Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Getting into the water: a prospective observational study of water immersion for labour and birth at a New Zealand District Health Board

verfasst von: Robyn M. Maude, Mikyung Kim

Erschienen in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Ausgabe 1/2020

Hinweise

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12884-020-03007-6.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
ARM
Artificial rupture of the membranes
BP
Blood pressure
C/S
Caesarean section
CTG
Cardiotocograph
DHB
District Health Board
HDEC
Health and Disability Ethics Committee
IOL
Induction of labour
IT
Information technology
LMC
Lead Maternity Carer
MLU
Midwifery led unit
MMPO
Midwifery and Maternity Provider Organisation
NICU
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
OP
Occipito-anterior position
OP
Occipito-posterior position
PIMS
Patient information system
PPH
Postpartum haemorrhage
SD
Standard deviation
SFD
Small for dates
SROM
Spontaneous rupture of membranes
SVB
Spontaneous vaginal birth
TENS
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator

Background

Water immersion during labour and birth offers birthing women a means of non-pharmacological pain relief and a reduction in unnecessary and often routine intrapartum interventions [1]. Women who labour and birth in water are more likely to birth spontaneously and physiologically and experience fewer intrapartum interventions [24]. For the neonates of women who use water immersion during labour and birth, there are no additional risks compared to neonates born to women who do not use water immersion during labour and birth [5, 6].
In New Zealand, the use of water immersion during labour and birth is predominantly at home or in primary maternity facilities (midwife-led birthing units) for low-risk women. Some secondary maternity units (for both uncomplicated and complicated pregnancies and births supported by multidisciplinary teams and access to operating theatres), and tertiary maternity units (for women with high-risk, complicated pregnancies, specialist services and level 3 neonatal intensive care unit) provide access to birth pools or baths for ‘low risk’ women to utilise during labour and birth [4]. For women without access to a primary birthing facility, the secondary or tertiary maternity unit may be her only option to use water immersion for labour and birth.
The New Zealand maternity system is an integrated system of primary, secondary and tertiary care that is free for most women. A Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) of the woman’s choice is responsible for care throughout pregnancy, labour and birth, and postnatally to 6 weeks. The LMC can be a midwife, a general practitioner (family physician) with a diploma in obstetrics or a private obstetrician (who can charge a fee for service). The majority (93.6%) of pregnant women in New Zealand choose a case-loading community-based LMC midwife who provides continuity-of-care in the woman’s home, a midwife-led unit, or a secondary or tertiary hospital [7]. If the maternity care becomes complicated, the case-loading community-based LMC midwife will refer the woman to the obstetric specialist team at a secondary or tertiary hospital. The obstetric specialist team will work with the hospital-employed midwives (also known as core midwives) (50.7% of the midwifery workforce) [8], either to support the case-loading community-based LMC midwife to continue to provide care or to provide the woman’s care following transfer of care.
There is a dearth of data available from secondary and tertiary maternity units where water immersion for labour and birth are offered, particularly in New Zealand. The lack of data is likely to be due to a lack of capacity of the information technology (IT) systems to record water immersion and water births. No complete national data is reporting on water immersion and water births across all maternity settings [7]. The only formal reporting of the use of water immersion for labour and birth comes from the Midwifery and Maternity Provider Organisation Ltd. (MMPO) from their midwife members [8]. In 2016, the most recently available published data, the percentage of water births was 10.8%, although 26.8% of women in the report sample used water immersion during labour. Women who gave birth at a primary facility had a higher proportion of water births (34.8%) than those birthing at secondary or tertiary facilities (7 and 2.9% respectively) [8]. There is a need to highlight the practice of and outcomes of water immersion and water birth in the New Zealand context. The research question guiding this study was: What are the characteristics and outcomes for women and their babies who used water immersion for labour and birth in maternity facilities in one New Zealand District Health Board?

Methods

This study aimed to describe the maternal characteristics, intrapartum events, interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes of women who used water immersion during labour and birth at one New Zealand District Health Board (DHB). This paper presents the results from a prospective observational study of women who used water immersion for labour and birth across the three maternity facilities in the DHB from February 2009 to March 2014.

