Transfer to hospital in planned home births: a systematic review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Helena E Lindgren⁴  Pål Øian¹  Hanne Kjærgaard⁵  Merethe Kumle²  Ellen Blix³ 

[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway;Department of Surgery, University Hospital of North Norway, Narvik, Norway;Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway;Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;The Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

关键词: Systematic review;    Emergency transfer;    Transfer to hospital;    Planned home birth;   

Others  :  1127278
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-179

 received in 2013-12-16, accepted in 2014-05-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is concern about the safety of homebirths, especially in women transferred to hospital during or after labour. The scope of transfer in planned home births has not been assessed in a systematic review. This review aimed to describe the proportions and indications for transfer from home to hospital during or after labour in planned home births.

Methods

The databases Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, Svemed+, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the MeSH term “home childbirth”. Inclusion criteria were as follows: the study population was women who chose planned home birth at the onset of labour; the studies were from Western countries; the birth attendant was an authorised midwife or medical doctor; the studies were published in 1985 or later, with data not older than from 1980; and data on transfer from home to hospital were described. Of the 3366 titles identified, 83 full text articles were screened, and 15 met the inclusion criteria. Two of the authors independently extracted the data. Because of the heterogeneity and lack of robustness across the studies, there were considerable risks for bias if performing meta-analyses. A descriptive presentation of the findings was chosen.

Results

Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion, containing data from 215,257 women. The total proportion of transfer from home to hospital varied from 9.9% to 31.9% across the studies. The most common indication for transfer was labour dystocia, occurring in 5.1% to 9.8% of all women planning for home births. Transfer for indication for foetal distress varied from 1.0% to 3.6%, postpartum haemorrhage from 0% to 0.2% and respiratory problems in the infant from 0.3% to 1.4%. The proportion of emergency transfers varied from 0% to 5.4%.

Conclusion

Future studies should report indications for transfer from home to hospital and provide clear definitions of emergency transfers.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Blix et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Birthplace in England Collaborative Group: Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011, 343:d7400.
• [2]Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK: Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ 2009, 181:377-383.
• [3]Lindgren HE, Rådestad IJ, Christensson K, Hildingsson IM: Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004: a population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008, 87:1-9.
• [4]Johnson KC, Daviss BA: Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ 2005, 330:1416.
• [5]NICE: Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.
• [6]Helsedirektoratet: Nasjonal retningslinje for hjemmefødsel. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2012.
• [7]Sundhedsstyrelsen: Anbefalinger for svangreomsorgen. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2009.
• [8]College voor Zorgverzekeringen: Commissie Verloskunde van het CVZ. Verloskundig Vademecum 2003. Diemen, The Netherlands: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2003.
• [9]Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: meta-analysis af observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000, 283:2008-2012.
• [10]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339:b2535.
• [11]Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten: Slik oppsummerer vi forskning. Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten; 2009.
• [12]Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327:557-560.
• [13]Gagnier JJ, Moher D, Boon H, Beyene J, Bombardier C: Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12:111. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Egger M, Smith GD, Altman GD: Systematic reviews in health care. London: BMJ Books; 2001.
• [15]McMurtrie J, Catling-Paull C, Teate A, Caplice S, Chapman M, Homer C: The St. George homebirth program: an evaluation of the first 100 booked women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 49:631-636.
• [16]Parratt J, Johnston J: Planned homebirths in Victoria, 1995–1998. Aust J Midwifery 2002, 15:16-25.
• [17]Howe KA: Home births in South-West Australia. Med J Aust 1988, 149:296-7. 300, 302
• [18]Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K: Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2009, 36:180-189.
• [19]Janssen PA, Lee SK, Ryan ER, Saxell L: An evaluation of process and protocols for planned home birth attended by regulated midwives in British Columbia. J Midwifery Womens Health 2003, 48:138-145.
• [20]Tyson H: Outcomes of 1001 midwife-attended home births in Toronto, 1983–1988. Birth 1991, 18:14-19.
• [21]Murphy PA, Fullerton J: Outcomes of intended home births in nurse-midwifery practice: a prospective descriptive study. Obstet Gynecol 1998, 92:461-470.
• [22]Anderson RE, Murphy PA: Outcomes of 11,788 planned home births attended by certified nurse-midwives: a retrospective descriptive study. J Nurse Midwifery 1995, 40:483-492.
• [23]Davies J, Hey E, Reid W, Young G: Prospective regional study of planned home births: home birth study steering group. BMJ 1996, 313:1302-1306.
• [24]Amelink-Verburg MP, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Hakkenberg RM, Veldhuijzen IM, Bennebroek GJ, Buitendijk SE: Evaluation of 280,000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study. BJOG 2008, 115:570-578.
• [25]Blix E, Huitfeldt AS, Oian P, Straume B, Kumle M: Outcomes of planned home births and planned hospital births in low-risk women in Norway between 1990 and 2007: a retrospective cohort study. Sex Reprod Healthc 2012, 3:147-153.
• [26]Lindgren HE, Hildingsson IM, Christensson K, Radestad IJ: Transfers in planned home births related to midwife availability and continuity: a nationwide population-based study. Birth 2008, 35:9-15.
• [27]Hansen JH, Christoffersen C: Hjemmefødsler i Københavns kommune 1980–1982: I. Obstetriske data. Ugeskr Laeger 1985, 147:2783-2785.
• [28]Lindgren HE, Rådestad IJ, Hildingsson IM: Transfer in planned home births in Sweden–effects on the experience of birth: a nationwide population-based study. Sex Reprod Healthc 2011, 2:101-105.
• [29]Symon A, Winter C, Inkster M, Donnan PT: Outcomes for births booked under an independent midwife and births in NHS maternity units: matched comparison study. BMJ 2009, 338:b2060.
• [30]Mori R, Dougherty M, Whittle M: An estimation of intrapartum-related perinatal mortality rates for booked home births in England and Wales between 1994 and 2003. BJOG 2008, 115:554-559.
• [31]Gyte G, Dodwell M, Newburn M, Sandall J, Macfarlane A, Bewley S: Estimating intrapartum-related perinatal mortality rates for booked home births: when the ‘best’ available data are not good enough. BJOG 2009, 116:933-942.
• [32]Evers AC, Brouwers HA, Hukkelhoven CW, Nikkels PG, Boon J, Egmond-Linden A, Hillegersberg J, Snuif YS, Sterken-Hooisma S, Bruinse HW, Kwee A: Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2010, 341:c5639.
• [33]Vandenbroucke JP: Dutch perinatal mortality: study did a good job. BMJ 2010, 341:c7042.
• [34]Meijer E: Study did a good job, however. BMJ 2011. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/study-did-good-job-however webcite
• [35]de Jonge A, Mesman JA, Mannien J, Zwart JJ, van DJ, van RJ: Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2013, 346:f3263.