House of Commons Health Committee recommended all hospitals provide the option of a birthing pool where practicable5. Currently few women give birth in water but the option of immersion or showering during the first stage of labour is commonly available.6-8

Although problems have arise which have been attributed to water use, the results of the most formal evaluations have not clearly associated water use with harmful outcomes for mother or baby 3,9-13.

The lack of robust evidence of harm or benefit means that childbearing women and health practitioners alike are subject to conflicting opinion about the usefulness and safest of water, particularly for birth.

However, a recent observational study over a nine year period concluded that ‘waterbirth was associated with low risks where obstetric guidelines were followed’16.

At present in the UK there is no reliable measurement of the rate of birth in water.
A national survey of maternity units in the UK in 2002 found that 63% (216/342) had a birthing pool8; 67% (228/342) reported having at least one midwife trained to provide support for women giving birth in water and 36% (121/342) said that at least half of the midwives working in their unit were trained to support birth in water.

How is water used during labour?

Water use ranges from informal, for example when a woman in early labour decides to get into her bath at home before going to hospital, to formal use in a specially designed birthing pool. Informal use in a domestic bath or shower is often initiated by a woman herself to help her cope at home before her labour is well established.

Formal use implies either that a woman has actively chosen to use water as part of her plan for labour and/or childbirth or that a health professional, usually a midwife, has suggested use during established labour.

Why water use is promoted

Use of immersion in water during childbirth has largely been driven by pregnant and birthing women17 and supported by midwives. During the first stage of labour it is advocated to shorten labour and help a woman relax and cope with contractions, feel more in control, and to reduce intervention by health professionals3,18-21.

During the second stage, proponents use it to allow perineal tissues to stretch spontaneously, birth to occur with minimum intervention, and to provide the baby with a gentler transition into extra-uterine life. Expectant management of the third stage is likely if a woman is in water.

Limitations on water use

Many health professionals consider that water use during the first stage of labour in uncomplicated pregnancy is unlikely to harm the mother or baby22,23, whilst others have concerns about water use at any point in labour14.

Local clinical guidelines may restrict water use to women considered at ‘low’ obstetric risk7, and other aspects of care may be prescribed, for example when and how to monitor the temperature of the water, the degree of cervical dilatation at which to begin its use24, and whether the immersion is considered safe for all stages of labour6,25.

Problems associated with possible risk of infection or cross infection caused by amniotic fluid, blood, and faeces have been described26-28 and some hospitals have restricted use of birthing pools to women who have tested HIV negative during pregnancy29.

However, at a multi-disciplinary consensus meeting held in London in 1996, it was agreed that mandatory HIV testing for prospective users of birthing pools could be an extreme reaction to the perceived risks and that high standards of pool hygiene would be an appropriate way forward30. Local infection control guidelines should cover the use of water pools25,31 and procedures to minimise risk of cross infection13, 32.

It has been suggested that high water temperature can cause serious changes in feto-maternal haemodynamic regulation and fetal thermoregulation33. It has been reported that fetal tachycardia can be reduced by cooling the water34 and most providers and clinical guidelines specify a temperature range within which the water should be maintained during the first and second stage of labour7,35.

The prospect of a woman giving birth in water can cause anxiety about how to deal with unexpected emergencies such as shoulder dystocia, the need to avoid the baby inhaling water, or being unaware that the umbilical cord has been severed11.

Despite the fact that it denies women choice about birth, one response has been to limit water use to first stage only6. Development of agreed clinical protocols to deal with unexpected complications25 and providing training which allows3 staff to achieve relevant competencies is key to enabling real choice for women about use of water.

There are theoretical risks of increased blood loss, retained placenta, or water embolism, and professional advice is often to conduct the third stage out of water25.

Because water adds to the difficulty of estimating blood loss accurately, it has been proposed that blood loss would be more appropriately estimated as being either more or less than 500ml36 and that the overall physical condition of the woman should be used as the most important indicator to assess the impact of any bleeding37.

In summary, although not universally accepted, first stage water use is less controversial than immersion for the second or third stage of labour22,23,38.

The research evidence

The effects of water use during the first stage of labour on maternal and fetal outcomes have been evaluated in several randomised controlled trials4,9,10,12,13,39 with sample sizes ranging from 60 to 123934.

The use of water has been shown to reduce the rate of augmentation40; however, no trial has been large enough to measure the effect of water use on important neonatal outcomes such as perinatal death or other serious neonatal or maternal morbidity.

In addition, there has often been significant cross-over between study groups4,12, reducing the likelihood of identifying clear differences between women allocated to water use and those not.

A systematic review of eight trials41 indicated a statistically significant reduction in the use of pain relief with no such significant difference in the rate of operative deliveries or in neonatal outcomes.

It concluded that while the use of water in the first stage of labour can be of benefit to some women, there is no evidence at present to support or not support a woman’s choice to give birth in water.

Retrospective comparison has been made of women who have used water with those who have not42,43.

However, there are considerable difficulties in interpreting such studies because of the possibility that the results are inherently biased.

In the same way, findings of cohort studies which suggest benefit for water use in terms of pain relief and increased rate of cervical dilatation44-47, or those which indicate differences in rates of maternal and neonatal infection48-50, are also open to criticism.

A recent study16 compared neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality for spontaneous singleton births that took place in water or on land.

This was an observational study over a nine year period and data were obtained through standardised questionnaires for 9,518 births, of which 3,617 were waterbirths and 5,901 landbirths.

Statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups; women who gave birth using water were less likely to suffer serious perineal trauma, use no analgesia and have a lower blood loss than women in the landbirth group.

Maternal and neonatal infection rates were the same for both groups, but more landbirth babies had neonatal complications requiring transfer to an external NICU.

During the study, there were neither maternal nor neonatal deaths related to spontaneous labor.

The authors acknowledge the potential bias that could arise from the self-selection issue but argue that this is well accounted for in the analysis.They conclude that waterbirths are associated with low risks for both mother and child when obstetrical guidelines are followed.

Another study51 based in a centre for low risk women was a retrospective case review over a five year period of 1355 births in water.

When compared with land births over a corresponding period, women who gave birth in water had significantly fewer episiotomies with no evidence of a corresponding rise in lacerations, a reduction in the length of the first stage of labour, no increase in the risk of acquired infection or aspiration pneumonia and considerably lower levels of analgesia use.

Neonatal condition assessed by arterial cord blood pH, base excess and birth weight showed no differences.The authors conclude that this represents a realistic option for women at low risk of complications.

Many reports about water use are case series1,20,52-62 and focus on perceived benefits of water use for the mother, her baby and birth attendant.

These include shorter labour52, less use of pharmacological analgesics46,53, less intervention by care givers19, lower rate of perineal trauma60-62, and increased satisfaction with the experience of labour and birth54.

By contrast, some case reports have highlighted serious problems such as fetal overheating33,34, neonatal sepsis28, near drowning63 or death64.

Overall, reviews of the evidence21,23,65,66 conclude that appropriately large-scale research is still required to evaluate rigorously the physiological effects13, clinical outcomes, and economic impact of water use.

What we don’t know

The current evidence about water use remains quite heavily dependent on case series and comparison studies that include varying sized samples.

Therefore, reliable evidence about efficacy and effectiveness is still equivocal67.

  • Outstanding issues which require evaluation include:
  •  is water use causally associated with an increase in perinatal mortality or serious perinatal morbidity?
  •  at what dilatation should a woman be advised to begin water use?
  •  does the size or shape of the water container affect outcomes?
  •  if water has an effect on important physical/psychological outcomes for mothers or babies, are there particular women who should avoid using water during labour?
  •  to what extent immersion in water affects the length of labour?

Implications for maternity

Water use during the first stage of labour is offered by the majority of maternity care provider units in the UK and most offer support for water birth8.

Introduction of, and sustained suppor t for, water use may have considerable implications for service governance68.

However, not all costs fall to providers of care; a substantial cost burden is likely to be borne by labouring women themselves during informal use in domestic baths and showers or by hiring specially designed pools for use in their home or in a maternity unit.

Most maternity units have installed a water pool for use in labour8 and although installation and maintenance of a specially designed pool in a maternity unit involves obvious financial cost, this may be offset if there is a reduction in analgesia and anaesthetic use44.

There is evidence that formal water use means that at least one midwife will be in constant attendance during the first stage of labour and that at least two will be in attendance for birth7.

This level of staffing may be difficult to sustain and may have implications for equity of care for women who do not use water22.

Clear strategies for the training, preparation and support of staff who offer use of water during labour are recognised as essential7,25,31,37,44.

Key components of these include clarification of the roles of different maternity health professionals, multi-disciplinary development of local protocols, development of guidelines for clinical practice, and short-term secondment of midwives to learn alongside practitioners skilled and experienced in water use.

Implications for practice

Women may choose to use immersion in water during labour and/or birth. Midwives and other maternity care workers should therefore be knowledgeable about the evidence in terms of potential advantages and disadvantages.

Given the current quality of reliable evidence, effective practice is likely to be informed and influenced substantially by shared experience and personal observation.

Disproportionate weight may therefore be placed on perceived disadvantages or advantages and credibility given to outcomes which may not be associated causally with water use.

Practitioners should be alert to the evolving evidence base which underpins the use of water.

  •  Immersion in water during childbirth is a care option women may wish to choose and which health professionals have a responsibility to discuss and support using clear and balanced information.
  •  As with any labour or birth, it is essential to maintain systematic, contemporaneous records and to monitor and record routine observations about the well-being of the mother and the fetus. These data should be used to audit care and gather information about outcomes.
  •  Water temperature should be measured regularly using a thermometer and recorded.The water temperature should be comfortable for the woman and should be not more than 37°C during the first stage of labour and between 36-37°C in the second stage.
  •  Maternal faeces, meconium and blood clots should be removed from the water using a sieve, and effective cleaning of pools before/after use should be carried out to minimise risk of infection or cross-infection.
  •  Birth in water: the baby should be born fully submerged and be brought gently and without delay to the surface so that he/she can make their first respiratory efforts in air.
  •  Comprehensive, large scale research is required to address questions about the safety and effectiveness of using water during labour and/or birth.

Reproduced from Midirs 2005, last revised Jan 2005, review date Jan 2007. Informed Choice is supported by the Royal College of Midwives and the National Childbirth Trust.

