Thursday, November 29, 2012

questions ...

...

"Do you [the midwife] consider that after you have informed the woman of risk, such as twins, that it is appropriate for you to agree to homebirth?"


"In your opinion, what is more important: the right of the woman to have informed choice, or the safety of the mother and baby or babies?"


"If a woman who was having quadruplets told you she wanted to give birth at home, and you informed her of the risk, would you agree to attend her for homebirth?" 

"Isn't the reality that if the midwife says 'Yes, I'll come to your homebirth of quads, isn't the midwife giving the green light to the woman's wishes?"

Continuing from the previous post, I want to further record and begin to explore lines of questioning that have been pursued by the barrister acting for AHPRA, in a formal hearing into the professional conduct of a midwife who attended births for two women classified as risk categories C and/or B in the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral - in this case the 2004 version of that document.  In both cases there was a transfer of care to hospital; mothers and babies are well.  

The legal expert's job in the hearing is to prove allegations that the midwife acted in an unprofessional manner when she attended these births privately at the homes of the women.  The case relies heavily on the categorisation of risk in the ACM Guidelines.

The midwife has retained the services of a barrister to defend her.  The costs have accumulated to in excess of $20,000.

The panel of three, appointed by AHPRA to hear the case, includes one person who is a nurse academic, who lists RM (registered midwife) in her cv that is available online.  This person has published in her field, but there is no mention of midwifery or maternity in the titles listed.  This person has listed memberships in professional organisations, and there is no mention of any midwifery or maternity related organisation.   The other two members of the panel are a lawyer, and a nurse whose specialty area is psychiatry.

I am recording this point because there is an expectation in hearings into professional conduct that the evidence will be heard by peers.  The panel in this case was totally lacking in peers, and the one member who listed RM should perhaps reconsider her use of the title RM.  Midwives continue to be judged by nurses, as nurses, despite the reforms that have restored the register of midwives.
 

The pursuit of information by the Board's barrister, who acted like a blood hound, included many questions about choice and risk and safety.  The complexities of informed decision-making over time, and within that woman's real world, were barely acknowledged.  The relationship between 'risk' and 'safety' was not explored.  If the 'guidelines' identify 'risk' ... it's *obviously* unsafe, and not suitable for a midwife to be providing primary care in the home.

The midwife expert witness called by the defense barrister brought some clarity and sense to the hearing, with her consistent and persistent assertion that safety can only be achieved when a mother's right to informed decision making is protected and upheld.


ps
Midwives and others who promote humane maternity care around the world have been alerted to the criminal case against Hungarian midwife-obstetrician Ágnes Geréb.  For an update on this case, click here.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Questioning a midwife about women and risk

I am reluctant to make any broad statements about privately practising midwives and the way each one approaches a professional situation in which the woman has risk factors.  Each midwife, and each woman, is unique.  In fact, that's what the often repeated phrase 'woman centred care' points to: that the care for each woman is approached by her midwife from an individual perspective.

A midwife whose practice is under the regulatory spotlight for events that led to allegations that she has engaged in unprofessional conduct when she agreed to provide homebirth care for women in a risk category* is on the stand, under oath, and quizzed by the Barrister acting on behalf of the statutory body.  Here are a selection of the questions that this midwife may be required to answer.  Perhaps other midwives will take a moment to reflect on how we would answer these questions.

* The 'risk' profile could include, for example, postmaturity, prematurity, birth after caesarean, multiple pregnancy, breech presentation.  

