Better Health: Smart Health Commentary Better Health (TM): smart health commentary

Article Comments (9)

Homebirth Risks: Babies Three Times More Likely To Die

By Amy Tuteur, MD

More than 10,000 American women each year choose planned homebirth with a homebirth midwife in the mistaken belief that it is a safe choice. In fact, homebirth with a homebirth midwife is the most dangerous form of planned birth in the US.

In 2003 the US standard birth certificate form was revised to include place of birth and attendant at birth. In both the 2003 and 2004 Linked Birth Infant Death Statistics, mention was made of this data, but it was not included in the reports. Now the CDC has made the entire dataset available for review and the statistics for homebirth are quite remarkable. Homebirth increases the risk of neonatal death to double or triple the neonatal death rate at hospital birth.

As this chart shows, the neonatal mortality rate for DEM (direct entry midwife, another name for homebirth midwife) assisted homebirth is almost double the neonatal mortality rate for hospital birth with an MD. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that the hospital group contains women of all risk levels, with all possible pregnancy complications, and all pre-existing medical conditions. An even better comparison would be with the neonatal mortality rates for CNM assisted hospital birth. The risk profile of CNM hospital patients is slightly higher than that of DEM patients, but CNMs do not care for high risk patients. Compared to CNM assisted hospital birth, DEM assisted homebirth has TRIPLE the neonatal mortality rate.

The chart shows the data for 2003-2004, but the data for 2005 has recently become available. Homebirth death continues to be far higher than death in the hospital for comparable risk women. In 2005 the neonatal death rates were CNM in hospital 0.51/1000, MD in hospital 0.63/1000 and DEM attended homebirth 1.4/1000.

No wonder the Midwives Alliance of North American (MANA), the trade union for homebirth midwives, is suppressing their safety statistics. From 2001-2008, they have collected the single largest repository of data on homebirth. The data is publicly available, but only to those who can prove they will use them for the “advancement” of midwifery, and even then, a legal non-disclosure agreement must be signed as part of the process. MANA’s data may very well confirm that homebirth with a DEM has triple the neonatal mortality rate of hospital birth for comparable risk women in the same year.

What is also notable is that the results are consistent with all existing scientific studies, including the Johnson and Daviss study (Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America). Johnson and Daviss actually showed that homebirth with a CPM has a neonatal mortality rate almost triple that of hospital birth for low risk women. The latest statistics are the most recent and most reliable confirmation of that fact.

There really is no question about it. Homebirth with a homebirth midwife dramatically increases the risk of neonatal death.

*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*


You may also like these posts

Read comments »


9 Responses to “Homebirth Risks: Babies Three Times More Likely To Die”

  1. Hello says:

    Why has Dr. Amy not published these findings?

  2. persie says:

    This is American data. Canadian women who work within the medical system with highly trained Registered Midwives and have a choice of home birth if they are low-risk. This very recent study http://www.cfpc.ca/local/user/files/%7BB51825B6-44FF-4F63-9413-2B8829E117D6%7D/Ontario%20Home%20Birth.pdf shows that home birth in Ontario is just as safe as a hospital birth. It studied almost 7000 women in each cohort. Perhaps the title of this article should be “American Midwives should be better trained and screen women wanting a home birth more rigorously”

  3. Rini says:

    Before you believe “Dr. Amy”, you might consider checking the data yourself. It paints a very different picture to me than it does to her. Grouping the data by Medical Attendant, I see 2.88 deaths per 1,000 for Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) and 3.69 deaths per 1,000 for Other Midwives. This is compared to the 7.17 deaths per 1,000 for MDs. Grouping by Birthplace and then Medical Attendant, we see that these figures are very close (2.70, 3.84, and 7.15 respectively) when we look only at “out of hospital” midwive-assisted births and only hospital births attended by an MD.

    That sounds to me like homebirths are twice as SAFE.

    Now granted, midwives select only the low-risk cases. This does place an unfair bias against hospital births. In order to meaningfully study the difference between hospital and home births, a randomized study would need to be conducted. Since most women want to choose their place of birth for themselves, this is not particularly feasible. So we work with the data we have.

    Note: I have seen this post (or a very similar one) before. In the comments of that previous post, Dr. Amy refuted numbers similar to those I have cited by claiming that those numbers look at the death rates within the first year of the child’s life. According to Dr. Amy, the “correct” numbers look at the death rates within the first 28 days of the child’s life. So – again, according to Dr. Amy – it doesn’t matter if your child lives to be a toddler; as long as they can survive on a ventilator in the hospital for at least a month, the medical system has not failed you.

    No, I don’t think so.