References

  1. Odent M. Bir th under water. Lancet 1983;2:1476-7.
  2. Rosenthal MJ.Warm-water immersion in labor and birth. Female Patient 1991;16:35-47.
  3. Balaskas J, Gordon Y. Water birth. London:Thorsons, 1992.
  4. Rush J, Burlock S, Lambert K et al.The effects of whirlpool baths in labor: a randomized, controlled trial. Birth 1996;23:136-43.
  5. House of Commons (1991-92). Health Committee. Second report. Maternity services. HC 29-I. London, HMSO, 1992.
  6. Alderdice F, Renfrew M, Marchant S et al. Labour and bir th in water in England and Wales, BMJ 1995;310:837.
  7. Marchant S,Alderdice F,Ashurst H et al.Labour and birth in water:national variations in practice.Br J Midwifery 1996;4:408-12,429-30.
  8. Gold L. Good Birth Guide. London:Vermillion, 2002.
  9. Schorn MN, McAllister JL, Blanco JD.Water immersion and the effect on labor. J Nurse Midwifery 
1993;38:336-42.
  10. Cammu H, Clasen K,Van Wettere L et al.‘To bathe or not to bathe’ during the first stage of labor. 
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73:468-72.
  11. Gilbert RE,Tookey PA. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: 
surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ 1999;319:483-7.
  12. EckertK,TurnbullD,MacLennanA.Immersioninwaterinthefirststageoflabor:arandomized 
controlled trial. Birth 2001;28:84-93.
  13. Woodward J,Kelly SM.A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of waterbirth versus land birth. 
BJOG 2004;111:537-45.
  14. Chamberlain G. Statement on birth underwater. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1993.
  15. FlintC.Waterbirthandtheroleofthemidwife.In:BeechBALed.Waterbirthunplugged.Hale:Books for Midwives Press, 1996:60-2.
  16. GeissbuehlerV, Stein S, Eberhard J.Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med 2004;32(4):308-14.
  17. Richmond H.Women’s experience of waterbirth. Practising Midwife 2003;6:26-31
  18. Labourandbirthinwater.London:NCT,2002.
  19. Birthwithoutviolence.Reved.London:Mandarin,1991.
  20. Church LK.Water birth: one birthing center’s observations. J Nurse Midwifery 1989;34:165-70.
  21. McCandlishR,RenfrewM.Immersioninwaterduringlaborandbirth:theneedforevaluation.Birth 1993;20:79-85.
  22. Mills MS, Stirrat GM.Water immersion and water birth. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 1996;6:35-39.
  23. Johnson P. Birth under water – to breathe or not to breathe. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:202-8.
  24. ErikssonM,MattssonLA,LadforsL.Earlyorlatebathduringthefirststageoflabour:arandomised study of 200 women. Midwifery 1997;13:146-8.
  25. Birthinwater.London:RCOG,2001. http://www.rcog.org.uk [accessed June 2003]
  26. ParkerPC,BolesRG.Pseudomonasotitismediaandbacteremiafollowingawaterbirth.Pediatrics 1997;99:653.
  27. RidgwayGL,TedderRS.Birthingpoolsandinfectioncontrol.Lancet1996;347:1051-2.
  28. Hawkins S.Water vs conventional births:infection rates compared.NursTimes 1995;91(11):38-40.
  29. TrustdemandsHIVtestforpoolbirths.NursTimes1996;92(2):9.
  30. HIVtransmissioninbirthingpools.London:TerrenceHigginsTrust,1996.
  31. Royal College of Midwives. The use of water in labour and birth. London: Royal College of Midwives, 2000.
  32. Schulster L, Chinn RYW. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health care facilities. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003;52/RR-10:20-1.
  33. RosevearSK,FoxR,MarlowNetal.Birthingpoolsandthefetus.Lancet1993;342:1048-9.
  34. DeansAC,SteerPJ.Temperatureofpoolisimportant.BMJ1995;311:390-1.
  35. Waterbirth:anattitudetocare.Hale:BooksforMidwivesPress,1995:66.
  36. Theuseofwaterduringbirth.London:RCM,1994.
  37. Beech BAL.Water birth – a passing fad? Mod Midwife 1997;7(5):11-4.
  38. RosserJ.Iswaterbirthsafe?Thefactsbehindthecontroversy.MIDIRSMidwiferyDig1994;4:4-6.
39.
  39. Ohlsson G, Buchhave P, Leandersson U et al.Warm tub bathing during labor: maternal and neonatal effects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:311-4.
  40. Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K et al. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ 2004;328:314-318.
  41. CluettER,NikodemVC,McCandlishREetal.Immersioninwaterinpregnancy,labourandbirth. The Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews 2004, issue 1.
  42. Burke E,KilfoyleA.A comparative study:waterbirth and bedbirth.Midwives 1995;108:3-7.
43.
  43. Otigbah CM,Dhanjal MK,Harmsworth G et al.A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;91:15-20.
44.
  44. LenstrupC,SchantzA,BergetAetal.Warmtubbathduringdelivery.ActaObstetGynecolScand 1987;66:709-12.
  45. Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA.Warm tub bath after spontaneous rupture of the membranes. Birth 1992;19:57-63.
  46. GeissbuhlerV,Eberhard J.Waterbirths:a comparative study.Fetal DiagnTher 2000;15:291-300. 47.
  47. AirdIA,LuckasMJM,BuckettWMetal.Effectsofintrapartumhydrotherapyonlabourrelated parameters. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;37:137-42.
48.
  48. AndersenB,GyhagenM,NielsenTF.Warmbathduringlabour.Effectsonlabourdurationand maternal and fetal infectious morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;16:326-30.
  49. Eriksson M, Ladfors L, Mattsson LA et al.Warm tub bath during labor.A study of 1385 women with prelabor rupture of the membranes after 34 weeks of gestation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:642-4.
  50. FordeC,CreightonS,BattyAetal.Labouranddeliveryinthebirthingpool.BrJMidwifery 1999;7:165-71.
  51. Thoni A, Moroder L.Waterbirth: a safe and natural delivery method: experience after 1355 waterbirths in Italy.MidwiferyToday 2004;70:44-8.
  52. Garland D, Jones K.Waterbirth,‘first stage’ immersion or non-immersion? Br J Midwifery 6 1994;2:113-20.
  53. Rosenthal M.The use of warm immersion in labour at the Family Birthing Centre of Upland (California). In: Beech BAL edWater birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:92-5.
  54. HaddadF.Labourandbirthinwater:anobstetrician’sobservationsoveradecade.In:BeechBALed. Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:96-108.
  55. BurnsE,GreenishK.Poolinginformation.NursTimes1993;89(8):47-9.
56.
  56. Nightingale C.Water and pain relief – observations of over 570 births at Hillingdon. In: Beech BAL ed.Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:63-9.
57.
  57. Muscat J.A thousand water births:selection criteria and outcome.In:Beech BAL ed.Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:77-81.
58.
  58. AdamM.WaterbirthinVienna:facts,thoughtsandphilosophyoftheGeburtshausNussdorf.In: Beech BAL ed.Water birth unplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:82-7.
59.
  59. UllerA.WaterbirthinDenmark.In:BeechBALed.Waterbirthunplugged.Hale:BooksforMidwives Press, 1996:119-29.
  60. Brown L.The tide has turned: audit of water birth. Br J Midwifery 1998;6:236-43.
  61. GarlandD,JonesK.Waterbirth:supportingpracticewithclinicalaudit.MIDIRSMidwiferyDig 2000;10:333-6.
  62. Burns E.Waterbirth. MIDIRS Midwifery Dig 2001;11(suppl 2):S10-3.
63.
  63. Nguyen S, Kuschel C,Teele R et al.Water birth – a near-drowning experience. Pediatrics 2002;110:411-3.
  64. RobinsonJ.AwaterbirthdeathinSweden.AIMSJ1993;5:7-8.
  65. GarlandD,JonesK.Waterbirth:updatingtheevidence.BrJMidwifery1997;5:368-73.
  66. BeakeS.Waterbirth:aliteraturereview.MIDIRSMidwiferyDig1999;9:473-7.
  67. Grunebaum A, Chervenak F.The baby or the bathwater: which should be discarded? Perinat Med 2004;32(4):306-7.
  68. JenkinsR.Assessingtheeffectofanewhealthtechnology.In:BeechBALed.Waterbirthunplugged. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1996:53-8.

Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery Led Care in Labour: Birth Environment

Practice Points

Ensure that pregnant women receive high quality care throughout their pregnancy, have a normal childbirth wherever possible, are involved in decisions about what is best for them and their babies, and have choices about how and where they give birth (DH 2004).

Respect for a woman’s wishes and her involvement in decision making is essential to her care in pregnancy and labour (NICE 2007; DH 2004). The birth plan should be discussed in full with the midwife looking after the woman in labour.

Hospital is an alienating environment for most women, in which institutionalised routines and lack of privacy can contribute to feelings of loss of control and disempowerment (Lock and Gibb 2003; Steele 1995).

The studies by Green et al. (1990) and Simkin (1992) found that control, or lack of it, was important to the women’s experience of labour and their subsequent emotional well-being.

Trials have demonstrated the benefits to women of having a low-risk, midwife-led area as an alternative to the conventional labour ward (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011; Hodnett et al. 2010; Hatem et al. 2008; Byrne et al. 2000; Hodnett 2000; Waldenstrom 1997; Hundley et al. 1994; McVicar et al. 1993).

The non-labour ward or radically modified environment is associated with lower rates of analgesia, augmentation and operative delivery, as well as greater satisfaction with care and positive effect on care givers (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011; Hodnett et al. 2010; Hodnett et al. 2009).

Midwives should be aware of the influence the physical environment has on their practice (Hodnett et al. 2010).

2 Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour ©The Royal College of Midwives 2012

Birth Environment

The environment in which a woman labours can have a great effect on the amount of fear and anxiety she experiences.

Hospital is an alienating environment for most women, in which institutionalised routines and lack of privacy can contribute to feelings of loss
of control (Lock and Gibb 2003; Steele 1995).

Brown and Lumley (1994) found that the technology and intervention that has now become commonplace on many labour wards was implicated in women’s dissatisfaction with labour. Increased anxiety brought on through loss of control can interfere with the normal effective physiology of labour (Steele 1995).

The studies by Green et al. (1990) and Simkin (1992) found that control,
or lack of it, was important to the women’s experience of labour and their subsequent emotional wellbeing.

It is not easy to separate the influence of the model of care
from the physical environment on the outcomes.

Hodnett et al. (2010) discuss the effect that the physical environment can have on practice, within the supportive social model of care.

In 2009, Hodnett et al. undertook a pilot study aimed to investigate the impact of the physical environment on women and practitioners by making simple but radical modifications to a hospital labour room, which included the removal of the standard hospital bed and the addition of equipment to promote relaxation, mobility,
and calm.