Setting

The DHB maternity services include a tertiary-level maternity unit in a New Zealand city (average 3800 births per year) plus two midwife-led units (MLUs) (one at 30 mins and the other at 60 min away from the tertiary referral unit). At the tertiary maternity unit, there are 12 birth rooms each with the same design features, including a birth pool or bath, included in the new hospital design commissioned in 2009. The room size and layout differ slightly. Five rooms have a purpose-built birth pool while the remaining seven rooms have baths permanently installed in the corner of the room. The birth pools are round, 1200 mm in diameter and 650 mm deep. There is access around 66% of the pool, a shower, two handrails and steps into the pool. The baths are five-sided and are bound on two sides by a wall. The sides alongside the wall measure 1480 mm, the two short slides measure 670 mm and the front access side measures 1080 mm. The depth of the bathtub is 510 mm. There is a hand-held mixer shower hose set plumbed in over the bath, four handrails, a sieve and thermometer and easy access to piped oxygen, suction and Entonox. At MLU 1 there is one bath measuring 1000 mm wide × 1840 mm long and 630 mm deep. The bath is in a separate room attached to two birth rooms. There is access around three sides of the bath, inner armrests and a headrest. All pools use a disposable liner. For comfort, a soft mat under the liner, and a floor mat are available for comfort for kneeling/laying on the floor around the bath. Equipment in the bathroom includes: a sieve, thermometer, a large mirror and an electric oil burner, portable oxygen, suction and Entonox are available. At MLU 2 there is one bathroom with a purpose-built birth pool permanently installed towards the corner of the room adjacent to the only birth room. The birth pool is rectangular, measuring 1020 mm wide, 1350 mm long and 740 mm deep. There is a built-in seat which can also be used as a step to get in and out, with access around three sides of the pool.

Participants

Women who used the birth pool or bath during labour and birth across all three DHB maternity facilities, initiated at the time the new tertiary unit opened in February 2009 through to March 2014. Criteria for the use of water immersion for labour and birth usage, as outlined in the DHB guideline, as at least 37 weeks gestation, no adverse fetal or maternal factors in the pregnancy, an informed choice, established labour (judicious use for women with long latent labour is useful to promote relaxation) when there has been a diagnosis of labour dystocia (before using oxytocin). Ruptured membranes are not a contraindication for the use of the birth pool or bath.

Data collection

A paper-based data collection tool, included in the medical record of all women booked to birth at each of the three facilities, was adapted from the DHB water immersion guideline and the literature on water immersion. The form captured details of place of birth, type of caregiver and type of water facility as well as maternal characteristics (such as parity and gestation); and intrapartum events and interventions (such as labour onset, membrane rupture, vaginal examinations, pain relief). Maternal outcomes (such as length of labour, mode of birth, estimated blood loss, third stage technique, perineal or vaginal wall tear, labial tear, episiotomy, suturing) and neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores and NICU admission) were included (see supplementary file 1).
Lead Maternity Care (LMC) midwives or core (hospital employed) midwives were asked to complete the form for each woman who used water immersion during labour or birth. Midwives could also enter the presence of any risk factors from the current or previous pregnancies. Data were manually entered in Excel spreadsheet by the primary investigator and research assistant and transferred to SPSS Version 23 for analysis. Where data was unclear or missing, a review of other DHB data sources such as the DHB Patient Information Management System (PIMS) and clinical records of women and neonates (if admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) post-birth) occurred. The denominator of some variables differs given missing data.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of women who used water immersion during labour and birth and to describe the women and infants’ birthing outcomes. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables, mean and standard deviation for continuous variables.

Ethics approval

The New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Approval number 15/CEN/55) provided research ethics approval.