With reference to a woman who wishes to give birth at home, the midwife is asked:
"Do you accept that you have a professional responsibility to inform the woman of risks?"
"Do you consider that after you have informed the woman of risk, such as post maturity, or previous caesarean, that it is appropriate for you to agree to homebirth?"
"Do you accept that homebirth after caesarean (hbac) entails higher risk than homebirth without previous surgery?"
"Do you agree that risks in a vaginal birth after caesarean (vbac) birth are better managed in hospital if they occur?"
"If as you say there are some risks for the vbac at home, why did you not record this in your notes?"
"What evidence do you rely upon for permitting vbac at home?"
"What special preparations did you make for a high risk birth at home?"
"Did the mother lead the decisions about homebirth, or did you give her the green light?"
"Did you consider saying no to homebirth, and sending the woman to a doctor?"
"In your midwifery practice, do you follow the Australian College of Midwives National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (ACM Guidelines)?"
"Do you accept that the ACM Guidelines state that the pathway for birth after caesarean is to at least consider referral and transfer to obstetric care?"
"Do you accept the first guiding principle of the ACM Guidelines, that 'As a primary caregiver, the midwife, together with the woman, is responsible for decision making.'?"
"Do you as midwife accept that you and the woman are jointly responsible for the decision to give birth at home?"
"On reflection, with the wisdom of hindsight, do you agree that you made a poor decision in providing home birth care in this situation?"
"Are you able to give the panel the assurance that if you were faced with a similar situation again, you would act differently?"
"Don't you think that a woman who is more than 10 days postmature, and unable to give birth in a small hospital, is too high risk for homebirth, where there are even fewer resources on hand than at a small hospital?"

The main 'requirement' for homebirth is that the woman is able to labour spontaneously without medical stimulation of labour or pain relief.  Midwives attending homebirth use no drugs to stimulate labour or to ease pain.  The only stimulation of labour available for homebirth is natural processes, such as walking, nipple stimulation, sexual intercourse, and perhaps a special meal.  If a woman who has had a previous caesarean, or whose baby is in a breech presentation, intends to give birth spontaneously, she usually accepts the requirement for spontaneous onset and good unmedicated progress in labour. 

The polarisation of midwifery care into 'planned homebirth with a private midwife' and 'standard hospital care for birth' is in itself unreasonable.

Physiological birth is a basic function of the female of the species.  In our world today we have the opportunity to interrupt physiological processes if we think they are progressing in a way that would lead to poor outcomes.

Consider any other physiological process: breathing, for example.
I breathe because that's what my body does.
I continue to breathe whether I am conscious of the fact or not.
If breathing becomes difficult, this can be a warning sign that prompts me to seek medical attention.

In the same way, a physiological labour will proceed because that's what the woman's body does.
She will continue to labour whether she is paying attention to it or not.
If labour becomes difficult, this can be a warning sign that can prompt transfer to another level of care.

Planned homebirth is 'Plan A'.  The midwife checks the fetal heart, or records signs of progress, or monitors the woman's vital signs in preparation for intervention if that becomes necessary.  The midwife has (or should have) no intention to interrupt the natural processes without a valid reason.  A transfer to hospital, 'Plan B,' is a change in the plan.   There are different rules in operation under 'Plan B' than 'Plan A'.

Effective decision making in labour requires a shared responsibility for the decisions that are made.  The midwife has a certain body of knowledge, and familiarity with the processes, and the woman has other knowledge about herself, her values, and her life direction.  Together they are able to navigate the often unpredictable journey of bringing a baby into the world.  A midwife is not a hired help, employed to facilitate a certain preferred option.  Active participation in decision making protects the wellbeing and safety of mother, baby(ies), and the future of the midwife.

Birth is a highly contested zone.  Our society takes a paternalistic attitude towards birth, through the regulation of the midwifery and medical professions, and the oversight of institutions such as hospitals.  This is good - to a degree.

However, the one who is literally 'holding the baby' at the end of the day is the mother, and she is usually within an immediate family and broader community.  Unless the mother-family-community relationships are broken down beyond repair, the best place for a child to be cared for and to grow is within that network.  A midwife works in partnership with the woman, for the childbearing period, promoting health, protecting wellness, and supporting the development of healthy families.