The women were then randomly allocated either the modified or typical
labour room.

Though the pilot was small in numbers, the outcomes indicated that the physical environment modification had a positive effect on women and care providers.

The philosophy of mobilisation in active labour was increasingly supported in the modified environment (Hodnett et al. 2009).

RCM (2008) Birth Centre Standards for England Standard 7.6 sets criteria of
‘An environment that protects and promotes women’s privacy and dignity, respecting

their human rights and provides facilities to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration in labour.’

Respect for a woman’s wishes, and her involvement in decision-making is essential to her care in pregnancy and labour (DH 2007, DH 2004).

National Service framework maternity policy (DH 2004) pledged that service should “ensure that pregnant women receive high quality care throughout their pregnancy, have a normal childbirth wherever possible, are involved in decisions about what is best for them and their babies, and have choices about how and where they give birth” and the choice aspect remains within NHS future plans (DH 2010).

It would appear that women have better physical and emotional labour outcomes when they are involved in the decision making (Hodnett et al. 2010).

Green et al.’s study (1990) found that good information was important to a woman’s birth experience and also to her subsequent emotional well-being.

The decision-making must extend to the woman’s choice of companion(s), who should be made to feel welcome in the labour ward.
3
Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour ©The Royal College of Midwives 2012

Birth Environment

Birth planning is a continuous part of antenatal care.

This requires a focussed discussion about place of birth, at which ‘women should receive clear, unbiased advice and be able to choose where they would like their baby to be born’ (DH 2007; DH 2004).

The recent Birthplace in England study (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011) looked at safety of births planned in 4 different settings: home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units and obstetric units for women with straightforward pregnancies.

It found that birth is safe wherever it takes place but there is a small but increased risk of adverse outcome for the neonate for nulliparous women associated with planned home birth.

The outcomes for multiparous or in other midwife led birth environments were the same. The study did not look into reasons for this and further exploration into the variation is required.

However, this information needs to be included in the discussions with women antenatally. The ‘birth talk’ and associated birth plan are essential opportunities for women and midwives to share information (NICE 2007).

The birth plan should be discussed in full with the midwife looking after the woman
in labour.

Women often find it difficult to ask questions, so midwives need to encourage them to do so, and to act as advocate for the wishes expressed (Kirkham 1986).

Trials have demonstrated the benefits to women of less intervention and more mobility, in having a low-risk, midwife-led area as an alternative to the conventional labour ward (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group 2011; Hodnett et al. 2010; Hatem et al. 2008; Byrne 2000; Hodnett 2000; Waldenstrom 1997; Hundley et al. 1994; McVicar et al.

1993). The philosophy behind the provision of such units is to provide a ‘homely’ environment, where women can take more control and labour is managed with minimal intervention (Hodnett et al. 2010; Hundley et al. 1994).

It has also been found that women who give birth in low-tech, midwife-led facilities, e.g. home or birth centres, require less pharmacological analgesia (Hodnett et al. 2010; Chamberlain et al. 1997; Skibsted and Lange 1992).

Hodnett et al.’s (2010) review found that the alternative birth setting environment is associated with lower rates of analgesia, augmentation and operative delivery, as well as greater satisfaction with care.

There was a non-statistically- significant trend towards higher perinatal mortality in the home-like setting, and the reviewers conclude that ‘an over-emphasis on normality’ may lead to delayed recognition of or action regarding complications.

Walsh (2004) has challenged this conclusion from his own experience and suggests that midwives who work in this environment are ‘astute assessors of normal birth’ and highly skilled practitioners, who are active in performing repeated emergency drills.

Hodnett et al. (2010) found, in their comparison of alternative and conventional labour and birth environments, that staff working in the ‘alternative’ settings all shared philosophies and guidelines that valued midwifery-led care.

The study was not able to explore the separate influences of the physical environment and models of care such as, for example, continuity of caregiver, but concluded that the impacts of midwifery-led care and the nature of the birth setting are fundamentally interdependent in the chain of cause and effect leading to more positive outcomes.
4

Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour ©The Royal College of Midwives 2012

Birth Environment

References
Brown S, Lumley J (1994) Satisfaction with care in labour and birth: a survey of 790 Australian women. Birth 21(1): 4-13

Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2011) Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 343: d7400

Byrne J, Crowther C, Moss J (2000) A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide. Australia Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 40(3): 268-74

Chamberlain G, Wraight A, Crowley P (1997) Homebirths: The Report of the 1994 Confidential Enquiry by the National Birthday Trust Fund. Carnforth, Lancashire: The Parthenon Publishing Group

Department of Health (DH) (2010) Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: HMS

Department of Health (2004) National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. London:DH

Green JM, Coupland VA, Kitzinger S (1990) Expectations, experiences and psychological outcomes of childbirth: a prospective study of 825 women. Birth 17(1): 15-24

Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D et al. (2008) Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hodnett E, Downe S, Edwards N, et al. (2010) Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 9. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA, et al. (2009) Re-conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the Place (Pregnant and Laboring in an Ambient Clinical Environment) pilot trial. Birth 36(2):159-66

Hodnett ED, Hatem M, Sandall J, et al. (2008) Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hodnett ED (2000) Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Hundley V, Cruikshank F, Lang G, et al. (1994) Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. British Medical Journal 309(6966): 1400-1404

Kirkham MJ (1986) A feminist perspective in midwifery. In Webb C (ed.) Feminist practice in women’s health care. Chichester: John Wiley

Lock L, Gibb H. (2003) The Power of Place. Midwifery 19(2): 132-139
McVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen-Johnston L, Jagger C, et al. (1993) Simulated home delivery:

a randomised control trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 100(4): 316-33
National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2007) Intrapartum care: management and delivery of care to women in labour. London: NICE

The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) (2008) Standards for birth centres in England: a standards document. London: RCM

Simkin P (1992) Just another day in a woman’s life? Part 2 Nature and consistency of women’s long-term memories of their first birth experiences. Birth 19(2): 64-81

Diving in: a dip in the water for labour and birth policy debate

Megan Cooper RM, BHSc (Honours), Jane Warland RM, PhD Helen McCutcheon RM, PhD.

Abstract

Water immersion for labour and birth is becoming an increasingly attractive option for women.

However, with what has been described as a paucity of research, water immersion policies appear to lack the evidence to ensure confidence in their use, safety in their implementation and importantly, acknowledgement of women’s autonomy to utilise water for labour and birth irrespective of their perceived ‘risk’.

In touching on the difficulties experienced by maternity care providers working within a system largely dominated by a ‘risk adverse’ paradigm, the following paper will highlight the shortfalls of research surrounding water immersion for labour and birth and the difficulties of utilising policies informed almost entirely by this research.

The current paucity of rigorous evidence and the difficulties faced by maternity care providers facilitating the option, highlights that greater emphasis needs to be placed on gaining a substantial evidence-base to inform future water immersion polices with more weight given to both observational data and anecdotal experience.

Future research should focus on both quantitative and qualitative aspects of water use for labour and birth to ensure that policies incorporate the required risk/benefit analysis, the opportunity for shared and informed decision-making and ultimately, the facilitation of woman-centred care.

Should we throw out the bath water?

For many women water immersion (WI) during labour and birth is an attractive and sought after option of care.

Despite the availability of literature surrounding WI for labour and birth many argue that high quality research with which to measure risks and benefits is still lacking.

As the option has become increasingly available, the development of policy to guide and inform care providers in the safe practice of WI for labour and birth has become necessary.

Consequently, policies appear to have been derived from what some describe as a less than substantive evidence-base (Cluett and Burns, 2009).

This has elicited debate as to whether the practice itself and therefore the policies currently informing the practice reflect the required foundational evidence to fulfill the ideal of evidence-based practice.

In touching on the current difficulties experienced by care providers working within in a ‘risk averse’ system the following paper will briefly explore WI for labour and birth, highlight the perceived shortfalls of research pertaining to its practice and discuss some of the difficulties of undertaking research at the level that many believe is required.

The role of qualitative research in informing the practice of labour and birth in water will also be examined with particular reference to the goal of woman-centred care and the need for policy that is reflective of a holistic evidence-base and supportive of women’s experience, satisfaction and choice.

The practice of water immersion for labour and birth

Despite common belief, WI for labour and birth is not a new phenomenon, with history dating back to the Egyptian Pharaohs and the Minoans of Crete (Mackey, 2001). In the 1960’s, Igor Charkovsky, a Russian midwife, began experimenting with the use of water for labour and birth after realising the positive physical and physiological effects of WI (Houston, 2010).

The 1980s saw Michel Odent, a well-known French Obstetrician and arguably the pioneer of modern water birth, establish the first birthing unit allowing women access to baths during labour, many of whom also went on to birth in water

(Houston, 2010). His observations and documented accounts of witnessing women immerse themselves in warm water allowed him to become a major influential figure in the global water birth movement and in the education of practitioners who facilitate the option of WI.

The advantages and benefits of WI during labour and birth have for the most part, not been thoroughly investigated through rigorous research.

Documented benefits include reductions in pharmacological pain relief (Eberhard et al., 2005, Otigbah et al., 2000, Benfield et al., 2001, Cluett and Burns, 2009), reduced blood loss and perineal trauma (Cluett and Burns, 2009) as well as facilitation of dysfunctional labour (Benfield et al., 2010, Cluett et al., 2004).

It has long been held that water immersion facilitates ‘normal’ birth and the latest prospective and descriptive cross sectional research findings provide support for this belief (Burns et al., 2012, Dahlen et al., 2012).

Burns et al. (2012) found that there was a higher frequency of spontaneous birth in nulliparas and greater rates of normal birth in both nulliparous and multiparous women when water was used during labour and/or birth. More specifically, of the 8924 participants almost 90 percent had a spontaneous birth and of these 5192 (58.3%) of women birthed in water.

Further support for benefits of water use come from Dahlen et al. (2012). They found in their Australian descriptive cross sectional study that women birthing in water had lower rates of major perineal trauma and PPH ≥ 500 milliliters when compared with those who used a birth stool on land.

Improved APGAR scores at five minutes were also noted for babies born into water compared to those whose mothers birthed in a semi-recumbent position on land although the authors note that they are unsure as to whether a semi- recumbent position was favoured by practitioners when there were fetal concerns, thereby potentially impacting on the results.

However, what is perhaps most important in terms of these findings is that there were no documented increased adverse outcomes for mothers who utiliszed water during labour and birth nor were there statistically significant increases in unfavourable outcomes for babies born into water.

