Open call, please share and repost

I am busy reviewing and contributing to the second chapter of Our Bodies, Ourselves that was assigned to me. It is called “Unique to Women” and is about screening tests and medical procedures. I am trying to get through the technical side of writing this: checking on new screening guidelines, new screening tools, and such scientific type things. But, I really want to take into account the needs and points of view of many women, including disabled women, women of color, women from different cultural and religious backgrounds, women who are trans, men who are trans, women who are survivors of sexual abuse and/or assault, women who work in the sex industry, women who are polyamorous, women who are gay, women with piercings and tattoos, women of size, etc.

I am going to jot down items to look up. I already have some ideas. I know of many blogs out there for people with different disabilities, so I can search them for the easy to find encounters-with-medical-personnel horror stories. I know I can find plenty of health care practitioner bloggers out there (you know who you are) and submit something about a code green.

I am going to try to search out other stories on outlets available to me, but considering my short deadline, I would LOVE any voluntary submissions. The deadline is New Year’s Eve. I would love to continue the conversation past that point, but may not be able to submit anything to the publication. I am not a final decision maker editor, just a reviewer and contributor, but I will be happy to link to posts or publish them on here as comments, if people like. Or, you can email them to hilseb at gmail dot com.

Reply turned post, participatory medical education style

I have had the benefit of communicating to physicians who like to teach on the internet, not just in the real world. DoctorJen was really helpful with my KALI questionnaire. I have communicated with Dr. Fogelson of Academic Ob/Gyn, whose blog has inspired a reply turned post of its own.

Dr. Onyeije, a Maternal Fetal Medicine specialist, is also communicating with me about ethics, risk presentation and paternalistic (or not) obstetrics.

Here was his comment on reply turned post, Academic thought on VBAC style.

Just wanted to chime in and echo your comments regarding how risk is communicated and how it is received. What I’ve found is that there are multiple different ways to communicate risk and (perhaps just as many ways) to receive such information. It’s a two way street and problems can occur when the recipient and communicator are not on the same wavelength.

I certainly see this when counseling patients regarding all types of screening tests.

I’ll be interested to read your thoughts on risk perception.

I answered:

I have thoughts! I wrote a little bit about it here, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Prenatal screening can be really problematic. High false positives in some screening tests can be emotionally devastating to a patient, especially if the physician and staff communicate risk poorly.

I know of a couple who called off their baby shower and told everyone they were getting a 20 wk termination over a “positive” quad screen – a high AFP level. And this was AFTER I personally warned them about the poor specificity of the test. Then, this couple who had told me they weren’t going to get amnio (prior to the quad screen) got an amnio, and of course, the amnio results were within normal range.

I have heard of a woman passing out at work and hitting her head on the desk because someone from her OB office called and told her her fetus has tested positive for Down’s syndrome. Not only was this incorrect, it was, again, just a quad screen result, not a diagnostic result, but they hadn’t even told the patient what the test was screening for until they called with the results. Every subsequent pregnancy she got the same low AFP, and then a “normal” amnio. Every pregnancy she got the amnio anyway.

Same thing with gestational diabetes screening. UpToDate is currently full of information about how unreproducible the results are for the initial challenge test screening and the GTT, and how there aren’t universally adopted thresholds. But, how many women have been bumped up to “high risk” by a GTT test, and then possibly even sectioned due to possible fetal macrosomia? I don’t even want a baby getting unnecessary heel sticks after every feeding, which is protocol in some places if the mother had GD. Especially if it subtly tells a new mother that her child will be hurt every time she attempts breastfeeding. It’s not worth it if it’s due to an imprecise diagnosis. I have another set of friends, the mother is a medical student, and the father has a PhD in psychology. She got a positive challenge test screen, and had a “freak out” (their words, not mine).

These are anecdotal studies, but I have read research about the anxiety these screening tests cause women.

