AIMS Chair Beverley Lawrence Beech looks for a more accurate definition of normality
In an article in 1997, Normal Birth does it exist?1 AIMS questioned the accepted 'truth' that the majority of women in the UK have a 'normal birth' by speculating that, in fact, fewer than 10% of women actually do so because the so called 'normal' deliveries included women who had suffered inductions, accelerations, artificial rupture of membranes (ARM), epidurals and episiotomy. The article1 created quite a lot of discussion and a midwife, Soo Downe, decided to test its validity. The research was designed to answer the question 'What percentage of births in the participating population which are categorised as normal or spontaneous would be classified as obstetric deliveries under the AIMS definition?' The research classed 'normal' births as births where the women did not have: Induction of labour, acceleration of labour, artificial rupture of membranes, epidural anaesthesia or episiotomy. In October 2001 Downe published the results of her research which found that fewer than 1 in 6 primigravida (first time mothers) and fewer than 1 in 3 women expecting subsequent babies achieved a 'normal' birth.2
The research added to the debate about 'normal', 'straightforward' births and obstetric deliveries and in 2005 the Royal College of Midwives launched its 'Campaign for Normal Birth' in an attempt to inspire and support normal birth practice in the midwifery profession and reduce unnecessary medicalisation.
Over the last two years the Maternity Care Working Party, chaired by the National Childbirth Trust, has been developing a consensus statement to encourage a positive focus on normal birth. Members of the working party include: AIMS, the Royal Colleges of Midwives and of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Nursing and Midwifery Council; Association of Radical Midwives, the Independent Midwives Association; BirthChoiceUK, Birth Crisis Network, BirthCentre Network UK and a smattering of obstetricians, GPs and consultant midwives.
The Maternity Care Working Party was established to raise awareness of the public health implications of the rising caesarean rates and to campaign for improvements in maternity care and, after considerable debate, it produced a consensus statement about the need to recognise, facilitate, and audit normal birth.
One of the problems in determining just how many women really have a normal birth is the fact that normal birth can be perceived in a number of ways - ranging from no intervention at all, to any birth that did not involve, caesarean, forceps or ventouse (which means that those 'normal births' will include women who have had ARM, induction, acceleration, epidurals and episiotomies)and it is not always clear which definition hospitals are using when quoting their 'normal' birth rates.
In 2001 and 2002, the voluntary organisation BirthChoiceUK was able to obtain enough information from the Department of Health (DoH) to produce 'normal birth rates' for the majority of maternity units in England. From 2003 the DoH agreed to publish these normal birth rates in its annual Bulletin, which is now produced by the NHS Information Centre. It uses a working definition for normal labour and birth which they call 'normal delivery'. It is based on a specific set of routinely collected statistics. The definition is: 'without induction, without the use of instruments, not by caesarean section and without general, spinal or epidural anaesthetic [or episiotomy] before or during delivery.' While this definition is still not ideal it is a great step forward and will enable a better assessment of just how many normal births actually occur. It does not, of course, exclude from the definition acceleration, by drugs or ARM, and we intend, in time, to ensure that those interventions are excluded too.
In order to facilitate normal birth the Consensus Statement developed the following practical recommendations for action.
Normal birth rates for your local maternity units calculated using the Information Centre working definition can be found at www.birthchoiceuk.com and copies of the Consensus statement can be found at www.appg-maternity.org.uk
AIMS Journal, 2017, Vol 29 No 3 A huge welcome to readers old and new! The AIMS Journal, the backbone of our work for nearly 60 years, is now entirely available online, t…Read more
AIMS Journal, 2017, Vol 29 No 3 Jo Dagustun reports on the INFANT trial study day in October 2017 This national (central Birmingham based) free-to-attend study day on the…Read more
AIMS Journal, 2017, Vol 29 No 3 Ann Roberts shares her story of how AIMS helped her back in 1983 I first contacted AIMS 34 years ago (1983), when I was pregnant with my s…Read more
To register your interest please email firstname.lastname@example.org or keep an eye on our website https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/bookings . Earlybird bookings will open…Read more
17–21 October 2018 Further DetailsRead more
AIMS AGM 2018 All members welcome! Please email email@example.com if you plan to attend to help us to judge numbers, or if you wish to send apologies 10 for 10.30 sta…Read more
Dr. Ágnes Geréb is a Hungarian obstetrician and midwife who has been under house arrest following her support for women outside of the obstetric system. March 2018: ENCA…Read more
AIMS submitted our response to this consultation on the 23 January 2018. A number of regulators, including the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Professional Standards A…Read more
Beverley Lawrence Beech At an AIMS AGM it is customary for the Chair to give an account of the activities of the Committee during the year. I am not going to do that this…Read more