Anecdotal experience supports these benefits further, with women suggesting greater levels of satisfaction, sense of autonomy and care providers observing less use of pharmacological pain relief and the facilitation of the fourth stage of labour, particularly in the initiation of breastfeeding.

Qualitative researchers have also found that women who birth in water feel protected, safe, relaxed and in control (Benfield et al., 2010, Maude and Foureur, 2007, Benfield, 2002).

For example, one New Zealand interpretive study, conducted by Maude and Foureur (2007), highlighted that WI provided a ‘sanctuary’ or environment whereby women felt protected and sheltered from intervention and interference. Participants also voiced a reduction in the fear of the birthing process and pain.

For many maternity care providers, water use for labour and birth is viewed as a method of providing women an alternative method of pain relief, ease of position changes and relaxation (Gilbert and Tookey, 1999, Meyer et al., 2010, Maude and Foureur, 2007, Woodward and Kelly, 2004, Stark and Miller, 2009).

Although evident throughout the literature, the observation and experience of maternity care providers is often challenged against minimal scientific proof, which to date, is still not entirely definitive.

Conversely, many continue to challenge the use of water for labour and birth claiming that it is neither normal nor natural for land living mammals to birth into water and that there exist too many associated ‘risks’ and adverse outcomes to mother and infant (Kassim et al., 2005, Mammas and Thiagarajan, 2009, Carpenter and Weston, 2011, Pinette et al., 2004).

The most recent published adverse outcomes pertaining to the use of water immersion during labour and birth come from Soileau et al. (2013) and Menakaya et al. (2012). Soileau et al. (2013) documents a neonatal infection and subsequent neonatal demise post a home water birth attributed to a maternal diarrheal infection in the week prior to birth. The infection believed to have been transmitted to the neonate after the mother defecated in the bath during labour.

This provides justification and support for the use of policy and/or guidelines in guiding practitioners in the facilitation of the option. Furthermore, its draws attention to the knowledge and understanding practitioners must attain in order to make decisions that ensure both maternal and neonatal wellbeing and safety when water is used.

Although Menakaya et al. (2012) did not assess maternal or neonatal infections in their retrospective design of 216 Australian women birthing in water, they noted that babies born into water showed a statistically significant difference in APGAR scores less than or equal to seven at one minute and as well as admission to Special Care Nursery (SCN) post birth in the water birth group.

Interestingly, three of the neonates transferred to SCN were admitted for feeding difficulties, issues which cannot be definitely linked to water immersion, one was admitted post a mild shoulder dystocia which presumably required the woman to be evacuated from the bath prior to birth and one for meconium aspiration, suggesting the presence of meconium which is commonly cited contraindication to birthing in water.

The remaining infants were admitted for resuscitation and an apneic event, which are also not unique to infants born in water.

One infant in the control group was admitted to the SCN and was transferred for respiratory distress requiring the longest stay of all infants admitted to the SCN. These findings are dissimilar to those of Mollamahmutoglu et al. (2012) who found no instance of neonatal infection and no significant difference in admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) when comparing infants who were born in water with those who were not. These findings are indicative of the inconsistent and contradictory findings pertaining to the use of water for labour and birth across the literature.

As a result, empirical research has failed to provide a definitive risk/benefit analysis relating to WI for labour and birth particularly in terms of maternal and neonatal infection, neonatal SCN/NICU admission, perineal trauma and the incidence of neonatal drowning and water embolism, as examples.

Furthermore, the ongoing reference to ‘potential’, ‘possible’ and ‘theoretical’ risks throughout the literature as well as throughout policy and guideline documents creates difficulty and uncertainty as to what actually constitutes risk and what is deemed as safe when WI is utilised for labour and/or birth (Kvach and Martonffy, 2012, Mackey, 2001, Pinette et al., 2004).

Watering down practice

Maternity care providers aim as far as possible, to deliver care which is women- centered (Carolan and Hodnett, 2007). Woman-centered care (WCC) incorporates the requirement of a woman making informed choices about all aspects of her care through the sharing of information (Leap, 2009).

Maternity care providers hold information that is vital to the woman but given the need to work within protocols and guidelines, may at times provide information to meet institutional and personal expectations and commitments resulting in what Carolan and Hodnett (2007) describe as “rule following and avoidance of responsibility”.

Although not necessarily a deliberate attempt to limit the information and options available to women, difficulties can arise as maternity care providers walk the fine line between meeting obligations as the woman’s advocate and the demands of institutional policies, guidelines and regulations.

Consequently care providers may forsake their role as the woman’s advocate, and instead support an environment that fosters informed compliance (Carolan and Hodnett, 2007).

Unfortunately the ideal of woman-centredness is often relinquished particularly as birth has become viewed a process that requires management and medical influence (Kitzinger, 2006, Davis-Floyd, 2001).

The burden of ‘proof’ and necessity of evidence to support or refute ‘alternative’ options irrespective of women’s requests and subjective knowingness that they work (Klein et al., 2006) has been significant in the debate surrounding water immersion for labour and birth.

Many of the benefits that water provides the labouring and birthing woman are also what may deter care providers from offering it as an option. Women and care providers alike, have suggested that water provides safety, sanctuary and distance from the rest of world allowing women a sense of control and ownership over their labour and birth (Maude and Foureur, 2007). However, this protection from intervention and intrusion

ultimately means that the contemporary methods of monitoring and gauging progress are no longer as accessible or practical. For many practitioners the inability to monitor and assess women as they normally would results in fear, not only of litigation and ‘what if’s’ (Garland, 1919), but also of the practice itself.

Combatting fear and anxiety could be as easy as encouraging care providers to witness women using water during labour and birth, but opinion and bias in disfavour of water immersion demands the current ‘gap’ in research be bridged.

Furthermore, ethical practice calls for practitioners to dissociate personal bias and views from their practice to ensure women’s autonomy and ability to exercise choice are not downplayed or absent in the facilitation of care (ANMC, 2008, ANMC et al., 2008).

This issue is further complicated by the political climate within which maternity care now exists. Despite many care providers supporting the implementation and practice of WI for labour and birth and having the capacity and accreditation to facilitate the practice, they may be restricted by the lack of institutional resources and support (Garland, 2011) and most commonly, policy that is derived from an aversion of risk and research that has yet to determine with any certainty the safety of using water for labour and birth.

WI for labour and birth, despite putting what feels like an ‘alternative’ slant on care, has the potential as a practice and option of care, to assist care providers such as midwives to re-recognize normal physiological birth and subsequently work towards fulfilling the ultimate goal of woman-centred care.

A drought of evidence?

Water birth, in particular, is frequently associated with perceived risks and dangers and for this reason its use continues to be challenged relative to safety implications for mother and infant as has previously been discussed (Pinette et al., 2004, Kvach and Martonffy, 2012).

The conundrum is yet to be resolved particularly given the perceived paucity of definitive evidence. Yet the option is becoming increasingly demanded and therefore available and as a result, policies are in place to guide care providers in its facilitation, which are probably based (at least in part) on this limited evidence.

Although a number of attempts have been made to undertake research at the ‘gold’ standard, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining WI for labour and birth have suffered from less than optimal sample sizes, selection bias or poorly controlled confounding factors in groups of low risk women who are usually highly passionate and motivated (Woodward and Kelly, 2004, Schroeter, 2004, Cluett and Burns, 2009).

This is evident in the latest Cochrane review that included only 12 suitable studies, and of these, only three examined the use of water during second stage of labour (Cluett and Burns, 2009). Further to this there is currently no population level data being collected anywhere in the world about outcomes of WI nor even how many women choose to use WI in labour and/or birth in water (Pinette et al., 2004).

Undertaking the recommended research on WI and birth particularly such as the RCT suggested by Davies (2010) is complicated given that randomising for such a study brings about ethical and moral concerns.

Hendrix et al. (2009) found this to be the case in their Dutch questionnaire-based study assessing women’s reasons for not participating in an RCT investigating home birth versus hospital birth. Eighty-four women indicated that they did not participate due to a concern that they would be randomised to the ‘wrong’ group.

Woodward and Kelly (2004) attempted to overcome women’s reluctance to participate in their pilot RCT comparing water birth with land birth by including a ‘preference arm’. Their results indicated there were no significant difference noted between women who were randomised and those who chose the ‘preference arm’ and therefore concluded that women would be happy to be randomised in future and similar trials.

However, criticism of this RCT highlights that their sample size was too small and therefore underpowered to determine safety, particularly given that only 10 women birthed in water. Further to this, Keirse (2005) challenges the validity and generalisability given the ‘preference arm’ and the bias that meant only 20 of the 60 women who had a strong preference for one of the two options, were allocated to their preferred option.

Subsequently, randomisation of women to options of care, which elicit both emotive and somewhat passionate views, such as the use of WI in labour and birth, is not ethically or practically feasible particularly where recruitment of large numbers would be required to determine with any certainty the morbidity and mortality of the intervention.

The proposed undertaking of this type of randomised research is further complicated by inconsistency across institutional policies in addition to funding, necessary infrastructure and available accredited staff (Garland, 2011).

Not only does this make it difficult to allow for the option and implementation of WI for labour and birth but it also inadvertently contributes to the lack of evidence in that accessibility is limited and therefore data on resulting outcomes, scarce. Furthermore, where it is consistently highlighted that high quality evidence is deficient, the question must be asked: who or what is informing the policies already in existence?

Initiating a wave of change

It is consistently highlighted that there is insufficient data to inform the practice of labour and birth in water, but is this really the case? It is clear that there is a paucity of evidence in terms of empirical investigation however volumes of anecdotal experience and observational data are available suggesting that water has significant and undeniable benefits to the women, and arguably to the baby.

Despite its availability, little weight is given to this valuable information, information that could be informing the movement forward and providing direction for future investigation of WI for labour and birth.

There is no denying that greater high level research would be advantageous to providing a definitive set of benefits and risks and therefore, greater insight into the relative safety of WI for labour and birth. However, is a RCT the right option?

The suggestion that rigorous evidence is needed to inform policies and guidelines with confidence and reliability could be attributed to what has been termed the ‘medicalisation’ of pregnancy and birth (Brubaker and Dillaway, 2009, Benoit et al., 2010) particularly where the measure of risk is at the forefront of maternity care facilitation.

However, in a risk-averse climate, adverse events whether recognised through well-constructed studies, auditing or anecdotal accounts, are generally the first to be documented so as to prompt review of practice.

Despite this, a search of the literature surrounding WI for labour and birth highlights very few documented adverse outcomes at any level of evidence and of those that are documented; the outcomes cannot always be definitively attributed to the use of water (Pinette et al., 2004, Cluett and Burns, 2009, Byard and Zuccollo, 2010).