Reply turned post, Academic thoughts on VBAC style

One of my favorite new blogs, Academic OB/GYN, has an interesting post up called Ten Thoughts on VBAC. I encourage you to read the entire post and comment thread. I was especially interested in #7 and #10, which said:

The single most important thing we can do to deal with VBAC issues is to not have them at all, by avoiding the first cesarean section. Many cesareans are absolutely necessary, but when possible we should achieve vaginal deliveries. I’m willing to push some grey cases that others might deliver by cesarean. Sometimes that means being more patients with a slow labor. Sometimes that means operative vaginal delivery. Because of that, more of my patients will have easy multiparous second labors rather than having to worry about VBAC issues. There is a receiver operator curve for cesarean necessity. Most OBs should push their needle a little towards “specificity”.

Here is my reply:

Thanks for a thoughtful post on a controversial issue.

When I selected an article on VBAC for our medical school ob/gyn interest group journal club, our faculty sponsor said we shouldn’t even waste our time, since no one is doing them any more. That is certainly true for our area, where most practices and hospitals refuse to allow trial of labor attempts for VBACs. We are hardly rural. I know of an ophthalmologist who had to hire a concierge obstetrician and pay $10,000 up front to get any obsterician to attend her VBAC. She had one prior successful spontaneous vaginal delivery and a cesarean for twins. Practice patterns are obviously not the same everywhere, especially when it comes to obstetrics. She had her cesarean in another part of the country, and was assured by her obstetrician that she would be a fine candidate for a future VBAC attempt. If she hadn’t moved, it probably wouldn’t have been an issue.

I have another local friend whose physician refused to attend a VBAC attempt she requested (her prior pregnancy ended in preeclampsia, a failed induction and a cesarean at full term). When she showed up a few days before her scheduled cesarean in spontaneous labor, they sectioned her anyway, even though an article in that month’s Green Journal found that emergent cesarean after onset of labor to be the most expensive choice in their study of VBAC with the worst maternal and fetal morbidity. Why not let her attempt the trial of labor, especially since she expressly asked to be able to do so, and prominent medical opinion found it to be not only a reasonable choice, but an easily defensible one?

And, the area primary cesarean rate, which is above 45% in most hospitals, means that less of our primips are “successful” at an attempted vaginal delivery (I put “success” in quotes because I think a safe delivery, even if by cesarean section, is still “successful”) than even the conservative estimates you quote as “success” rates for VBAC attempts in the original post in point #7. (I have usually read of a “success” rate of about 75% in several articles, but outcomes vary.)

But, ACOG’s Practice Bulletin on VBAC says women who are good candidates should be offered a trial of labor. And, practice patterns vary in different parts of the country, and many physicians and hospitals still offer VBACs, and the current literature seems to consider it to be a reasonable option and continues to publish articles on VBAC. But, when I did a history on a woman switching care to a midwife in her third trimester, she said her doctor told her he’d refer her to a psychiatrist before he’d let her attempt a VBAC. So, there’s obviously a wide range in opinions on how to interpret the risks.

This article on explaining obstetrical risk by Lyerly et al is one of my favorite articles I have read on the topic. It states that “Although rates of delivery-related perinatal death are indistinguishable between VBAC and primary vaginal delivery, there is a genuine differential in the rate of uterine rupture–related hypoxicischemic encephalopathy. Such perinatal morbidity is indeed devastating. It is also extremely rare. In a recent large prospective study, the probability of this outcome was 0.00046 in infants whose mothers underwent a VBAC trial at term compared with no cases in infants whose mothers underwent repeat cesarean delivery.” (Emphasis mine)

I think that indicated that there is some validity to the argument that anywhere that it is safe to allow a premip to labor and deliver, it should be safe to allow a good candidate to attempt a VBAC. However, some may disagree about where it is safe to deliver at all. Some may find the risk of a home birth not only acceptable but preferable to a medicalized birth experience. Others may only be comfortable with a delivery at a facility with on site 24 hour anesthesia and obstetricians, and a Level IIIC NICU.

I don’t want to paint all obstetricians with one brush, but neither do I want to disregard the possibility that out of hospital births can be safe. Well managed out of hospital births may have risks similar to real obstetrical care in many hospitals, which unfortunately is not always evidence based care optimizing good outcomes. But, women are not always given an unbiased view of true risk, whether it be the risks of a HBAC or the risks of an induced, augmented VBAC attempt or the risks of repeat cesareans. The Lyerly article concludes that “[T]hese tendencies in the perception, communication, and management of risk can lead to care that is neither evidence-based nor patient-centered, often to the detriment of both women and infants” when discussing the way obstetricians present these risks. I think the natural birth community can probably be equally possible of have members on the fringes who would de-emphasize the risks of a home birth VBAC or an unassisted VBAC.

