A Comparison of Midwife-Led and Medical-Led Models of Care and Their Relationship to Adverse Fetal and Neonatal Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study in New Zealand.

• Main Authors: Ellie Wernham, Jason Gurney, James Stanley, Lis Ellison-Loschmann, Diana Sarfati
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-09-01
• Series: PLoS Medicine
• Online Access: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5038958?pdf=render

Internationally, a typical model of maternity care is a medically led system with varying levels of midwifery input. New Zealand has a midwife-led model of care, and there are movements in other countries to adopt such a system. There is a paucity of systemic evaluation that formally investigates safety-related outcomes in relationship to midwife-led care within an entire maternity service. The main objective of this study was to compare major adverse perinatal outcomes between midwife-led and medical-led maternity care in New Zealand.This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. Participants were mother/baby pairs for all 244,047 singleton, term deliveries occurring between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2012 in New Zealand in which no major fetal, neonatal, chromosomal or metabolic abnormality was identified and the mother was first registered with a midwife, obstetrician, or general practitioner as lead maternity carer. Main outcome measures were low Apgar score at five min, intrauterine hypoxia, birth-related asphyxia, neonatal encephalopathy, small for gestational age (as a negative control), and mortality outcomes (perinatal related mortality, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality). Logistic regression models were fitted, with crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) generated for each outcome for midwife-led versus medical-led care (based on lead maternity carer at first registration) with 95% confidence intervals. Fully adjusted models included age, ethnicity, deprivation, trimester of registration, parity, smoking, body mass index (BMI), and pre-existing diabetes and/or hypertension in the model. Of the 244,047 pregnancies included in the study, 223,385 (91.5%) were first registered with a midwife lead maternity carer, and 20,662 (8.5%) with a medical lead maternity carer. Adjusted ORs showed that medical-led births were associated with lower odds of an Apgar score of less than seven at 5 min (OR 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.64), intrauterine hypoxia (OR 0.79; 0.62-1.02), birth-related asphyxia (OR 0.45; 0.32-0.62), and neonatal encephalopathy (OR 0.61; 0.38-0.97). No association was found between lead carer at first registration and being small for gestational age (SGA), which was included as a negative control (OR 1.00; 0.95-1.05). It was not possible to definitively determine whether one model of care was associated with fewer infant deaths, with ORs for the medical-led model compared with the midwife-led model being 0.80 (0.54-1.19) for perinatal related mortality, 0.86 (0.55-1.34) for stillbirth, and 0.62 (0.25-1.53) for neonatal mortality. Major limitations were related to the use of routine data in which some variables lacked detail; for example, we were unable to differentiate the midwife-led group into those who had received medical input during pregnancy and those who had not.There is an unexplained excess of adverse events in midwife-led deliveries in New Zealand where midwives practice autonomously. The findings are of concern and demonstrate a need for further research that specifically investigates the reasons for the apparent excess of adverse outcomes in mothers with midwife-led care. These findings should be interpreted in the context of New Zealand's internationally comparable birth outcomes and in the context of research that supports the many benefits of midwife-led care, such as greater patient satisfaction and lower intervention rates.