There will always be aspects of risk that either exist prior to the onset of labour, or that develop during labour.  The midwife who recognises and acts appropriately in the care relationship, and the woman who engages in an intelligent way in decision-making, will have a high level of safety built into their care plan.  There is no safer way than Plan A for a well woman to approach birth.  When complications are present the care decisions become more complex, and the need for medical attention becomes more urgent.  A midwife and woman working together in a trusting relationship bring strength and confidence to the decision making process.



Your comments are welcome.








Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Homebirth backup arrangements

Melbourne's MIPPs were invited to meet with midwifery management at the Women's Hospital today, to hear about changes that will be implemented to the hospital's homebirth backup arrangements from 1 January 2013.

The Women's has, for many years, provided a 'booking' process by which midwives have made a backup arrangement with the hospital for women planning homebirth.  This arrangement will be ceased from 1 January.  Women for whom midwives are providing private care will be seen in the Emergency department, and admitted without having previously made a booking.

The hospital has reached this position after reviewing its processes.  The 'booking' was of a clerical nature only - the hospital has had no professional clinical review of the paperwork, including results of blood test and other investigations, until or if the woman has actually been admitted. 

The Women's is a busy, complex place: there were more than 7,300 births in the past 12 months.  The number of women who present without having had prior care from the hospital antenatal services is small.


How does this change impact on private midwifery care in the community?  

  • A woman whose midwife refers her to the Women's is able to expect appropriate maternity care.  
  • The midwife who is caring for the woman privately in the community is able to phone the hospital Emergency department, and provide verbal and written handover at the initial triage, and after admission.  Sometimes midwives who phone the hospital have reported difficulty, when the phone is not picked up within what seems a reasonable period of time.  The advice is always to put the woman's and baby's needs first, and to present at the hospital without calling if needed.

How does this change impact on collaboration between private midwives and public hospitals?
  • It doesn't.
  • The hospital is not under any obligation to accept collaborative arrangements with midwives, even though, under the federal government's Medicare reforms, there is a legislative/ bureaucratic expectation that midwives who provide Medicare rebates for women will establish collaborative arrangements with hospitals [Click here].
What does the National Health law require in terms of collaboration between a midwife and a hospital?
  • The National Health law appears to envisage hospital births: a setting for which no midwife in Victoria, or in most of the nation, is able to have clinical privileges.  The issue of hospital backup for homebirth is not specifically addressed.  Rather the law requires arrangements that cover consultation, referral and transfer of care: the very process that backup arrangements cover.
  • The National Health (Collaborative arrangements for Midwives) Determination 2010 states:
...

         (1)   For the definition of authorised midwife in subsection 84 (1) of the Act, each of the following is a kind of collaborative arrangement for an eligible midwife:
                (a)    the midwife is employed or engaged by 1 or more obstetric specified medical practitioners, or by an entity that employs or engages 1 or more obstetric specified medical practitioners;
               (b)    a patient is referred, in writing, to the midwife for midwifery treatment by a specified medical practitioner;
                (c)    an agreement mentioned in section 6 for the midwife;
               (d)    an arrangement mentioned in section 7 for the midwife.
         (2)   For subsection (1), the arrangement must provide for:
                (a)    consultation between the midwife and an obstetric specified medical practitioner; and
               (b)    referral of a patient to a specified medical practitioner; and
                (c)    transfer of a patient’s care to an obstetric specified medical practitioner.
         (3)   A collaborative arrangement, other than an arrangement mentioned in section 7, may apply to more than 1 patient.
         (4)   However, an acknowledgement mentioned in paragraph 7 (1) (c) may apply for more than 1 patient.

         (1)   An agreement may be made between:
                (a)    an eligible midwife; and
               (b)    1 or more specified medical practitioners.
         (2)   The agreement must be in writing and signed by the eligible midwife and the other parties mentioned in paragraph (1) (b).
...