What are readily available are anecdotal and observational accounts that suggest that WI has extensive benefits, not only to the woman but also to birth outcomes. It could therefore be argued that quantitative research alone is insufficient to provide answers to myriad of complexities, questions and queries relating to the practice of WI for labour and birth and therefore, insufficient when informing policies particularly where women choose to exercise self-determination and choice irrespective of their perceived risk.

Freeman and Griew (2007) touch on this in their review of one WI policy and its development. Their findings suggest that policy could further be enhanced by placing weight on the views and experiences of consumers and addressing the importance of informed and shared decision making.

This calls for attitudinal change not only to facilitate care that is woman-centred but also to ensure that women’s autonomy is factored into the development and implementation of policies underpinning practice.

The significance and value of qualitative evidence is slowly being realised, particularly in maternity care where WCC is the ideal. Despite this, empirical evidence is still commonly viewed as more rigorous and therefore more reliable.

This is none too clear in the hierarchies of evidence that fail to give weight to qualitative investigation (Spiby and Munro, 2009). However, as health care moves towards patient-centred models, or woman-centredness (Leap, 2009), as is the case in maternity care, there is the need for increasing weight to be also placed on experience and opinion particularly surrounding policy formation and care facilitation.

In light of this, a multi-faceted evidence-based approach to policy development and implementation of WI for labour and birth is likely to be advantageous.

However, before recommendations can be made, a critical analysis of existing policies and their development should occur in order to highlight whether the so-called scarcity of evidence poses difficulties for those involved in WI policy formation and to what extent policy facilitates and/or restricts water use practice and more importantly, women’s autonomy.

Pooling for the future

This paper has touched on the many shortfalls of WI research to date as well as foreseeable difficulties of future research surrounding WI for labour and birth. Future research requires greater emphasis on both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of water use for labour and birth to ensure that policies incorporate both the risk/benefit analysis as well as the opportunity for shared and informed decision-making.

This includes greater exploration of the experiences and perceptions of women and importantly, an examination of current WI policies to determine how they are informed and developed and to what extent they facilitate the practice and support women’s autonomy.

Not only is there the potential for this all-encompassing research to assist maternity care providers in working with autonomy as practitioners and ensuring their ability to advocate for women but there is also the potential for the use of water for labour and birth to have positive outcomes in a system that has an ever increasing rate of intervention and deviation from what can be both a normal and natural process.

References

ANMC 2008. Code of Professional Conduct for Midwives in Australia, Dickson, ANMC.
ANMC, ACM & ANF 2008. Code of Ethics for Midwives in Australia, Dickson, ANMC.
BENFIELD, R. 2002. Hydrotherapy in labor. J Nurs Scholarsh, 34, 347-52.
BENFIELD, R., HERMAN, J., KATZ, V. L., WILSON, S. P. & DAVIS, J. M. 2001. Hydrotherapy in labor. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 57-67.
BENFIELD, R., HORTOBÁGYI, T., TANNER, C., SWANSON, M., HEITKEMPER, M. & NEWTON, E. 2010. The Effects of Hydrotherapy on Anxiety, Pain, Neuroendocrine Responses, and Contraction Dynamics During Labor. Biological Research for Nursing, 12, 28-36.
BENOIT, C., ZADOROZNYJ, M., HALLGRIMSDOTTIR, H., TRELOAR, A. & TAYLOR, K. 2010. Medical dominance and neoliberalisation in maternal care provision: The evidence from Canada and Australia. Social science & medicine, 71, 475-481.
BRUBAKER, S. J. & DILLAWAY, H. E. 2009. Medicalization, natural childbirth and birthing experiences.Sociology Compass, 3, 31-48.
BURNS, E. E., BOULTON, M. G., CLUETT, E., CORNELIUS, V. R. & SMITH, L. A. 2012. Characteristics,Interventions, and Outcomes of Women Who Used a Birthing Pool: A Prospective Observational Study. Birth.
BYARD, R. W. & ZUCCOLLO, J. M. 2010. Forensic issues in cases of water birth fatalities. Am J Forensic Med Pathol, 31, 258-60.
CAROLAN, M. & HODNETT, E. 2007. ‘With woman’ philosophy: examining the evidence, answering the questions. Nursing Inquiry, 14, 140-52.
CARPENTER, L. & WESTON, P. 2011. Neonatal respiratory consequences from water birth. J Paediatr Child Health.
CLUETT, E. & BURNS, E. 2009. Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD000111.
CLUETT, E., PICKERING, R., GETLIFFE, K. & SAUNDERS, N. 2004. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ, 328, 314.
DAHLEN, H. G., DOWLING, H., TRACY, M., SCHMIED, V. & TRACY, S. 2012. Maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst low risk women giving birth in water compared to six birth positions on land. A descriptive cross sectional study in a birth centre over 12 years. Midwifery.
DAVIES, M. 2010. Water births and the research required to assess the benefits versus the harms. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.
DAVIS-FLOYD, R. 2001. The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 75, S5-S23.
EBERHARD, J., STEIN, S. & GEISSBUEHLER, V. 2005. Experience of pain and analgesia with water and land births. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 26, 127-133.
FREEMAN, L. M. & GRIEW, K. 2007. Enhancing the midwife-woman relationship through shared decision making and clinical guidelines. Women Birth, 20, 11-5.
GARLAND, D. 1919. Waterbirth: An attitude to care, Books for Midwives Pr.
GARLAND, D. 2011. Water birth: a way of enhancing and promoting normality. Promoting Normal Birth:Research, Reflections and Guidelines. 1st ed.: Fresh Heart Publishing.
GILBERT, R. E. & TOOKEY, P. A. 1999. Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water:surveillance study and postal survey. BMJ, 319, 483-7.
HENDRIX, M., VAN HORCK, M., MORETA, D., NIEMAN, F., NIEUWENHUIJZE, M., SEVERENS, J. & NIJHUIS, J. 2009. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: feasibility of a RCT in The Netherlands. BJOG, 116, 537-42; discussion 542-4.
HOUSTON, J. 2010. Exploring the theories around use of water for labour and for birth. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 20, 343-347.
KASSIM, Z., SELLARS, M. & GREENOUGH, A. 2005. Underwater birth and neonatal respiratory distress. BMJ, 330, 1071-2.
KEIRSE, M. J. 2005. Challenging water birth — how wet can it get? Birth, 32, 318-22.
KITZINGER, S. 2006. Birth crisis, Routledge.
KLEIN, M. C., SAKALA, C., SIMKIN, P., DAVIS‐FLOYD, R., ROOKS, J. P. & PINCUS, J. 2006. Why do women go along with this stuff? Birth, 33, 245-250.
KVACH, E. & MARTONFFY, A. I. 2012. Are there any risks to a water birth?
LEAP, N. 2009. Woman-centred or women-centred care: does it matter? British Journal of Midwifery, 17, 12-16.
MACKEY, M. M. 2001. Use of water in labor and birth. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 44, 733-49.
MAMMAS, I. N. & THIAGARAJAN, P. 2009. Water aspiration syndrome at birth – report of two cases. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 22, 365-7.
MAUDE, R. M. & FOUREUR, M. J. 2007. It’s beyond water: Stories of women’s experience of using water for labour and birth. Women and Birth, 20, 17-24.
MENAKAYA, U., ALBAYATI, S., VELLA, E., FENWICK, J. & ANGSTETRA, D. 2012. A retrospective comparison of water birth and conventional vaginal birth among women deemed to be low risk in a secondary level hospital in Australia. Women Birth.
MEYER, S. L., WEIBLE, C. M. & WOEBER, K. 2010. Perceptions and practice of waterbirth: a survey of Georgia midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health, 55, 55-9.
MOLLAMAHMUTOĞLU, L., MORALOĞLU, Ö., ÖZYER, Ş., SU, F. A., KARAYALÇıN, R., HANÇERLIOĞLU, N.,
UZUNLAR, Ö. & DILMEN, U. 2012. The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery. Journal of The Turkish German Gynecological Association, 13, 45-9.
OTIGBAH, C. M., DHANJAL, M. K., HARMSWORTH, G. & CHARD, T. 2000. A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 91, 15-20.
PINETTE, M. G., WAX, J. & WILSON, E. 2004. The risks of underwater birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 190, 1211-5.
SCHROETER, K. 2004. Water births: a naked emperor. Pediatrics, 114, 855-8.
SOILEAU, S. L., SCHNEIDER, E., ERDMAN, D. D., LU, X., RYAN, W. D. & MCADAMS, R. M. 2013. Case report: Severe disseminated adenovirus infection in a neonate following water birth delivery. J Med Virol, 85, 667-9.
SPIBY, H. & MUNRO, J. 2009. The development and peer review of evidence-based guidelines to support midwifery led care in labour. Midwifery, 25, 163-71.
STARK, M. A. & MILLER, M. G. 2009. Barriers to the use of hydrotherapy in labor. JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 38, 667-675.
WOODWARD, J. & KELLY, S. M. 2004. A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of water birth versus land birth. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 111, 537-545.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Position statement on the use of water for labour and birth 

In light of the publication of recent articles that report the growing demand from women around the world who want to have a natural, drug free, non-medicalised birth (Weiss 2014 and Gilbert 2015) we need to look at ways to help them have this experience.

If they are not going be reliant on analgesia for pain relief they need options to help them cope with the pain to allow a physiological labor to unfold.

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

It is not important if the baby is born in water.

In fact, water birth should be de-emphasised as it is a controversial issue in many parts of the world.

The key point and main benefit that needs to be made and focused on is how women who enter a warm pool of water in established labour with strong contractions find that they are able to cope with the pain and have a natural birth.

Women have a greater sense of fulfillment and accomplishment and babies experience a non-traumatic birth.

Aside from the obvious benefits to mothers and babies, midwives experience greater job satisfaction and hospitals save money and optimise resources from the reduced use of analgesia, medical intervention and shorter hospital stays.

Nearly a third of women benefited from the use of a water birth pool in the UK in 2014 (National Maternity Survey 2014).

With up to 60% of mothers open to natural birth now is the time for midwives, obstetricians and hospitals to consider making this safe, low cost option available.

Studies have shown that upright labour positions are associated with a reduced second stage, fewer episiotomies or instrumental intervention in contrast to mothers labouring on their backs. (Gupta, Hofmeyr and Shehmar 2012 and Gupta and Nikodem 2000).

Many women also feel empowered in an upright position, and experience a sense of control over their labour (Balaskas 2001).