    I want to choose what gives my child the best chance of living a long and happy life. For me, these numbers support homebirth, with a midwife.

  4. Rini says:

    Oh yes, and as for the study cited by Dr. Amy near the end of the article, here is the conclusion pasted from the study abstract:

    “Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States. ”

    Similar mortality rates to hospital births, but with a lower rate of medical intervention. Sign me up!

    Oh, and Dr. Amy – if you would like to make a case comparing direct entry midwives to certified professional midwives, I am open to listening. However, I would expect such an article to avoid claiming that “homebirth” is dangerous as this article does. The studies cited here clearly show that homebirth is as safe as, if not more safe than, a hospital birth. Which brand of midwife you choose is an entirely different topic.

  5. Christina Miller says:

    I’m no Harvard school grad, and I may be from Mississippi, but the percentage math you are doing is certainly not anything I am familiar with. This is what I get:

    Births Deaths Mortality Rate
    CNM 375,387 140 .04%
    MD 4,240,989 2,606 .06%
    DEM 23,476 27 .12%

    To me the difference does not seem that significant, but the proper percentages definitely make a difference. A difference of .06 is a lot less than the aforementioned .54 of a difference.

    Just thought that I would make that know.

  6. Emily says:

    I am confused on where you found the information you are using in your article. I’ve searched through the links you have provided in the text and haven’t seen the information that support these claims. I couldn’t even find the chart you have. The statistics I found in these links look as though the infant mortality rate for home births is the same if not better than low-risk hospital births, and significantly better rates for medical intervention. Also, this chart only shows two types of midwife but there are others. The following are links that I got from your article that made me confused at the claims made in this article. Please help me to understand where you got this information. Thank you!

    http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D31
    This shows the CDC’s infant death records by medical attendent

    http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D31;jsessionid=CDF8A5664E3C356A8157D421FA11F1D6
    This shows the CDC’s infant death records by birth place. Notice how this only specifies hospital and non-hospital births. I believe one should take into consideration that the non-hospital births probably includes “other” in the first chart.

    Your last link showing the statistics of planned home births with a CPM seem pretty good to me.

  7. Jaci says:

    You’re joking right? You link to the Johnson and Daviss study stating that it makes that claim, yet all over that study is stated:

    “Our study of certified professional midwives suggests that they achieve good outcomes among low risk women without routine use of expensive hospital interventions. Our results are consistent with the weight of previous research on safety of home birth with midwives internationally. ”

    and

    “Planned home births with certified professional midwives in the United States had similar rates of intrapartum and neonatal mortality to those of low risk hospital births

    Medical intervention rates for planned home births were lower than for planned low risk hospital births”

  8. Jay says:

    I am doing research comparing the overall mortality rates of home births vs hospital births. I have no major leaning one way or the other on this topic, but it is clear from your post that you are reacting emotionally to this topic. Just because something is twice as likely to happen does not mean it’s likely to happen. This is a classic example of using statistics in a misleading fashion. The bottom line is that mortality rates per 1000 are similar for home births (slight over 1) and hospital births (slightly under 1). I wish accomplished medical professionals like yourself would strive to understand why women choose home births and try to help the established medical community improve in areas that drive women away from hospitals.

  9. Linda Perry says:

    I will start by admitting my bias from the beginning: I am a CPM (Certified Professional Midwife) as well as a CM ( Certified Midwife). I attend both home and hospital births. There are GLARING errors in Dr. Amy’s little “Fact Sheet”. For one, DEM does not translate to homebirth midwife. DEM is a designation for a midwife who has not met any particular educational training standards.

    Certified Professional Midwives are Certified by NARM, a national and legally defensible certification. They attend mainly homebirths or birth center births.

    Certified Nurse Midwives and Certified Midwives are Certified by the American College of Nurse Midwives. They attend hospital births, but also home and birth center as well. Surprise!

    This study that was done is an embarrassment to the medical world, as it is incredibly flawed. For one thing, miscarriages, and women who accidentally delivered in the taxi on the way to the hospital, were counted as a home birth. So much for scientific rigor. Other, well-conducted studies have shown quite the opposite. Low risk women have excellent outcomes when attended by well-trained midwives.

    A little food for thought: all those NICU units in the hospital are filled with babies that were born there. In 19 years of home birth practice, I have had zero home birth babies in the NICU unit.

