Cargando…
The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low‐risk pregnancy attending the “Cocoon,” an alongside midwifery‐led birth center and care pathway, with women with a low‐risk pregnancy attending the traditional care pathway in a tertiary care hospital in Belgium. M...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7065252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31746028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12466 |
_version_ | 1783505031219118080 |
---|---|
author | Welffens, Karine Derisbourg, Sara Costa, Elena Englert, Yvon Pintiaux, Axelle Warnimont, Michèle Kirkpatrick, Christine Buekens, Pierre Daelemans, Caroline |
author_facet | Welffens, Karine Derisbourg, Sara Costa, Elena Englert, Yvon Pintiaux, Axelle Warnimont, Michèle Kirkpatrick, Christine Buekens, Pierre Daelemans, Caroline |
author_sort | Welffens, Karine |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low‐risk pregnancy attending the “Cocoon,” an alongside midwifery‐led birth center and care pathway, with women with a low‐risk pregnancy attending the traditional care pathway in a tertiary care hospital in Belgium. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low‐risk pregnancy who chose to adhere to the Cocoon pathway of care (n = 590) and women with a low‐risk pregnancy who chose the traditional pathway of care (n = 394) from March 1, 2014, to February 29, 2016. We performed all analyses using an intention‐to‐treat approach. RESULTS: In this setting, the cesarean birth rate was 10.3% compared with 16.0% in the traditional care pathway (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 0.42 [95% CI 0.25‐0.69]), the induction rate was 16.3% compared with 30.5% (0.46 [0.30‐0.69]), the epidural analgesia rate was 24.9% compared with 59.1% (0.15 [0.09‐0.22]), and the episiotomy rate was 6.8% compared with 14.5% (0.31 [0.17‐0.56]). There was no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates to the traditional pathway of care were 21.1% and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Women planning their births in the midwifery‐led unit, the Cocoon, experienced fewer interventions with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Our study gives initial support for the introduction of similar midwifery‐led care pathways in other hospitals in Belgium. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7065252 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70652522020-03-16 The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years Welffens, Karine Derisbourg, Sara Costa, Elena Englert, Yvon Pintiaux, Axelle Warnimont, Michèle Kirkpatrick, Christine Buekens, Pierre Daelemans, Caroline Birth Original Articles OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low‐risk pregnancy attending the “Cocoon,” an alongside midwifery‐led birth center and care pathway, with women with a low‐risk pregnancy attending the traditional care pathway in a tertiary care hospital in Belgium. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low‐risk pregnancy who chose to adhere to the Cocoon pathway of care (n = 590) and women with a low‐risk pregnancy who chose the traditional pathway of care (n = 394) from March 1, 2014, to February 29, 2016. We performed all analyses using an intention‐to‐treat approach. RESULTS: In this setting, the cesarean birth rate was 10.3% compared with 16.0% in the traditional care pathway (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 0.42 [95% CI 0.25‐0.69]), the induction rate was 16.3% compared with 30.5% (0.46 [0.30‐0.69]), the epidural analgesia rate was 24.9% compared with 59.1% (0.15 [0.09‐0.22]), and the episiotomy rate was 6.8% compared with 14.5% (0.31 [0.17‐0.56]). There was no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates to the traditional pathway of care were 21.1% and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Women planning their births in the midwifery‐led unit, the Cocoon, experienced fewer interventions with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Our study gives initial support for the introduction of similar midwifery‐led care pathways in other hospitals in Belgium. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-11-19 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7065252/ /pubmed/31746028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12466 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Birth published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Welffens, Karine Derisbourg, Sara Costa, Elena Englert, Yvon Pintiaux, Axelle Warnimont, Michèle Kirkpatrick, Christine Buekens, Pierre Daelemans, Caroline The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
title | The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
title_full | The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
title_fullStr | The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
title_full_unstemmed | The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
title_short | The “Cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
title_sort | “cocoon,” first alongside midwifery‐led unit within a belgian hospital: comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7065252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31746028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12466 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT welffenskarine thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT derisbourgsara thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT costaelena thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT englertyvon thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT pintiauxaxelle thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT warnimontmichele thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT kirkpatrickchristine thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT buekenspierre thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT daelemanscaroline thecocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT welffenskarine cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT derisbourgsara cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT costaelena cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT englertyvon cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT pintiauxaxelle cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT warnimontmichele cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT kirkpatrickchristine cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT buekenspierre cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years AT daelemanscaroline cocoonfirstalongsidemidwiferyledunitwithinabelgianhospitalcomparisonofthematernalandneonataloutcomeswiththestandardobstetricunitover2years |