Results

There were 1517 data collection forms completed for women who used a birth-pool or bath during labour and birth between February 2009 and March 2014: 1188 from the tertiary maternity unit and 329 from two midwifery-led units (164 from MLU 1 and 165 from MLU 2). There were approximately 19,628 births at the DHB facilities during the study period, indicating approximately 7.7% of women used water immersion for labour and birth. As the data collection was reliant on midwives manually completing the data collection form, we cannot be sure this number (1517) fully represented all women who used water for labour and birth during the data collection period.
Of the women for whom a data form was completed (1517) there were 584 (38.5%) who had a water birth, 1275 (84%) had a spontaneous vaginal birth, 242 (16%) had assisted births or caesarean sections. Midwives attending women during labour and birth were community-based LMCs (92.7%), core midwife/team (5.0%) and medical LMC/core midwife (2.3%).
There were 284 (18.7%) data sheets that recorded risk factors for women who used water immersion for labour and birth during the data collection period. Examples of the risk factors recorded are in Fig. 1. The risk factors reported as ‘others’ (10.2%) included oxytocin infusion, hydramnios, deflexed occipito-posterior position (OP), small for dates baby (SFD), maternal mental health, and haemophilia.
A little over half of the women in this study were nulliparous (n = 830, 54.7%). Most women had a gestational age at labour onset of more than 38 weeks up to 42 weeks gestation (94.3%). There were four women with a gestation of fewer than 36 weeks (0.3%) and ten women whose gestation was more than 42 weeks (0.7%) included in the analysis. Most (93.8%) women’s labour began spontaneously. The woman whose gestational age was less than 36 weeks and the three women whose gestational age were more than 42 weeks gestation had a water birth without any maternal and neonatal complications.
Nearly 56% of women used a birth pool and 44.3% used a bath. The mean cervical dilatation on entry to water was 5.6 cm (SD 2.1), and the mean number of contractions on entry to water in 10 min was 3.4 (SD 0.7). Water temperature on entry to a birth pool or bath ranged from 23 °C to 44 °C (mean 37.4 °C, SD1.3), and the exit temperature was between 24 °C and 42 °C (mean 36.7 °C, SD 1.32).
Of the total 1517 women who used a birth pool or bath during labour, 677 women (44.6%) left the birth pool or bath before birth. Just over 40% of women left the water at their request as they felt fatigued/unwell/hot/cold. Others left due to a need for pharmacological pain relief (10.9%), assessment (9.5%), second stage (8.1%), slow progress (7.4%), fetal distress for cardiotocography (CTG, 6.1%), change of position (6.1%), and to use the toilet (3.2%) (Fig. 2).

Effects of water immersion for labour and birth on intrapartum events, interventions and maternal and neonatal outcomes

From the 1517 women who used water immersion for labour and birth there were 584 (38.5%) water births. More than half (53.7%) of the water births occurred in multiparous women whereas only a quarter (25.9%) of nulliparous had a water birth. Overall, the rate of spontaneous vaginal birth was 84% with 9.4% assisted deliveries and 6.5% caesarean sections. The proportion of assisted birth/CS was significantly higher in nulliparous (25.7%) than in multiparous (4.2%) (p = < 0.001) (Table 1).
Table 1
Characteristics and outcomes for omen and babies who used water immersion for labour and birth
Characteristics and outcomes
 
Frequency
Percent
Caregiver in labour
 Self -employed Midwife
1406
92.7
 Core Midwife
76
5.0
 Dr. LMC/Core Midwife
35
2.3
 Total
1517
100.0
Parity
 Nulliparous
830
54.7
 Multiparous
687
45.3
 Total
1517
100.0
Place of Birth
 Tertiary Unit
1188
78.3
 Midwife-led Unit 1
164
10.8
 Midwife-led Unit 2
165
10.9
 Total
1517
100.0
Gestation at start of labour
 < 36 weeks
4
0.3
 36–376 weeks
72
4.7
 38–396 weeks
649
42.8
 40–416 weeks
782
51.5
 > 42 weeks
10
0.7
 Total
1517
100.0
Onset of Labour
 Spontaneous
1423
93.8
 Induced
93
6.1
 Missing
1
0.1
 Total
1517
100.0
Membrane Rupture
 Spontaneous
1128
74.4
 Artificial
380
25.0
 Intact
5
0.3
 Missing
4
0.3
 Total
1517
100.0
Cervical dilatation on entry to water (cm)
 0
2
0.1
 1
17
1.1
 2
47
3.1
 3
126
8.3
 4
215
14.2
 5
251
16.5
 6
167
11.0
 7
135
8.9
 8
130
8.6
 9
61
4.0
 10
69
4.5
 Missing
297
19.6
 Total
1517
100.0
 Mean = 5.6cms (SD 2.1)
No. of contractions on entry to water in 10mins
 1
3
0.2
 2
83
5.5
 3
678
44.7
 4
511
33.7
 5
44
2.9
 6
4
0.3
 Missing
194
12.8
 Total
1517
100.0
 Mean = 3.4 (SD 0.7)
Water Temperature on entry to Pool (°C)
 Below 35 degrees
18
1.2
 35–35.9
14
0.9
 36–36.9
222
14.6
 37–37.9
482
31.8
 38–38.9
346
22.8
 39–39.9
117
7.7
 Over 40 degrees
41
2.7
 Missing
277
18.3
 Total
1517
100.0
 Mean = 37.4 (SD 1.3)
Pain Relief before entry to water
 Yes
584
38.5
 No
933
61.5
 Total
1517
100.0
Pain Relief after leaving the pool
 Yes
555
36.6
 No
962
63.4
 Total
1517
100.0
Number of Vaginal Examinations
 None
1160
76.5
 1
280
18.5
 2
65
4.3
 3+
9
0.6
 Missing
3
0.2
 Total
1517
100.0
Length of 1st stage of labour (mins)
 Mean = 330 (SD 238)
Length of 2nd stage of labour (mins)
 Mean = 55 (SD 62)
Length of 3rd stage of labour (mins)
 Mean = 16 (SD 17)
Mode of Birth
 SVD OA
1250
82.4
 SVD OP
25
1.6
 Assisted delivery
143
9.4
 CS
99
6.5
 Total
1517
100.0
Birth underwater
 Yes
584
38.5
 No
933
61.5
 Total
1517
100.0
Position of mother at time of birth
 Sitting
25
1.6
 Kneeling
133
8.8
 Standing
39
2.6
 Hands and Knees
239
15.8
 Lateral
34
2.2
 Semi-reclined
632
41.7
 Lithotomy
182
12.0
 Squatting
83
5.5
 Lying flat
122
8.0
 Floating
2
0.1
 Others
2
0.1
 Missing
24
1.6
 Total
1517
100.0
Third stage management
 Active
917
60.4
 Physiological
594
39.2
 Both
6
0.4
 Total
1517
100.0
Estimated blood loss
 0–499
1322
87.1
 500–999
141
9.3
 1000–1499
26
1.7
 > 1500
13
0.9
 Missing
15
1.0
 Total
1517
100.0
Perineal and/or vaginal wall tear
 No
648
42.7
 Yes 1st degree
390
25.7
 Yes 2nd degree
415
27.4
 Yes 3rd degree
33
2.2
 Yes 4th degree
2
0.1
 Yes Graze
20
1.3
 Missing
9
0.6
 Total
1517
100.0
Episiotomy
  