In practice, a woman who books for homebirth with a Medicare-authorised midwife, is advised by her midwife on steps they need to take in order to fulfill the requirements collaborative arrangements.  For example, a referral to the midwife, signed by an specified medical practitioner (defined in section 4) for provision of antenatal and postnatal midwifery services, covers the part of the care that attracts Medicare rebate.  The arrangement includes hospital backup, should consultation, referral or transfer of care be indicated. 

There is a big black hole in the National Health law as far as birth at home is concerned, and the hospitals are understandably going about the job of tightening up their processes. 

Enough from me for today.   Your comments are very welcome.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

NEWBORN SCREENING

INFORMATION FOR PARENTS

This video has been released by the Victorian Newborn Screening Lab, and is available to download here.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Birth Registration and Birth Certificates

The Victorian Law Reform Commission is conducting a consultation into birth registration and birth certificates, under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (Vic).  The consultation paper is available at the Commission's website.  Submissions to this review are requested by 1 November 2012.

Midwives in Private Practice (MiPP) is preparing a response.

The following questions have been put, to guide responses:

Birth notification 
  1. What particulars should the Registrar require at birth notification stage from the responsible person? 
  2. Are you aware of any problems with, or do you have any suggestions for improvement of, the notification process? 
Birth registration 
  1. Are you aware of any requirement of the registration process that may create barriers to people registering births, in particular people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) or Indigenous communities, or vulnerable or disadvantaged people?
  2. Can you suggest ways to make the process for birth registration more accessible, efficient and effective? 
Birth certificates 
  1. Are you aware of any requirement of the process for obtaining a birth certificate that may create barriers to people registering births, in particular people from CALD or Indigenous communities, or vulnerable or disadvantaged people? 
  2. Can you suggest ways to make the process for obtaining a birth certificate more accessible, efficient and effective? 
  3. Should legislation provide for the automatic issue of a birth certificate once a birth has been registered? 
Fees for birth certificates
  1. Do you think it is appropriate to charge a fee for a birth certificate? If so, does the current fee create a barrier to obtaining a birth certificate for some people?  
  2. The Act allows for a fee waiver but this is rarely granted. What criteria should be applied to the grant of a waiver of fees for a birth certificate? 
  3. Should a waiver be possible only on a case-by-case basis or should classes of people qualify (for example those in possession of a Health Care Card)? 
  4. Should the criteria for the waiver of fees be explicitly stated in legislation or regulations? 
  5. Alternatively, should a policy document outlining these criteria be required to be made public by the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages? 
Vulnerable groups 
  1. Are vulnerable or disadvantaged people or those from CALD backgrounds or Indigenous communities more likely to encounter problems with registering a birth or applying for a birth certificate? If so why, and how?
Awareness and access 
  1. Is it easy to find out what you need to know about registering a birth and obtaining a birth certificate? 
  2. Are members of the community in general sufficiently aware of their obligations and rights to register a birth and to be issued with a certificate?
  3. If not, what can be done to improve community awareness and what role should the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages have in improving awareness? 
  4. Should legislation be amended to include promoting birth registration and the benefits of obtaining a birth certificate, as a specific function of the Registrar? 
Other 
  1. Are you aware of legislative or policy developments in other jurisdictions that may be helpful to consider for Victoria? 
  2. Is there anything else you would like to share with us on any aspect of birth registration and obtaining a birth certificate?

Saturday, August 18, 2012

An update on midwife prescribing


Midwives who have achieved eligibility for Medicare (MBS) under the Commonwealth Government's National Maternity Service Plan (2010) are also preparing to extend our practices to include prescribing, and participation in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).  Midwives with PBS authorisation will be able to prescribe, supply, and administer scheduled medicines. 
Historically, midwives attending homebirth have obtained the few medicines we need in private midwifery practice through a doctor's prescription.  The midwife has administered these drugs without a legislated process.  Oxytocics for the management of post partum haemorrhage by intramuscular injection have been prescribed by doctors for women in our care, and purchased (in boxes of 5 ampoules) from local pharmacies.  The midwife assesses the woman's condition, and administers the drug on her/his own authority.  The management of the third stage pf labour is basic to midwifery, and it is in the public interest that all midwives maintain their competency in the use of oxytocics: that this is not restricted to those who have PBS authorisation. 