Return to article »

Latest Interviews

How To Make Inpatient Medical Practice Fun Again: Try Locum Tenens Work

It s no secret that most physicians are unhappy with the way things are going in healthcare. Surveys report high levels of job dissatisfaction burn out and even suicide. In fact some believe that up to a third of the US physician work force is planning to leave the profession…

Read more »

Caring For Winter Olympians In Sochi: An Interview With Team USA’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Gloria Beim

I am a huge fan of the winter Olympics partly because I grew up in Canada where most kids can ski and skate before they can run and partly because I used to participate in Downhill ski racing. Now that I m a rehab physician with a reconstructed knee I…

Read more »

See all interviews »

Latest Cartoon

Richmond, VA – In an effort to simplify inpatient medical billing, one area hospitalist group has determined that “altered mental status” (ICD-9 780.97) is the most efficient code for use in any patient work up.

“When you enter a hospital, you’re bound to have some kind of mental status change,” said Dr. Fishbinder, co-partner of Area Hospitalists, PLLC. “Whether it’s confusion about where your room is located in relationship to the visitor’s parking structure, frustration with being woken up every hour or two to check your vital signs, or just plain old fatigue from being sick, you are not thinking as clearly as before you were admitted. And that’s all the justification we need to order anything from drug and toxin screens, to blood cultures, brain MRIs, tagged red blood cell nuclear scans, or cardiac Holter monitoring. There really is no limit to what we can pursue with our tests.”

Common causes of mental status changes in the elderly include medicine-induced cognitive side effects, disorientation due to disruption in daily routines, age-related memory impairment, and urinary tract infections.

“The urinalysis is not a very exciting medical test,” stated Dr. Fishbinder. “It doesn’t matter that it’s cheap, fast, and most likely to provide an explanation for strange behavior in hospitalized patients. It’s really not as elegant as the testing involved in a chronic anemia or metabolic encephalopathy work up. I keep it in my back pocket in case all other tests are negative, including brain MRIs and PET scans.”

Nursing staff at Richmond Medical Hospital report that efforts to inform hospitalists about foul smelling urine have generally fallen on deaf ears. “I have tried to tell the hospitalists about cloudy or bloody urine that I see in patients who are undergoing extensive work ups for mental status changes,” reports nurse Sandy Anderson. “But they insist that ‘all urine smells bad’ and it’s really more of a red herring.”

Another nurse reports that delay in diagnosing urinary tract infections (while patients are scheduled for brain MRIs, nuclear scans, and biopsies) can lead to worsening symptoms which accelerate and expand testing. “Some of my patients are transferred to the ICU during the altered mental status work up,” states nurse Anita Misra. “The doctors seem to be very excited about the additional technology available to them in the intensive care setting. Between the central line placement, arterial blood gasses, and vast array of IV fluid and medication options, urosepsis is really an excellent entré into a whole new level of care.”

“As far as medicine-induced mental status changes are concerned,” added Dr. Fishbinder, “We’ve never seen a single case in the past 10 years. Today’s patients are incredibly resilient and can tolerate mixes of opioids, anti-depressants, anti-histamines, and benzodiazepines without any difficulty. We know this because most patients have been prescribed these cocktails and have been taking them for years.”

Patient family members have expressed gratitude for Dr. Fishbinder’s diagnostic process, and report that they are very pleased that he is doing everything in his power to “get to the bottom” of why their loved one isn’t as sharp as they used to be.

“I thought my mom was acting strange ever since she started taking stronger pain medicine for her arthritis,” says Nelly Hurtong, the daughter of one of Dr. Fishbinder’s inpatients. “But now I see that there are deeper reasons for her ‘altered mental status’ thanks to the brain MRI that showed some mild generalized atrophy.”

Hospital administrators praise Dr. Fishbinder as one of their top physicians. “He will do whatever it takes to figure out the true cause of patients’ cognitive impairments.” Says CEO, Daniel Griffiths. “And not only is that good medicine, it is great for our Press Ganey scores and our bottom line.”

As for the nursing staff, Griffiths offered a less glowing review. “It’s unfortunate that our nurses seem preoccupied with urine testing and medication reconciliation. I think it might be time for us to mandate further training to help them appreciate more of the medical nuances inherent in quality patient care.”

Dr. Fishbinder is in the process of creating a half-day seminar on ‘altered mental status in the inpatient setting,’ offering CME credits to physicians who enroll. Richmond Medical Hospital intends to sponsor Dr. Fishbinder’s course, and franchise it to other hospitals in the state, and ultimately nationally.

***

Click here for a musical take on over-testing.

See all cartoons »

Latest Book Reviews

The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You

When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…

Read more »

Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book

I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…

Read more »

Unaccountable: A Book About The Underbelly Of Hospital Care

I met Dr. Marty Makary over lunch at Founding Farmers restaurant in DC about three years ago. We had an animated conversation about hospital safety the potential contribution of checklists to reducing medical errors and his upcoming book about the need for more transparency in the healthcare system. Marty was…

Read more »

See all book reviews »