 Yes
213
14.0
 No
1294
85.3
 Missing
10
0.7
 Total
1517
100.0
Suturing of Tear/Episiotomy
  
 Yes
720
47.5
 No
784
51.7
 Missing
13
0.9
 Total
1517
100.0
Apgar score at 1 min
 < 7
90
5.9
 ≥ 7
1421
93.7
 Missing
6
0.4
 Total
1517
100.0
Apgar score at 5 mins
 > 7
11
0.7
 ≥ 7
1499
98.8
 Missing
7
0.5
 Total
1517
100.0
Apgar score at 10 mins
 < 7
4
0.3
 ≥ 7
1038
68.4
 Missing
475
31.3
 Total
1517
100.0
Admission to NICU
 Yes
37
2.4
 No
1474
97.2
 Missing
6
0.4
 Total
1517
100.0
A quarter of the women had an artificial rupture of membranes (ARM). More than a third (n = 555, 36.6%) of women in this study used pain relief after leaving the pool or bath (Table 1). The pharmacological pain relief commonly used were Inhalation/Entonox, Epidural, and Opioid. Alternative and complementary therapies used were transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS), acupuncture, acupressure, homeopathy, massage, and heat-pack.
The mean duration of the first stage of labour was 330 mins (SD 238), the second stage of labour was 55 mins (SD 62) and the third stage of labour was 16 mins (SD 17) (Table 1).
Women generally preferred to adopt a semi-reclined (41.7%) or a hands and knees position (15.8%) for birth. Placental birth was actively managed in 917 (60.4%) women whilst 594 (39.2%) has a physiological third stage. Estimated blood loss below 500mls was recorded for 1322 (87.1%) women, with 13 (0.9% of women experiencing a post-partum haemorrhage of greater than 1500mls (seven following spontaneous vaginal birth and nine following operative birth).
Nearly 43% of women had an intact perineum following birth with first- and second-degree perineal tears being most common (25.7 and 27.4% respectively). Severe perineal trauma (3rd and 4th degree tears combined) occurred for 35 (2.3%) women most during spontaneous vaginal birth, including the two 4th degree tears.
Most neonates had an Apgar score greater than or equal to seven at both 1 min and 5 min post-birth (93.7 and 98.8% respectively). Only 37 (2.4% of neonates required admission to NICU following birth. The reasons for NICU admission were recorded as low Apgar scores following shoulder dystocia, non-breathing, grunting, flat baby, respiratory problems, and meconium aspiration. There were no neonatal deaths (Table 1).