Reply turned post, second verse, same as the first

Dr. Dangerpartum Von Deathtrap (ha ha ha ha, Jill!) is at it again at The Unnecesarean.

The replies are flying quickly, and the manure is flying even more quickly. Dr. Amy is in poor form, misquoting abstracts and using the death due to shoulder dystocia baby card for babies within normal weight range. Huh?

Anyway, I can’t reproduce all my replies, because they are flying too fast and furious to keep up with.

When I told of a personal experience of being at a frustrating delivery that involved a protracted labor due to an induction in a first time mom, I pointed out that her normally sized baby (8 lb 11 oz) had no shoulder dystocia problems. And, evidence on the subject, including UpToDate, agrees that fetal weight below 4500g (that baby was below 4000g) is not associated with shoulder dystocia.

Dr. Amy’s response:

MomTFH:

“He ended up being 8 lb 11 oz, and there was no problems delivering the shoulders.”

So what? Do you think that’s a defense suitable for court: “the last woman with a big baby didn’t have a shoulder dystocia”?

What would you do if you were RESPONSIBLE in the event that a baby died because you didn’t do everything you could to prevent it? Would you shrug it off? Would you tell the mother, “Too bad things didn’t work out, but it’s more important that fewer women have C-sections than that you have a live baby?” How well do you think that would go over?

Oh, OK, because when I say he didn’t have any shoulder delivery problems at all, what I meant was, the baby died and I shrugged it off, and all I care about is practice patterns, not live and healthy babies.

Here is my reply

Wow, I guess that’s what happens when I comment without reading the other comments.

Dr. Amy – She had NO risk factors or indications for a macrosomic baby and the baby did not have macrosomia. Are you proposing if, in 3 years when I am a practicing obstetrician, I do not section all similar patients, I am risking killing their babies?

Here is a quote from Up to Date:

Fetal macrosomia — Studies have consistently shown that macrosomia is a major risk factor for shoulder dystocia [2,3]. Fetal macrosomia is best defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of greater than or equal to 4500 grams, as morbidity and mortality increase above this level [4,5]. The overall prevalence of birth weight over 4000 grams in the general obstetric population of the United States is 10 percent [6], but falls to 1.5 percent for birth weight over 4500 grams [4].

Her baby was more than 500 g below this threshold, and did not have an EFW above that threshold.

What do you think of the idea of doing an induction at 39 weeks with a Bishop’s score of 2 on this low risk patient? Based on ACOG Practice Bulletins and other online materials on quality care, my interpretation of the risks and treatment decision tree is pretty spot on. How much more do you think the baby would have grown if her physician waited for her due date at least, and how much would that increase her risk of shoulder dystocia?…

Have you read this article yet? The Obstetrics and Gynecology Risk Research Group still thinks obstetricians are misrepresenting risk to patients, to the detriment of women and their babies. You do it also, repeatedly. You have this citation from the thread from more than a week ago. You proceeded to cite a study from the same group the very next day, so you must think it is a good source.

Then the good doctor wanted to set some baseline “facts” about defensive medicine:

Let’s go back to the facts that I set out.

1. Most parents of a baby who dies will contemplate suing the doctor.
2. Many parents will consult a lawyer.
3. The ONLY way to prevent a lawyer from filing a lawsuit is to convince him that he can’t win.
4. The ONLY way to convince a lawyer that he can’t win is to demonstrate that everything possible has been done.

Do you agree?

I responded (in a tag team with hostess Jill):

Right, because obstetric litigation is actually due to substandard care (note the use of citations, Dr. Amy).

One documented way to decrease obstetrics litigation is to DECREASE unnecessary interventions by following evidence based protocols. Funny, one of those protocols was on induction, which is what I was complaining about upthread. Not only did these evidence based algorithms decrease interventions, including cesarean sections, and improve outcomes (preventing those preventable deaths), but they also reduced litigation. Imagine that. With a citation.