On land women need to contend with the force of gravity that limits their ability to assume upright postures especially as labour progresses and they feel tired.

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

The transition from the land to water helps revive and energise the mother giving her a new lease on life and sense of purpose.

The buoyancy of water supports the mother reducing her relative weight by approx. 33% (Archimedes Principle) allowing her to easily explore the full range of beneficial upright positions in comfort and move in ways that were not possible on land.

The calming, relaxing effect of the warm water promotes the flow of oxytocin, a powerful hormone that plays a huge role in childbirth, causing the uterus to contract and triggering the ‘fetal ejection reflex’.

Michel Odent has expounded upon the beneficial physiological effect that immersion in water during labour has on hormone secretion, including observations that women entering warm water experience oxytocin surges which can advance dilation and stimulate contractions (Odent 2014).

The space, depth and design features of Active Birth Pools allow women to move freely to find and be supported in the upright positions that are most comfortable and beneficial for a physiological labor to unfold.

 

SaveSave

Management of High Risk Women using Birthing Pool and Telemetry

There is evidence that water emersion in labour offers women a safe and effective form of pain relief in labour to those women who meet the criteria (NICE, 2007; NICE, 2014; Garland, 2011).

The use of telemetry provides women greater choice and control over their birth experience to facilitate the use of water (Birthing Pool or Bath) in labour and birth where their pregnancy and labour has been categorised as high risk and requires continuous fetal monitoring.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been written to facilitate continuous fetal monitoring of high risk women in labour and birth who wish to use the birthing pool / water.

Telemetry is a wireless fetal monitoring device which facilitates continuous toco graph (CTG) monitoring where clinically indicated in the first and second stage of labour on a consultant led delivery suite.

Prior to the woman being offered the use of the birthing pool on the Delivery Suite consideration should be given to the plan of care and requirements of the woman and baby having reviewed the fully ante natal history.

The following lists are not exhaustive and full clinical assessment should be made on admission to delivery suite.

Click here for a copy of these guidelines

Hydrotherapy in Labor and Birth

In recent years, professional organizations that represent maternal-child health care providers have taken various positions on the recommended use of immersion hydrotherapy during labor and birth. The resulting lack of consensus has made consistent and equitable access to this non-pharmacologic method for pain relief in labor challenging.

This model practice template was jointly developed by representatives from the American Association of Birth Centers, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North America, National Association of Certified Professional Midwives, and other experts to offer guidance to health care professionals and institutions that provide or are implementing hydrotherapy services. This document is informed by the most current available information and resources that support best practices and serves as an outline of the various roles and responsibilities involved in providing hydrotherapy during labor and birth. Limited information has been published on the efficacy and safety of specific care practices before, during, or after hydrotherapy. However, this document is informed by the methodologically-sound, peer-reviewed studies that have been published to date. The format of this model practice template allows for adaptation depending on the setting and the maternity care professionals involved to support the development of individual practice guidelines and institutional policies and procedures.