Effect of birthplace at labour and birth on intrapartum events, interventions and maternal and neonatal outcomes

The tertiary maternity unit was the most common planned birthplace for the women in this study at 78%. More than half of nulliparous women (n = 704, 59%) chose the tertiary maternity unit for their birthplace over MLU 1 and MLU 2 (n = 67, 41% and n = 59, 36% respectively), whereas more multiparous women chose MLU 1 and MLU 2 (n = 97, 59% and n = 106, 64% respectively) over the tertiary maternity unit (n = 484, 41%). Midwifery-led units were more likely to adopt water birth than at the tertiary unit: approximately two-thirds of women who used water immersion during labour, both in MLU 1 and MLU 2, had a water birth (n = 106, 65% and n = 108, 65% respectively) however less than a third of women using water immersion at the tertiary maternity unit had a water birth (n = 370, 31%) (Table 2).
Table 2
Characteristics and outcomes for women and babies who used water immersion for labour and birth by place of birth
Characteristics and outcomes by place of birth
 
Tertiary maternity unit
Midwife-led unit 1
Midwife-led unit 2
Total
Caregiver in labour
 Self -employed Midwife
1077
164
165
1406
 Core Midwife
76
0
0
76
 Dr. LMC/Core Midwife
35
0
0
35
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Parity
 Nulliparous
704
67
59
830
 Multiparous
484
97
106
687
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Gestation at start of labour
 < 36 weeks
4
0
0
4
 36–376 weeks
48
10
14
72
 38–396 weeks
502
75
72
649
 40–416 weeks
624
79
79
782
 > 42 weeks
10
0
0
10
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Onset of Labour
 Spontaneous
1095
163
165
1423
 Induced
92
1
0
93
 Total
1187
164
165
1516
Membrane Rupture
 Spontaneous
844
130
154
1128
 Artificial
337
32
11
380
 Intact
4
1
0
5
 Total
1185
163
165
1513
Pain Relief before entry to water
 Yes
493
54
37
584
 No
695
110
128
933
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Pain Relief after leaving the pool
 Yes
503
26
26
555
 No
685
138
139
962
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Length of 1st stage of labour (mins)
 Mean (SD)
352 (249)
266 (202)
234 (138)
 
Length of 2nd stage of labour (mins)
 Mean (SD)
62 (66)
22.4 (24)
27 (30)
 
Length of 3rd stage of labour (mins)
 Mean (SD)
15 (16)
22 (24)
19 (14)
 
Mode of Birth
 SVD OA
927
164
159
1250
 SVD OP
19
0
6
25
 Assisted delivery
143
0
0
143
 CS
99
0
0
99
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Birth underwater
 Yes
370
106
108
584
 No
818
58
57
933
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Position of mother at time of birth
 Sitting
15
3
7
25
 Kneeling
81
17
35
133
 Standing
28
5
6
39
 Hands and Knees
162
49
28
239
 Lateral
21
0
13
34
 Semi-reclined
517
73
42
632
 Lithotomy
178
4
0
182
 Squatting
44
10
29
83
 Lying flat
117
1
4
122
 Floating
1
0
1
2
 Others
2
0
0
2
 Total
1166
162
165
1493
Third stage management
 Active
775
60
82
917
 Physiological
409
103
82
594
 Both
4
1
1
6
 Total
1188
164
165
1517
Estimated blood loss
 0–499
1011
157
154
1322
 500–999
131
3
7
141
 1000–1499
24
1
1
26
 > 1500
11
1
1
13
 Total
1177
162
163
1502
Perineal and/or vaginal wall tear
 No
492
74
82
648
 Yes 1st degree
281
55
54
390
 Yes 2nd degree
358
32
25
415
 Yes 3rd degree
31
1
1
33
 Yes 4th degree
2
0
0
2
 Yes Graze
16
2
2
20
 Total
1180
164
164
1508
Episiotomy
 Yes
206
5
2
213
 No
978
157
159
1294
 Total
1184
162
161
1507
Suturing of Tear/Episiotomy
 Yes
613
56
51
720
 No
565
107
112
784
 Total
1178
163
163
1504
Apgar score at 1 min
 < 7
79
8
3
90
 ≥ 7
1104
155
162
1421
 Total
1183
163
165
1511
Apgar score at 5 mins
 > 7
10
1
0
11
 ≥ 7
1172
162
165
1499
 Total
1182
163
165
1510
Apgar score at 10 mins
 < 7
0
0
0
0
 ≥  7
859
116
67
1042
 Total
859
116
67
1042
Admission to NICU
 Yes
36
0
1
37
 No
1148
163
163
1474
 Total
1184
163
164
1511
As expected, all births in the midwife-led units were Spontaneous Vaginal Births (SVB). The gestational age at start of labour was similar across all settings. The use of pain relief during labour differed by place of birth: before entry to the pool/bath 493 (41%) of women in a tertiary maternity unit used pharmacological pain relief, whereas women in the midwife-led units used less (33 and 22% respectively) (Table 2).
In keeping with the strong association between water birth and physiological third stage of labour, 63% (n = 103) of women had a physiological third stage of labour at MLU 1 and 50% (n = 82) at MLU 2. In the tertiary maternity unit 65% (n = 775) of women had an actively managed third stage of labour even.
A second-degree perineal tear was most common across all birth places with 30% at the tertiary unit, and 20 and 15% at the two midwife-led units respectively. Episiotomy was rarely used at the midwife-led units. Women in the tertiary maternity unit, where the water birth rate was much lower than MLU 1 and MLU 2, showed higher numbers of episiotomy and suturing than women in the MLUs (Table 2).
The Apgar scores at 1, 5 and 10 min across all the birth places were most usually ≥ seven. Most neonates born to women who used water immersion for labour and birth did not require admission to NICU (98%).

