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, 2019, Vol 31, No 4 Reviewed for AIMS by Jo Dagustun Mothership By Francesca Segal Chatto and Windus, 2019 288 pages £14.99 ISBN 978-1-78474-269-0 Find this…Read more
AIMS Journal, 2019, Vol 31, No 4 Reviewed for AIMS by Emma Mason Eleven Hours By Pamela Erens Published by Tin House Books 2016 ISBN 978-1941040294 176 pages Publisher's…Read more
AIMS Journal, 2019, Vol 31, No 4 Reviewed for AIMS by Clara Hubbard, age 12 The Breast Book: A puberty guide with a difference - it's the when, why and how of breasts By…Read more
Registration for the NICE Annual Conference 2020 will open on 22 January 2020. For more details and to register your interest, please visit http://www.niceconference.org.…Read more
The theme of IMUK's 2020 National Conference 2020 is The Science Behind The Art of Midwifery. Speakers to be announced and tickets will be released soon. Information is a…Read more
21-25 October 2020 The theme for this year's Midwifery Today conference is Birthing in Love: Everyone’s Right. Classes will include: Clinical sessions such as Hemorrhage,…Read more
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) recently launched a public consultation on two draft documents they have produced. Both documents were in the…Read more
AIMS has responded to the Hull Daily Mail's article entitled, " https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/health/baby-born-bus-stop-shoelace-3571474 ". 26 November 2019 Dear E…Read more
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) plays a key role in the ongoing quality assurance and regulation of the maternity services and its staff. Effective and efficient…Read more