  • I.PURPOSEThe purpose of this model practice template is to assist professionals caring for women who labor and/or give birth in water.
  • II. DEFINITIONS
    • A. Warm water immersion: Immersion in a tub with depth that allows for complete submersion of the abdomen to the breast level.
    • B. Water labor: Use of warm water immersion during any stage of labor up to but not including the birth of the neonate.
    • C. Waterbirth: Use of warm water immersion during the second stage of labor that results in the birth of a neonate entirely underwater, regardless of the location of delivery of the placenta.
  • III. OUTCOME STATEMENT
    • A. Provide increased options for the woman regarding labor and birth and enhance the woman’s satisfaction with the birth experience.
    • B. In the case of water immersion only, enhance the comfort of the woman and ensure the safety of the woman and fetus throughout the first stage of labor.
    • C. In the case of waterbirth, maintain the comfort of the woman and ensure the safety of the woman and fetus throughout labor and birth to achieve a normal, spontaneous, vaginal birth of a healthy newborn under water.
  • IV.BENEFITSWarm water immersion during childbirth provides the woman in labor with alternatives to conventional pain relief strategies and birth methods. Respect for the woman’s autonomy and choice is important. Immersion is strongly associated with and may result in the following:
    • A. Increased mobility.5
    • B. Reduced need for analgesia or anesthesia.6, 7
    • C. Lower episiotomy rates.7, 8
    • D. Decreased likelihood of third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations. 7, 9, 10
    • E. Facilitation of labor progress by diminishing stress and catecholamine production, which can enhance the
  •  
    •   perception of pain and slow the progress of labor.11
    • F. Greater levels of patient satisfaction.9
  • V.RISKSIn predominantly observational studies, investigators did not find increased rates of maternal, fetal, or neonatal morbidity or mortality associated with labor and birth in water.6, 7, 12, 13 However, it is important to ensure that risks are explained to the woman before immersion, including the following:
    • A. Umbilical cord avulsion (tearing). This may occur if too much traction is placed on the cord during waterbirth. Avulsion can typically be managed with little or no negative sequelae if recognized and treated immediately to minimize blood loss. Failure to respond immediately with effective management could result in the need for a neonatal blood transfusion.7, 1416
    • B. Hyperthermia. Elevation of maternal core temperature can result in maternal hyperthermia, which can lead to fetal tachycardia.17 In the absence of infection and with early recognition and intervention, this should resolve upon leaving the tub or cooling the water.16, 17
    • C. Perineal laceration. Waterbirth is associated with a decreased rate of third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations79, 18; however, waterbirth may slightly increase the risk of less significant perineal trauma.18
    • D. Infection. In studies of water labor and waterbirth, investigators have not demonstrated increased overall rates of maternal or neonatal infection following immersion during any stage of labor regardless of the status of membranes during hydrotherapy.6, 7, 13, 18 However, if the tub is not cleaned properly or harbors unusual organisms such as Pseudomonas or Legionella, the woman and/or neonate could acquire an atypical infection.16, 1921
    • E. Neonatal water aspiration. In case reports, researchers demonstrated that when secondary apnea is present (due to fetal hypoxia), neonates may exhibit a gasping reflex at the time of waterbirth that can result in the inhalation of water and potentially make resuscitation and ventilation more challenging.13, 16, 22 If an indeterminate fetal heart rate pattern is detected, further evaluation is indicated.
    • F. Mortality. As with conventional birth, the potential exists for death of the woman or neonate. No maternal deaths have been reported, and only isolated fetal deaths have been attributed to immersion during labor or birth.12, 13, 1618
  • VI.STANDARD REQUIREMENTS TO FACILITATE HYDROTHERAPYDuring the prenatal period, health care providers should discuss the potential use of water during labor and/or birth with all low-risk women as part of an overall discussion and education regarding evidence-based options for pain relief.23 If a woman desires water immersion and/or waterbirth, the health care provider should engage in an ongoing process of informed consent and shared decision making with the woman regarding this option.24 The woman and health care provider should discuss the state of the science, risks and benefits of water immersion and waterbirth, and factors that increase the potential for optimal perinatal outcomes; they should review potential barriers to the use of these options based on the woman’s unique health history (refer to contraindications outlined in section VIII) and preferences. During the informed consent process, the woman and health care provider should discuss issues that include the limited research that is available about waterbirth; the optimal timing and duration of immersion hydrotherapy; and emerging areas of outcomes research, such as seeding the newborn microbiome after waterbirth and any effect of labor or birth in water beyond the standard perinatal outcomes assessed in studies to date.
  • VII.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIAWomen who meet the following criteria are eligible to use warm water immersion during labor and/or birth:
    • A. Cephalic presentation.
    • B. Singleton.
    • C. 37 0/7 weeks’ gestation or greater.
    • D. Category I fetal heart rate or Category II fetal heart rate after review by the maternity care team and with consideration of stage of labor and associated maternal and fetal factors, including baseline fetal heart rate, regular rhythm, and presence or absence of recurrent fetal heart rate decelerations from the baseline.25, 26 Based upon birth setting and maternal and/or fetal risk factors, fetal heart rate can be evaluated using intermittent auscultation and/or waterproof electronic fetal monitoring during water immersion. Interpretation of fetal heart rate assessment should be consistent with established guidelines, such as those published by the American College of Nurse-Midwives,26 the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses,27and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.28
  • VIII. CURRENT PREGNANCY AND LABOR CONDITIONS IN WHICH WATER IMMERSION OR WATERBIRTH IS NOT RECOMMENDED19
    • A. Abnormal vaginal bleeding.
    • B. Maternal fever > 38.0°C (100.4°F).
    • C. Any condition that requires continuous fetal monitoring that cannot be obtained during immersion.
    • D. Active herpes simplex lesion, hepatitis B or C, HIV.
    • E. Musculoskeletal issues or reduced mobility that may prevent the woman from leaving the bath quickly if necessary.
    • F. Epidural analgesia or anesthesia.
    • G. Intrapartum hemorrhage.
    • H. Pregnancy complications or conditions that can complicate birth or transition of the neonate to extrauterine life.
    • I. Administration of opioid or other sedating medications within one hour of hydrotherapy initiation or longer in case of persistent risk to maternal mobility, airway protection, or ability to follow instructions.
    • J. Clinical judgment of the attending provider that the woman’s condition or the fetal status prohibits ongoing immersion.
  • IX. PRECAUTIONS
    • A. Performance of infection control measures in accordance with separate guidelines (see section XVII).
    • B. Universal personal protective equipment should be used according to facility guidelines.
    • C. Any break in maternity care professional or patient skin integrity must be covered with an occlusive waterproof dressing.
    • D. Emergency equipment must be readily available in the room with the laboring woman.
    • E. If the water becomes contaminated with feces or debris, the woman may be asked to leave the tub temporarily until it is removed or the water can be changed and the tub cleaned.
    • F. Prolonged heating of standing water may encourage bacterial contamination. Protocols should include a process for regularly scheduled emptying and cleaning of the tub.
    • G. After each use, the tub and all reusable equipment must be thoroughly cleaned and allowed to dry before next use per institutional guidelines.
  • X. SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR INTRAPARTUM WATER IMMERSION
    • A. Water thermometer.
    • B. Waterproof Doppler and ultrasound gel at tub side for intermittent auscultation or waterproof telemetry on the unit for continuous fetal monitoring if available within the facility.
    • C. Small net, strainer, or basin.
    • D. Small handheld or waterproof mirror.
    • E. Waterproof flashlight.
  • XI. STAFF ROLES
    • A. Responsibilities of the maternity care provider
      • 1)  Maintain current knowledge of the advantages, precautions, contraindications, and current literature regarding the use of immersion hydrotherapy.
      • 2)  During the prenatal period, provide all pregnant women with information about the benefits, risks, and potential harms of hydrotherapy during labor and birth along with other pain relief options. Use an informed consent document to ensure consistency in the presentation of this information. This information should be reviewed again before use of the tub during labor as indicated.
      • 3)  Offer families the option of hydrotherapy and assess the woman’s desire for this option through an ongoing process of assessment and shared decision making.
      • 4)  Counsel the woman on the risks and benefits of water immersion for labor and birth and the institutional protocols for use of the tub.
      • 5)  Perform ongoing assessment of the woman’s condition to determine if labor and/or birth in the water are indicated.
      • 6)  Ensure adherence to evidence-based guidelines for use of water immersion or waterbirth.
      • 7)  Provide shared decision making and ongoing assessment of the evolving process and progress of labor; discuss changes in status that may indicate the need to discontinue use of the tub.
      • 8)  Provide direct supervision of care and birth of the neonate.
    • B. Responsibilities of the registered nurse
      • 1)  Assess the woman’s understanding of the risks and benefits of water immersion for labor and birth and her understanding of institutional protocols for use of the tub; confirm her desire for use of tub for labor and birth.
      • 2)  Before immersion, ensure the woman meets eligibility criteria outlined in section VII.
      • 3)  Maintain the safety of the woman in the tub while providing care and support in collaboration with the attending provider. This includes ongoing assessment for changes that may occur that alter the woman’s eligibility for continued use of water immersion. Care includes assessment of maternal and fetal status consistent with standards of care for a woman in labor.25, 29
      • 4)  Maintain safe tub conditions, including hourly assessment of water temperature. Remove debris and change bath water as needed or as stated in facility protocol.
      • 5)  Establish and maintain safe route of exit from tub to bed and vice versa, and ensure there are no potential hazards (eg, wet floor, equipment).
      • 6)  Ensure availability of additional personnel to facilitate safe exit of the woman from tub if indicated.
    • C. Responsibilities of non-licensed personnel
      • 1)  In an out-of-hospital birth setting, non-licensed personnel may help to support a woman using water immersion for labor and or birth. This birth assistant’s role may extend to monitoring the status of the woman and fetus while in the tub under the supervision of the attending provider. The role of the birth assistant should be consistent with her or his established skill and training and institutional or practice guidelines.
      • 2)  It is recognized that family members and doulas may provide social and emotional support to the woman while she is in the tub. They should be instructed by a member of the health care team on how to call for assistance should they have any concerns or see signs of impending birth. If the woman wants to exit the tub, a health care provider should be informed before she does so.
  • XII. MANAGEMENT OF LABOR IN WATER
    • A. Before immersion, ensure the woman is a candidate for warm water immersion based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (sections VII and VIII).
    • B. The tub should be filled using ordinary tap water without additives (eg, salt, essential oils, sanitizers).
    • C. The water temperature should be assessed hourly.
      • 1)  During the first stage of labor in water, the water temperature should never exceed 37.7°C (100°F) and may be adjusted to cooler temperatures per the woman’s preference.
    • D. The woman in labor may enter or leave the water at any point with assistance.
      • 1)  Record the times that the woman enters and leaves the tub.
      • 2)  The woman should be instructed to use proper body mechanics when entering and exiting the tub and do so only with staff or a support personn attendance.
      • 3)  If complications or changes occur in the maternal or fetal condition that require further assessment or treatment outside of the tub, share this information with the family and assist the woman out of the tub.
    • E. Positioning for comfort in the tub is dependent on the preferences of the woman and the judgment of the provider in consultation with the woman.
    • F. Provide hydration in the form of oral liquids or intravenous (IV) fluids as indicated. All IV or saline lock sites should be covered with an occlusive, water-resistant dressing while the woman is in the tub.
    • G. The well-being of the woman and fetus are assessed and managed in accordance with practice protocols for any other woman during labor, including monitoring maternal vital signs, assessing the fetal heart rate,25, 26 and initiating intrauterine resuscitation strategies when indicated (eg, maternal position changes and IV fluid bolus for fetal heart rate changes or Category II fetal heart rate).
      • 1)  A waterproof Doppler or waterproof electronic fetal monitoring equipment should be used to assess the fetal heart rate.
      • 2)  Waterproof electronic fetal monitoring equipment may be used to verify or clarify if an indeterminate fetal heart rate pattern is present, and this can guide management.
      • 3)  Management of indeterminate fetal heart rate patterns depends on multiple factors. Intrapartum resuscitation techniques such as position change, hydration, and correction of hypotension or tachysystole are instituted as necessary.
    • H. Vaginal examinations may be performed underwater when necessary.
    • I. Intermittent maternal self-administration of nitrous oxide during labor and birth in water is acceptable when available.
  • XIII. MANAGEMENT OF THE SECOND STAGE OF LABOR
    • A. The woman may choose any position in the tub for pushing during the second stage of labor that feels comfortable and that is deemed safe by the attending provider or registered nurse. The health care professional may request adjustments to the position to facilitate observation of progress and/or to maintain assessment of maternal and fetal well-being.
    • B. Water temperature
      • 1)  During the second stage of labor, the water temperature should never exceed 37.7°C (100°F) and may be adjusted based on the woman’s preference within a narrow range of 36.1°C to 37.7°C (97.0°F to 100°F).
    • C. Maternal and fetal well-being should be assessed and documented as they would be for a conventional birth.25
    • D. Fetal heart rate and contraction pattern are assessed in accordance with standard of care recommendations, generally every 5 to 15 minutes.25, 28
    • E. Supporting birth of the neonate
      • 1)  The woman should be supported in the use of spontaneous, physiologic pushing.
      • 2)  The health care provider may use a hands-off or hands-poised position to facilitate birth by controlled, spontaneous, pushing efforts; a hands-on method of birth management may be employed when indicated.
      • 3)  It may not be necessary to feel for the presence of a nuchal cord if the birth of the body quickly follows the head. Loose nuchal cords and other entanglements can be resolved as the neonate is born underwater before the first breath (see section XVI).
      • 4)  The time of birth will be noted when the neonate’s entire body is outside of the woman.
      • 5)  The neonate must be born completely underwater without exposure to air until the face is brought gently and directly to the surface. The neonate’s head must not be resubmerged under water after it has been brought to the surface.
      • 6)  If a woman raises herself out of the water and exposes the head of the fetus to air, she should be assisted/supported to remain out of the water to avoid the potential risk of the neonate gasping underwater with resubmersion.
      • 7)  After birth, assist in bringing the neonate directly and gently to the surface (within 5–10 seconds) to minimize tension on the umbilical cord and to reduce the possibility of avulsion. Cord clamps should be readily available.
      • 8)  Maintain warmth of the neonate through skin-to-skin contact with the woman and submersion of the neonate’s lower extremities, abdomen, and chest. Dry the neonate’s exposed head to reduce heat loss.
      • 9)  Apgar scores should be obtained at one and 5 minutes after birth per routine.
      • 10)  In the presence of stable newborn status and transition to extrauterine life, care of the cord can follow best practices to support delayed cord clamping.
      • 11)  If neonatal resuscitation measures are indicated and this is not possible without cutting the cord, the cord should be clamped and cut, and the neonate removed from the water immediately.
  • XIV. MANAGEMENT OF THE THIRD STAGE OF LABOR
    • A. The third stage of labor may occur in or out of the tub depending on the status of the woman and neonate, provider skill and comfort, and duration of third stage.
    • B. Management of third stage of labor should proceed consistent with standards of care to reduce risk of postpartum hemorrhage. For women at greater risk of postpartum hemorrhage, the third stage should be managed out of the water to support management and accurate quantification of blood loss.
    • C. In cases where the health care providers note increasing darkening or discoloration of the water or any indication of increased bleeding, the woman should be immediately removed from the tub for continued evaluation and treatment. While most elements of the management of the third stage of labor, including active management, can be safely implemented in the tub, initiation of some treatments such as bimanual compression and accurate quantification of blood loss should be performed out of the tub.
    • D. Quantified or estimated blood loss should be recorded in the medical record. If the third stage is completed out of the water, quantification should occur according to institutional standards.
    • E. Postnatal observations of the woman and neonate should be performed in accordance with institutional policies. Most postpartum assessments can be conducted with the dyad in skin-to-skin contact with the woman in the tub.
    • F. Evaluation and repair of perineal lacerations are ideally accomplished on a bed for optimal visualization.
  • XV. EVALUATION AND CARE OF THE NEONATE
    • A. The neonatal resuscitation guidelines of the American Heart Association should be utilized to assess the neonate,29 and Apgar scores should be obtained at one and 5 minutes after birth per routine. If neonatal resuscitation measures are indicated and this is not possible without cutting the cord, the cord should be clamped and cut, and the neonate removed from the water immediately.
    • B. Make certain the neonate remains close to the woman (skin-to-skin) and partially submerged to help maintain body temperature. Dry the neonate’s exposed head to reduce heat loss.
    • C. If neonatal tachycardia (heart rate >160 bpm), bradycardia (heart rate < 100bpm), hyperthermia (temperature >38°C [100.4°F]), hypothermia (temperature <36°C [97.0°F]), tachypnea (respirations >60 per min), grunting, or retracting is noted, the neonate should be taken out of the tub for further assessment.
  • XVI. COMPLICATIONSAs when caring for any woman in labor, the health care professional is responsible for using clinical judgment to respond appropriately when complications arise. If deviations from normal during immersion are observed, the woman should be asked to exit the tub and assisted out of the water for further assessment as necessary to perform standard care assessments and interventions.
    • A. Tight nuchal cord. If a tight nuchal cord cannot be reduced, and the somersault maneuver is ineffective, the woman should be assisted to stand above the water so the cord can be clamped and cut to facilitate birth out of the water. Under no circumstances should a nuchal cord be clamped and cut under water. The woman should remain standing to give birth to the rest of the body and to avoid submersion of the neonate’s head after birth.
    • B. Shoulder dystocia. If a shoulder dystocia occurs in the tub and cannot be resolved with position change, assist the woman out of the tub to complete the birth. Once the neonate’s head is exposed to air, it should not be re-submerged.
    • C. Excessive bleeding
      • 1)  The presence of excessive bleeding into the water should prompt the immediate evaluation of the source.
      • 2)  In the case of excessive bleeding, assist the woman out of the tub for further evaluation. Initiate quantification of blood loss to more accurately assess blood loss volume.
      • 3)  If cord rupture is suspected, the cord should be immediately clamped at the umbilicus and cut. Cord clamps must be readily available. If cord rupture is confirmed, the newborn should be removed from the tub for assessment.
    • D. Loss of consciousness. Emergency procedures must be enacted immediately, and the woman should be removed from the tub quickly and safely. Assign one person to ensure the woman’s head remains above the water surface at all times and activate the emergency response team to help lift the unconscious woman out of the tub and to initiate emergency evaluation and treatment.
  • XVII. INFECTION CONTROL PRINCIPLESDepending on the setting or type of institution, infection control policies and procedures will vary. These guidelines reflect the scant available data on the use and cleaning of tubs for the purpose of intrapartum immersion hydrotherapy.30 The following principles are offered as guidance for the development of needed policies:
    • A. Clean the hydrotherapy tub after each use.
    • B. Before cleaning, don non-sterile, single-use gloves.
    • C. Drain the hydrotherapy tub, remove all debris from the tub, and dispose of debris in an appropriate receptacle based on the type of waste.
    • D. Manually wash all interior surfaces of the hydrotherapy tub using a mild non-abrasive detergent solution and a clean towel or disposable cloth.
    • E. Rinse the tub with warm water to remove all detergent residue.
    • F. Apply a disinfecting agent to all interior surfaces of the hydrotherapy tub using a spray application and ensure all surfaces are thoroughly wetted with the disinfectant. The minimum time that the germicidal agent must remain in contact with the tub surface to achieve the appropriate level of disinfection is prescribed by the product manufacturer and is indicated on the product label. Only use disinfecting agents that are US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered as effective against HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Consult with the preventive medicine department for approval to use products that are not EPA-registered.
    • G. After achieving appropriate disinfection, rinse the hydrotherapy tub with hot water to remove the remaining chemical residue and allow surfaces to air dry.
    • H. Clean and disinfect all multiclient use equipment in contact with the bath water (eg, waterproof thermometers, mirrors) as outlined in F.