Discussion

This study described the maternal characteristics, intrapartum events, interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes of women who used water immersion during labour and birth at one New Zealand DHB during the period 2009–2014. The data revealed 84% of women who used water immersion for labour and birth across all three birth settings in this DHB had a spontaneous vaginal birth (Nulliparous 74.3%, Multiparous 95.7%). This finding is important when compared with the DHB statistics reported in their 2009 annual clinical report that showed 41.3% (1643/3975) of all women who went to term, had a spontaneous labour then had a spontaneous vaginal birth (9). Of note, in this same report, only 34.5% (630/1826) of all primiparous women who went to term, had a spontaneous labour went on to have a spontaneous vaginal birth. The New Zealand national average for spontaneous vaginal birth was reported to be 65.2% in 2014 [9].
The New Zealand Clinical Indicators report outcomes for the ‘standard primipara’ across all DHBs and facilities [10]. They define the standard primipara as: women aged 20–34 years old at the time of giving birth who are giving birth for the first time (parity = 0) at term (37–41 weeks’ gestation) where the outcome of the birth is a singleton baby, the presentation is cephalic and there have been no recorded obstetric complications that are indications for specific obstetric interventions (p. 8). This definition is used in data analysis to identify a group of women who are ‘low risk’, and for whom interventions and outcomes should be similar across all birthing facilities and regions. The New Zealand Clinical Indicators report a decrease in the proportion of standard primiparae who had a spontaneous vaginal birth, and continued variation between regions during the period 2009–2014, the same period as the data collected in this study.
The rate of water immersion for labour and birth was very small overall. Despite the availability of a bath or birth pool in every birthing room at the tertiary unit, approximately 7.7% of women used this during labour and birth. The finding that more women have a water birth in the MLUs than at the tertiary unit is likely to be influenced by the philosophy of LMC led community-based care. A midwifery-led continuity of care model in New Zealand means midwives can support women to birth at home, primary birthing units or in the hospital [11]. Most women birthing at the tertiary maternity unit in this study also had a community-based LMC (many of whom also practice at the MLUs) or core midwife providing their intrapartum care. Despite this, the rates of water immersion for labour and birth in the tertiary maternity unit are less than half the rates in the MLU. An explanation for the lower rate of water immersion for labour and birth in the tertiary maternity unit warrants review of the environment and culture of the tertiary maternity unit, which is geared more towards the needs of the institution and influenced by a biomedical model of care, impacts on decision-making for women and midwives around timeframes, interventions and pain relief options, particularly the availability of epidural analgesia [1]. It is critical that these differences are discussed with women antenatally [1]. Support for healthy physiological birthing within the tertiary maternity should be a focus of education for both midwives and doctors [1] including the practice of supporting women to use water immersion for labour and birth.
The 2009 systematic review (Cluett and Burns, 2009) concluded that labouring in water reduces the need for pharmacological pain relief [11]. This study also found a reduction in the use of pain relief in the form of inhalation/Entonox, epidural, and opioid in the group of women who used water immersion for labour and birth. It is interesting to explore whether water immersion in and of itself influences a reduction in pain and the need for pain relief. An earlier qualitative study indicated that it was not necessary to give birth in the water to achieve the benefits of water immersion such as relaxation, increased ability to cope with pain, reduced fear and the to maintain control over the birth process [12].
In the literature, outcomes related to perineal trauma are mixed. Nutter and colleagues (2014) report that there is a decreased likelihood of severe perineal trauma (3rd and 4th-degree tears) associated with water birth [13]. In this study, there were only 35 (2%) third, and fourth-degree tears which compares favourably with the number of third and fourth-degree tears reported at the DHB during 2015 (4.2%) [14]. The rate of intact perineum was 43% which is significantly higher than the 17.9% rate reported for this DHB in 2015 [9].
Blood loss estimation is mainly subjective in most instances. The mean estimated blood loss over 1000mls low is low for all birth settings. While there were no other additional measures used in this study to determine the impact of blood loss such as haemoglobin estimation [15, 16], this finding is consistent with findings of Nutter and colleagues, 2014 [13].
As would be expected for this group of low-risk women, neonatal complications were few, with only 37 (2%) of babies admitted to the NICU. The low rate of neonatal admission is in keeping with the findings of the 2016 systematic review of neonatal outcomes following water birth [17].