A number of Victorian midwives are enrolled in the 6-month Pharmacology course at Flinders University in Adelaide, which is the only such accredited course for midwives seeking PBS authorisation.  We know of a couple of midwives who have completed courses in pharmacology which have been accepted by the regulatory authority (AHPRA) as equivalent. 

Each state and territory have already either undertaken, or are in the process of making, the necessary legislative changes to authorise registered midwives to prescribe under the PBS.  

The Victorian Health Department has appointed the 3CentresCollaboration to consult with stakeholder groups, and to prepare a draft list of Schedule 2, 3, 4 and 8 medicines for prescribing by midwives in Victoria.  The work has advanced to the final checking of the list before it is approved in the law.  The stakeholder groups and experts who have been invited to review the list include relevant midwifery and obstetric colleges, unions and professional organisations, employers of midwives, consumer groups with a remit or interest in midwifery, maternity services or associated services as well education providers (ie midwifery pharmacology course providers). 
The scope of prescribing is limited to medicines appropriate for midwifery practice across pregnancy, labour, birth and post natal care (including neonates up to six weeks).  Midwives who will use their PBS endorsement include those providing private antenatal and postnatal care in a variety of settings and intrapartum care as a private midwifery provider to a private client either at home, or (when midwives are able to have clinical privileges/visiting access) within a health service. 

[MiPP has submitted a response to the draft documents.]
 
Your comments are welcome.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

collaboration

Yesterday the Health Ministers announced the extension of the 'exemption', enabling midwives  (1) to continue our work of attending births without indemnity insurance, until 2015, and (2) to make collaborative arrangements with hospitals and health services.

Go to the APMA blog for the wording of the announcement.

Immediate response from the Australian Medical Association (AMA) called on the Health Ministers to reverse their decision about collaboration, stating that “This decision is transferring sensitive patient care and management from a doctor to a bureaucrat. It must not proceed.”


In response, I have left the following message at the AMA media site:

Dr Hambleton, and AMA
I think it would be good to talk to real midwives who have incorporated Medicare into what we offer women.  We are not dangerous.  We are very conscious of the limitations of natural physiological processes in pregnancy, childbirth, and thereafter - and our own limitations when illness or complications present.
I have been practising independently as a midwife for many years, and I attend women who plan homebirth, as well as women who intend to give birth in hospital. 
The collaborative arrangements that have supported the care I provide for my clients, enabling Medicare rebates on antenatal and postnatal consultations, have been mainly with GPs who have never met me.  This is the sort of letter the doctor receives:
Dear Dr D
W has asked me to provide midwifery services for her, with a plan to give birth at home, and a back-up booking at H Hospital.  W’s calculated due date is XX/XX/XX.  With your referral and collaboration I am able to provide Medicare rebates for W for antenatal and postnatal midwifery services.  I am required to demonstrate a collaborative arrangement with a named medical practitioner, to whom she will be referred if the need arises. 
Under this collaborative arrangement, I am required to send you a Maternity Care Plan (draft attached), results of any tests and investigations, and referrals (obstetric or paediatric).  Also I am required to send a discharge summary to you as the patient’s GP.
In preparing a maternity care plan, I have discussed this with W.  The plan is basically to proceed under normal physiological conditions, working in harmony with the natural processes, unless complications arise.  We plan to go to the H hospital without delay for urgent obstetric concerns, or W would be referred to you for non-urgent medical indications.
Thankyou for your assistance in this matter.

I ask that you use the resources of the AMA to enhance collaboration between two distinct professions - not to remove the competition.

Joy Johnston

Your comments are welcome.