DISCLAIMER

This document is specific to considerations regarding hydrotherapy during labor and/or birth and is provided as an educational aid to members of the endorsing organizations and interested maternity care providers. This model practice template is not intended to dictate an exclusive course of management or to substitute for individual professional judgment. It presents recognized methods and techniques of clinical practice that maternity care providers may consider incorporating into their practices. The needs of an individual client or the resources and limitations of a particular setting or type of practice may appropriately lead to variations in clinical care. The information in this document is gleaned from published literature available through April 2016. This document will be reviewed against newly available scientific evidence and/or every 5 years after initial publication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document was developed by a multi-organizational task force hosted by the American College of Nurse-Midwives. Members of the task force were self-identified experts in use of hydrotherapy, researchers who have addressed this topic, and formally appointed representatives from the participating organizations. The organizations formally endorsing this document include the American Association of Birth Centers, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North American, and National Association of Certified Professional Midwives. Contributing authors to this document include the following individuals:

Co-Editors

Lisa Kane Low, CNM, PhD, FACNM, FAAN

Associate Professor, University of Michigan School of Nursing

President, American College of Nurse-Midwives

Elizabeth Nutter, CNM, DNP

Major, United States Army

Representative, American College of Nurse-Midwives

Organizational Contributors

Colleen Donovan-Batson, MS, CNM, ARNP

Director, Division of Health Policy and Advocacy

Midwives Alliance of North America

Cynthia B. Flynn, CNM, PhD, FACNM

Representative, American Association of Birth Centers

Lesley Meenach Rathbun, CNM, FNP, MSN

Director, Charleston Birth Place

President, American Association of Birth Centers

Maria Christina Johnson, CNM, MS, FACNM

Director of Professional Practice and Health Policy

American College of Nurse-Midwives National Office Staff

Kaye Kanne, CPM

Representative, National Association of Certified Professional Midwives

Jenna Shaw-Battista, CNM, PhD, FACNM

Representative, American College of Nurse-Midwives

[Corrections added after online publication November 29, 2016: For Colleen Donovan-Batson: Name and credentials were corrected from “Colleen Batson-Donovan, CPM” to “Colleen Donovan-Batson, MS, CNM, ARNP” and “Public” was removed from the title. For Lesley Meenach Rathbun: Rathburn was corrected to Rathbun.]

Individual Expert Contributors

Roma Allen, MSN, RNC-OB

Carrie F. Bonsack, CNM, DNP

Shaunti Meyer, CNM, MA, MS

Catherine Ruhl, CNM, MSN

Research shows that labouring or giving birth in water provides clear benefits for healthy mothers and their babies.

Wednesday, 06 July 2022

Oxford Brookes University

New analysis of research shows that using a birth pool during labour provides “clear benefits” for healthy mums and their newborn, with less intervention and fewer complications during and after the birth than when compared to labouring and giving birth on land. Mothers also report higher levels of satisfaction with their birth experience.

Dr Ethel Burns of Oxford Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences led a team of researchers, working with Dr Claire Feeley (Oxford Brookes), Dr Priscilla Hall (Emory University, USA) and Dr Jennifer Vanderlaan (University of Nevada, USA). The research looking at 157,546 sets of mothers and babies was published today, in the journal BMJ Open   .

What is water immersion during labour?

Water immersion in a birth pool during labour and birth can be divided into two distinct but overlapping categories. Some women may choose to leave a birth pool before giving birth, and others remain in the birth pool to give birth.  The researchers wanted to compare healthcare interventions during labour and birth between water birth, labouring in water, and standard care with no water immersion.

The research which was reviewed as part of the study included a broad range of interventions and outcomes. These included things like what drugs were given to ease pain, the health of the baby at birth, loss of blood after the baby was born and the condition of mother and baby.

Low tech care option

Dr Ethel Burns, Senior Midwifery Lecturer at Oxford Brookes University said: ”This research shows that it is just as safe for healthy mothers to give birth in water as on land and that there are considerable benefits for mothers who choose to labour in a birthing pool.  Water immersion is an effective method to reduce pain in making it a low-tech way to improve care quality and mothers’ satisfaction with care”.

The authors recommended that future research should include factors that are known to influence interventions and outcomes during and after labour or birth such as how many children a woman has already had, where she gives birth, who looks after her, and the care she receives.

Water birth – a valuable and safe method to promote natural childbirth and physiological labour

Water birth pools serve a pivotal role in enhancing the experience of physiological labour and natural childbirth for mothers.

In fact, they are particularly effective in helping mothers manage pain without relying on analgesia for relief (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014).

Research has shown that women who enter a warm water pool during established labour are better equipped to cope with the pain associated with childbirth.

Immersion in warm water has been unequivocally proven to offer significant physiological and psychological benefits during labor (Cluett et al., 2004).

The benefits extend beyond pain management; women who choose water birth often report a heightened sense of fulfillment and accomplishment, while babies experience a gentler, less traumatic birth process (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2014).

In addition to these advantages for mothers and babies, midwives also experience increased job satisfaction, and healthcare facilities can save resources and costs by providing water birth options (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014).

Statistics from the National Maternity Survey in 2014 indicate that nearly a third of women in the UK benefited from using a water birth pool (Care Quality Commission, 2014).

With up to 60% of mothers showing interest in natural birth, it is opportune to consider expanding the availability of this safe, cost-effective approach (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017).

On dry land, mothers face the challenge of gravity, which limits their movement as labor progresses and fatigue sets in.

Many women may lack the physical fitness required to maintain upright postures for extended periods (Gupta et al., 2007).

Additionally, mothers who are overweight or obese may struggle to cope with the physical demands of labor (Vahratian et al., 2005).

The transition from land to water can rejuvenate and energize mothers, providing them with a newfound sense of purpose.

The buoyancy of water reduces a mother’s relative weight by approximately 33%, allowing her to move in ways that would be impossible on land and explore natural labor and birthing postures (American College of Nurse-Midwives, 2014).

Furthermore, the warm water’s calming and relaxing effects promote the release of oxytocin, a critical hormone in childbirth.

Oxytocin induces uterine contractions and triggers the “fetal ejection reflex,” further aiding the birthing process.

Immersion in water has been shown to have a positive physiological impact on hormone secretion, including oxytocin surges that can facilitate cervical dilation and stimulate contractions (Odent, 2014).

In conclusion, water birth pools offer a multifaceted approach to childbirth that benefits both mothers and babies, enhances midwives’ job satisfaction, and provides cost-effective options for healthcare facilities.

The evidence supports the integration of water birth as a valuable and safe method to promote natural childbirth and physiological labor experiences.

Why Active Birth Pools are the No. 1 choice world-wide

Active Birth Pools from a midwives perspective

Active Birth Pools from a mothers perspective

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

 

An economic evaluation of water birth

The cost-effectiveness of mother well-being

Abstract: Purpose To assess the cost-effectiveness of water compared with normal land delivery.

Methods; A retrospective controlled study was conducted over a two-year period in a Northern Italian hospital. The cohort included all the 110 women who completed a water birth and 110 women who had a land birth during the same period. The two groups were compared with respect to labour duration, perineal tear and newborn’s health status. The economic evaluation adopted a cost-effectiveness approach in relation to presence/absence of perineal tears.

Results: In the water delivery group 58 women (52.7%) experienced at least one perineal tear versus 80 (72.7%) in the traditional delivery group. The mean duration of labour was similar in the two groups. Neonatal well-being, expressed as Apgar score, did not differ significantly among the two groups at the first minute (9.48 vs. 9.28) and was slightly higher at 5 minutes in the water delivery group (9.95 vs. 9.84; P = 0.0269). Water delivery was found to be both more costly [ΔC = €279; 95% confidence interval (CI): 262–296] and more effective in terms of avoided perineal tears. The incremental health care cost per avoided perineal tear because of water delivery was estimated of €1395.7 (95% CI: 1049.2–3608.5).

Conclusion: Water birth, as compared with traditional delivery, allows for an increase in maternal well-being and is cost-effective.

Making Waves Improving access to water immersion in maternity units: Dr. Claire Feely

Water immersion for labour and/or birth can be a supportive low-cost, low-tech intervention that enhances women’s experiences of their labour and with positive outcome benefits.

In a previous article,1 we highlighted the current evidence in favour of water immersion that demonstrated the positive impact upon women’s and birthing people’s physical and psychological outcomes, including; reducing pain perception, epidural use, labour duration and hospital transfers; enhancing mobility, freedom of movement, feelings of safety, privacy and positive experiences of labour and birth.

Overall, water immersion enhances the neuroendocrinology of a normal physiological labour2 and is a helpful option for pain relief.3 

Click here for PDF of full article