Limitations

The results presented are from a sample of women who gave birth in one DHB in New Zealand, and as such, the findings are only indicative of the practice in these settings. The results might not represent all women who used water immersion for labour and birth at the DHB during the time frame of this study. Anecdotally, during the study period, we were aware that not all midwives completed documentation all the time, but were unable to establish the extent of this, nor to enforce it. No data for maternal age or ethnicity were collected. A further limitation is the lack of a control group of low-risk women who met the eligibility criteria but did not use the bath or birth pool during labour. To reduce the proportion of missing data, a review of the PIMS and the clinical records occurred.

Implications for practice

The differences in outcomes by place of birth should prompt a discussion around what else is happening to impact the decisions of women and midwives. Focused education on water immersion for labour and birth for all midwives and doctors is warranted as well as antenatal education that provides evidence for the impact of place of birth and caregiver on outcomes for women and babies.

Implications for research

More research is required to explore factors impacting on women’s decision-making around the use of water immersion for labour and birth as well as women’s satisfaction. It would be beneficial to explore the factors influencing midwives to offer water immersion for labour and birth, and the barriers and facilitators to offering this service in the tertiary maternity environment.

Conclusion

Water immersion for labour and birth is a positive intervention that benefits well women with uncomplicated pregnancies. This study shows that water immersion for labour and birth in a midwife-led unit with a community-based lead maternity care midwife results in excellent outcomes for women and infants. Water immersion for labour and birth also provides an essential option for women who have a desire to have a spontaneous vaginal birth. The positive outcomes generated from water birthing indicate that this simple intervention may be a useful solution to address the high intervention rates in New Zealand’s birthing population in tertiary and community settings. Midwives in both tertiary and community-based midwives should, therefore, campaign for improved accessibility to water immersion and water birth for women birthing in all birthing setting.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12884-020-03007-6.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Kathy Nelson for writing support and guidance and Dr. Lisa Woods for statistical advice.
Research ethics approval from the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (HDEC) on 29th June 2015 – application number 15/CEN/55. No participant consent required for audit is not required; however, locality assessment and approval from the study site occurred. No identifying features including names, addresses, dates of birth or NHI numbers were attached to the data once it is entered on to SPSS.
Institutional consent for publication was granted by the District Health Board where the data was collected. No images or personal details of participants are used in the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they do not have any financial or non-financial competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Plint E, Davis D. Sink or swim: water immersion for labour and birth in a tertiary maternity unit in Australia. Int J Childbirth. 2016;6:206–22.CrossRef Plint E, Davis D. Sink or swim: water immersion for labour and birth in a tertiary maternity unit in Australia. Int J Childbirth. 2016;6:206–22.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Burns E, Boulton M, Cluett E, Cornelius V, Smith L. Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study. BIRTH. 2012;39:3.CrossRef Burns E, Boulton M, Cluett E, Cornelius V, Smith L. Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study. BIRTH. 2012;39:3.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Henderson J, Burns E, Regalia A, Casarico G, Boulton M, Smith L. Labouring women who used a birthing pool in obstetric units in Italy: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:17.CrossRef Henderson J, Burns E, Regalia A, Casarico G, Boulton M, Smith L. Labouring women who used a birthing pool in obstetric units in Italy: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:17.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Lukasse M, Rowe R, Townend J, Knight M, Hollowell J. Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low-risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the birthplace national prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:60.CrossRef Lukasse M, Rowe R, Townend J, Knight M, Hollowell J. Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low-risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the birthplace national prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:60.