Birth Statistics

We have collected together some Statistics about Birth. Please select the links below.

GENERAL HOSPITAL STATS

PERSONAL STATS

HOME OR HOSPITAL BIRTH

CONTINUITY OF CARE BY A KNOWN MIDWIFE

Williams et al (1998) birth interventions survey of low risk 1st time mums.

• 74% electronic fetal monitoring
• 72% more vaginal examinations than expected
• 53% artificial rupture of membranes (ARM)
• 46% episiotomy
• 38% augmentation
• 28% epidural

(Differs greatly between hospitals - see www.BirthChoiceUK.co.uk for statistics on your local hospitals.)

Downe et all (2001) survey of normal births using Association for Improvements to Maternity Services (AIMS) definition: excluding induction of labour, augmentation, artificial rupture of membranes (ARM), epidural, episiotomy.

• 17% of 1st time mums had a normal labour & birth
• 30% of 2nd or subsequent time mums had a normal labour & birth
• 49% of 1st time mums had either a caesarean or instrumental birth.

Back to top

1999 - 2004, statistics from hospital, midwifery led unit, community & independent practice.

• 86.8% spontaneous births
• 16.9% augmentation (ARM &/or syntocinon)
• 8.1% assisted births (Ventuouse or Forceps)
• 5.2% caesarean sections
• 1.3% episiotomy

(These stats are based on 385 women, as all applicable data was available. For hospital & midwifery led unit, care was given from admittance through labour & birth. Community & independent care was given throughout the antenatal, labour, birth & postnatal period.)

We believe very strongly that through preparation & support , & not using routine interventions such as electronic fetal monitoring, induction of labour, time limits for labour & birth, artificial rupture of membranes, repeated vaginal examinations & episiotomies - to name a few, that women & their babies have a much higher chance of achieving a safe & happy outcome.

In a small number of cases obstetric intervention may be indicated & we help women & their families to make the choices that are right for them.

Back to top

Olsen (1997) showed home births had:

• less induction, augmentation
• less assisted vaginal births & caesarean sections
• less episiotomies & severe tears
• less low apgar scores, fetal distress, neonatal respiratory problems & birth trauma
• no difference in perinatal mortality
• women highly satisfied.

Chamberlain et al (1997) showed home births had less:

• caesarean sections
• assisted vaginal births
• post partum haemorrhage
• baby resuscitation
• low apgars
• birth injuries

Cochrane review (Olsen & Jewell, 2003) showed:

• no evidence in favour of hospital birth
• no evidence to discourage home birth

Back to top

Page et al (1999) showed from the One-to-One Scheme fewer:

• epidurals
• episiotomies
• augmentation
• greater maternal satisfaction

BUMPS study, Benjamin et al (2001)

• fewer epidurals & inductions
• more normal birth, home birth, birthing unit & intact perineums

BUMPS study, Walsh (1999)

• having a known midwife was very important

Cochrane review, (Hodnett, 2003) showed the continuous presence of a known trained support person reduced:

• pharmacological pain relief
• episiotomy
• assisted vaginal birth
• caesarean section
• low apgar scores
• length of labour
• increased more positive birth experience

Not shown in hospitals with high rates of routine interventions.

Recent studies conducted by Walderstrom et al, (2000) & Biro et al, (2000) agreed with above findings.

Walderstrom & Turnbull, (1998) showed continuity schemes had less:

• pharmacological analgesia
• neonatal resuscitation
• no difference in perinatal mortality rates
• greater satisfaction with care

Green et al (2000) study demonstrated the link between continuity & satisfaction.

Our independent care is based on a deep understanding of the physiology of pregnancy & birth, in which we respect a woman’s ability to choose the birth that’s right for her.

The Independent Midwives Association (IMA) has been collecting information from consenting independent midwives’ clients for a number of years now, & has some great results. See www.independentmidwives.org.uk.

Back to top