Watch Dr. Amy completely invent imaginary conclusions contrary to the actual studies I posted, and then dig her heels in when I present her with the actual conclusions of the studies, and she can’t provide any quotes.

Nulliparous psychosocial induction

I have been reading about induction recently, specifically, nulliparous induction for psychosocial reasons with an unfavorable cervix. In English, that is a first time mom, getting a labor induction for non medical reasons, and her cervix is not dilated or softened.

Induction of labor is relatively common. I recently sat with a doula client during her induction with Cervidil (Dinoprostone). (Not a comfortable placement procedure when you have a posterior, undilated cervix. It seemed more painful than any contraction I have ever seen.) Before it was applied, she was chatting with the nurse, who was 38 weeks pregnant. The nurse was happily anticipating her own induction, saying “I want to get her out before she’s too big.”

I briefly mentioned that estimations of fetal weight were not evidence supported and notoriously imprecise. I didn’t feel it was appropriate to mention that, at least according to the textbook we used for our women’s health system, induction was not recommended for suspected macrosomia. In fact, I had to point that out, politely, after class, to our pharmacology professor. She would read from the lecture notes, then pepper the lecture with the story of her own delivery, which was a failed induction for suspected macrosomia. She had a cesarean for fetal distress. The way she told the story, that was a good treatment decision, and suspected macrosomia was an indication for induction. I showed her the section in our textbook, said I thought it seemed contradictory, and suggested she talk about it with the head of the department.

I knew induction + macrosomia has an association with shoulder dystocia. Well, I was trying to find out more information about induction and Bishop score. Although this particular doula client met the ACOG recommendation of reaching 39 weeks gestational age, I was fairly sure a favorable Bishop’s score was more important. I had told this to my doula client when she mentioned the 39 week induction. I understood why she wanted it. She was on strictly limited maternity leave. Her mother was flying in. Anyone who has been pregnant full term or has talked with women who are in their late third trimester knows they are usually extremely uncomfortable and sick of being pregnant. She was no different.

Also, her obstetrician had already predicted, several weeks before, that she would go into labor a full ten days before her due date. Yes, it was the nature of her job that she was on her feet a lot, but who says that to a nulliparous woman with a long, closed, posterior cervix? I certainly don’t mean to imply she was setting the stage for a 39 week induction that she could work around her clinical schedule, but talk of induction started to happen as soon as that ten-days-before-due-date due date passed. I mentioned the Bishop’s score, and she seemed to think her obstetrician thought her cervix was ready. But, when we got to the hospital for the induction, her cervix was closed and posterior. I didn’t hear an exact effacement, but even with a generous guess, there is no way she was above a Bishop score of 8. I don’t think her doctor told her that it meant she had twice the risk of a cesarean. I didn’t think it was appropriate to tell her, since they didn’t do the cervical exam until the Cervidil was ordered and unwrapped, and she was admitted for the induction that she and her physician had decided was right for her at her last prenatal visit, and the physician was managing the induction over the phone.

Well, when researching the decision making that goes into these common inductions, I have read some interesting things. The first was on the Cervidil site I linked to above, that lists “Patients in whom there is evidence or strong suspicion of marked cephalopelvic disproportion” as a contraindication for Cervadil. In other words, suspected macrosomia.

Secondly, on the ACOG website, a recent article about quality improvement by Dr. D. Ware Branch, Jr., says:

“[B]eginning nearly 10 years ago, the program sought to implement a systematic, multi-institutional approach to discourage elective inductions in nulliparous women with a Bishop score of less than 10.

During the first several years of the project, the number of elective inductions in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix decreased from approximately 105 per month (15%) to 60 per month (6.7%) in the 11 hospitals that participated. The total number of elective inductions in nulliparous women also declined by two-thirds.

Currently, the proportion of nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix undergoing elective induction within the Intermountain Healthcare system is less than 5%. Some facilities have even disallowed any nulliparous inductions whatsoever.”