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Maude R, Caplice S. Using water for labour and birth. In: Pairman S, Pincombe J, Thorogood C, Tracy S, editors. Midwifery preparation for practice. 3rd ed. Sydney: Elsevier; 2015. Maude R, Caplice S. Using water for labour and birth. In: Pairman S, Pincombe J, Thorogood C, Tracy S, editors. Midwifery preparation for practice. 3rd ed. Sydney: Elsevier; 2015.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Daellenbach S, Gardner B, Dixon L, Guilliland K. Report on New Zealand MMPO midwives care activities and outcomes 2016. Christchurch: New Zealand College of Midwives; 2016. Daellenbach S, Gardner B, Dixon L, Guilliland K. Report on New Zealand MMPO midwives care activities and outcomes 2016. Christchurch: New Zealand College of Midwives; 2016.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ministry of Health. Report on maternity 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2017. Ministry of Health. Report on maternity 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2017.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ministry of Health. New Zealand maternity clinical indicators 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2016. Ministry of Health. New Zealand maternity clinical indicators 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2016.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Maude R, Foureur M. It’s beyond water – stories of women’s experience of using water for labour and birth. Women Birth. 2007;20(1):17–24.CrossRef Maude R, Foureur M. It’s beyond water – stories of women’s experience of using water for labour and birth. Women Birth. 2007;20(1):17–24.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Nutter E, Meyer S, Shaw-Battista J, Marowictz A. Waterbirth: an integrative analysis of peer-reviewed literature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;14(59):286–319.CrossRef Nutter E, Meyer S, Shaw-Battista J, Marowictz A. Waterbirth: an integrative analysis of peer-reviewed literature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;14(59):286–319.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Fisher K, Elder R, Maude R, Fuge C, Thomson M. The women’s health service annual clinical report 2009. (Name)DHB: city in NZ; 2010. Fisher K, Elder R, Maude R, Fuge C, Thomson M. The women’s health service annual clinical report 2009. (Name)DHB: city in NZ; 2010.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Geissbuehler V, Stein S, Eberhard J. Waterbirths compared with land births: an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med. 2004;32:308–14.PubMed Geissbuehler V, Stein S, Eberhard J. Waterbirths compared with land births: an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med. 2004;32:308–14.PubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Tschudin S, Zhong Y, Holzgreve W, Lapaire O, Hosli I. Maternal and neonatal infections and obstetrical outcomes in water birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;134(1):37–43.CrossRef Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Tschudin S, Zhong Y, Holzgreve W, Lapaire O, Hosli I. Maternal and neonatal infections and obstetrical outcomes in water birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;134(1):37–43.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Taylor H, Kleine I, Bewley S, Locaides E, Sutcliffe A. Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016;101:F357–65.CrossRef Taylor H, Kleine I, Bewley S, Locaides E, Sutcliffe A. Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016;101:F357–65.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Getting into the water: a prospective observational study of water immersion for labour and birth at a New Zealand District Health Board
verfasst von
Robyn M. Maude
Mikyung Kim
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03007-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

26.04.2024 Hirsutismus Nachrichten

Laser- und Lichtbehandlungen können bei Frauen mit polyzystischem Ovarialsyndrom (PCOS) den übermäßigen Haarwuchs verringern und das Wohlbefinden verbessern – bei alleiniger Anwendung oder in Kombination mit Medikamenten.

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Müssen sich Schwangere einer Krebstherapie unterziehen, rufen Immuncheckpointinhibitoren offenbar nicht mehr unerwünschte Wirkungen hervor als andere Mittel gegen Krebs.

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bislang gibt es kein Medikament zur Prävention von Wochenbettdepressionen. Das Injektionsanästhetikum Esketamin könnte womöglich diese Lücke füllen.

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

22.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Kongressbericht

Durch die Häufung nach der COVID-19-Pandemie sind Infektionen mit dem Respiratorischen Synzytial-Virus (RSV) in den Fokus gerückt. Fachgesellschaften empfehlen eine Impfung inzwischen nicht nur für Säuglinge und Kleinkinder.

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.