majority of labours require intervention!?!

[PrincessScrumpy]

I'm really shocked that less than 50% of labours are done with no intervention - ie: ventouse, forceps.

I'm pg with twins and will be having an elcs but at 31 weeks we are going on holiday (in the UK) so I was researching hospitals and couldn't believe the figures that came up - so I started looking at all the hospitals in our area to compare. All of them came up with 40-49% figures for births without intervention, so more than 50% of women need ventouse or forceps.

That seems crazy to me - is the female body made that badly? I had dd through vb with no intervention. tbh she came within 2 hours and shocked the mw who was trying to send me home until dh asked for another opinion and registra came in to discover I was 10cm and not being the wimp that mw had implied. Not an ideal birth though as dd tore her way out due to the speed and I think I was in panic mode etc. But I was still really surprised to be in the minority of people.

Does this surprise you?

Good question WidowWadman and I really don't know the answer. I think if things had gone wrong I would have looked into it in the hopes of finding an answer (and probably looking to blame the professionals) but it would be clear from the notes that they suggested a lot of interventions which I forcefully refused. I do understand that the midwives were genuinely erring on the side of caution to help ensure a successful birth for me, what actually pissed me off was that the equipment was faulty and this was the reason for all the interference.

I don't know where the op got the statistics but if you look at www.birthchoiceuk.com you can have a look at some yourselves. From what I can see the rough 50% figure does include inductions as well as epidural instrumentation and cs.

I've also had 2 induced labours one for overdue and one for failure to progress both vd with no instrumentation. So i am part of that 50% statistic

Generally in hospitals, intervention in labour is considered to be either instrumental or c/section.

If someone has an induction (which could be considered to be no more than a sweep or an ARM (breaking the waters)), and then continues to a vaginal birth, I wouldn't consider it right to be used as stats for intervention rates, likewise having an epidural may be considered intervention, but is diamorphine also, or entonox, or a tens or water? All help the pain.

So its not cut and dry really, but the feeling I get from the ops post is that it means intervention in the mode of delivery rather than intervention in the form of analgesia or induction, and in the hospital in which I work, this would add up to about 50%.

So although an induction or epidural is of course a form of intervention, it shouldn't really be added to the stats weighing against a normal vaginal birth.

This is why I find statistics so entertaining, you can get them to say so many different things:)

it means intervention in the mode of delivery rather than intervention in the form of analgesia or induction

I often wonder how many interventions are caused by inductions. I then wonder how many of these inductions were really necessary, but happened because the woman was 'overdue', and if the woman would have gone on to have a straightforward delivery without the induction?

You have to perform an awful lot of interventions on women who would actually have been fine, in order to prevent one disaster.....I'm fine with that in the interests of risk reduction

I would have to disagree with this statement. Interventions carry risks, especially forceps and CS and I don't think it's acceptable that a large number of women/babies are exposed to these risks, just so that one disaster is prevented.

I think it's time we had a good hard look at the intervention rates of some hospitals. We should question whether their intervention rates were necessary and whether they really did improve outcomes - something on the lines of the audits that were done on children's cardiology services when some hospitals were found not to be up to standard.

No - womens' bodies are not made that badly. Science and litigation has made us all scared of leaving nature to do what she does best so a lot of women who don't need intervention get it because of the cascade as mentioned several times already.

I also suspect that you're looking at consultant wards rather than birthing centres (if you're pg with twins) so the stats will be skewed towards more difficult / managed births. If you look at the stats for MW units the figures will (obviously) be very low.

FWIW, I have had 3. Two were not great experiences but in none of them did I have intervention of the sort you're describing.

All were born in a consultant unit. It's not inevitable. Don't panic!

Oh, hang on. Having read a few more posts, I was induced with #3. So if you're counting that as intervention then I'm there.

But no forceps or ventouse etc.

well, thinking about my friends and family who have had babies in the last few years, out of 10 births, there were 2 sections (one failed induction ending in emcs, one planned for twins), 1 successful induction and the other 7 had no interventions - not even an epidural.

This is something I feel strongly about. We medicalize birth to such an extent and we interfere with the natural process so much which is why the rates are so high. Of course some people need medical help but birth is not an illness. It is a natural process. This is why I am changing my mindset by listening to relaxations and self-hypnosis (I use ihypnobirth on iphone) so that my mindset is positive about this amazing experience rather than scared and reticent which then causes the body to sieze up and not work as well for us.

For anyone interested in issues around birth, have a look at www.oneworldbirth.com. Its well worth signing up for the trailer alone - but there will be much more to come !

These are the national statistics for all births in England according to the birthchoice site I think they make interesting reading. They also break it down to the hospitals with the highest and lowest rates of types of births. What i found interesting is how these figures have risen in the last 20 years I wonder if infant mortality and morbidity rates have dropped accordingly?

2009-10 Maternity Statistics for England
Caesarean Rate 24.8%
Elective 10%
Emergency 14.8%
Instrumental Delivery Rate 12.3%
Forceps6.0%
Ventouse 6.3%
Induction Rate 20.8%
Normal Delivery Rate n/a
Unassisted deliveries 46.7%

If you remove induction, the figures still state that 37% of deliveries are assisted.

Sorry to be blunt but 2 things spring to mind immediately:

1. Too many inductions.
2. Epidurals.