Also, when rereading ACOG’s Practice Bulletin on Induction, (which is problematic for a few reasons) I noticed it states “Although trained nursing personnel can monitor labor induction, a physician capable of performing a cesarean delivery should be readily available.” Hmm, that sounds remarkably similar to the recommendation in their Practice Bulletin on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean, which states “VBAC should be attempted in institutions equipped to respond to emergencies with physicians immediately available to provide emergency care.”

I am not trying to say that elective inductions should never be done, not even that they should never be done for psychosocial reasons. However, I doubt many nulliparous patients are given a risk explanation for an elective induction that is in anyway similar to the common treatment of VBAC. I am also fairly sure that elective inductions in nulliparous women for psychosocial reasons will not be banned from many facilities, like VBAC currently is. As far as I could tell by this interaction between my client and her nurse, elective induction for nulliparous women seems pretty standard, at least in my area. The quality improvement article from the ACOG website was reassuring, however.

The ultimate KALI questionnaire

This is the absolute last version of the KALI questionnaire. (You can access the previous incarnations here.)

How do I know this? Well, first of all, one of my mentors gave me the lifted eyebrow when I went to him to talk about the wording, again, on Monday. I am particular and a hair splitter, but I also had a good reason to change the wording of this part. I had a problem with it from the beginning, and one of my beta testers also had an issue with it. I was editing the second to last question, and it used to say “How often do you consult the following sources regarding obstetrical practice?” But, I really didn’t want to know how often the physicians literally consulted these sources. No physician furtively looks in a textbook “always” or “often”. I wanted to know how useful these sources were in clinical decision making, how valuable the physicians considered each source to be, and how often they applied the knowledge from these sources to their clinical practice. And, I wanted it to be in one question, since I had three complaints about the length of the survey by beta testers. (This version is also a few questions shorter, and one question is a combination of two previous ones.)

So, I ended up with: “This final section lists potential sources that you may consult to stay up to date on obstetrical standards of care. How often are the following sources useful in making clinical decisions?” Not perfect, but I am accepting it and moving on.

The second reason I know this is the final version, at least for this research, is because I sent out a few email invites yesterday. (Eep! Wish me a good response rate!) I will be phoning ob/gyn offices today, begging for email addresses for the physicians in the practice. (Eep! Wish me good luck getting email addresses!)

So, here is the final questionnaire:

The KALI Project Survey

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Knowledge and Attitudes of Labor Interventions (KALI) survey. This survey is intended to gather information about obstetrical practice patterns. The survey is anonymous, and should take about fifteen minutes. By completing this survey, you are giving consent to be part of this study.

First, we would like to gather some information about you and your practice. Please answer these questions by either circling your answers or writing your answers in blanks provided. This information will be kept confidential.

1. You are:
[1] Female
[2] Male

2. Age:
____________ years old

3. Do you have children?
[1] Yes
[2] No

4. Ethnicity:
[1] Hispanic or Latino
[2] Haitian
[3] Neither Hispanic nor Haitian

5. Race (choose as many as apply):
[1] African American / Black [4] Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
[2] Asian or Asian American [5] White / Caucasian
[3] Native American Indian /Alaskan [6] Other:_______________________

6. How would you describe the location of your ob/gyn residency?
[1] University
[2] University affiliated
[3] Community
[4] Military
[5] Other: ____________________________

7. Year of residency completion _____________

8. Which of the following most accurately describes your practice type?
[1] Public hospital
[2] Community health center
[3] University based practice
[4] Private practice
If private –
[1] Large partnership (four or more partners)
[2] Small partnership (two or three partners)
[3] Solo practice
[5] Military / government
[6] Other:____________________________________________

9. Do you currently practice obstetrics?
[1] Yes
If yes:
9a. Average time spent with prenatal clients:
[1] Less than 20%
[2] 20% to less than 50%
[3] 50% to less than 80%
[4] 80% to 100%
9b. Average number of deliveries per year:________________
[2] No

10. Which of the following most accurately describes your personal practice scope?
[1] General obstetrics and gynecology
[2] General gynecology only
[3] Obstetrics only
[4] Laborist
[5] Maternal Fetal Medicine
[6] Reproductive Endocrinologist
[7] Gynecologic Oncology
[8] Urogynecology
[9] Other: ______________________________

11. Which of the following most accurately describes your current malpractice coverage?
[1] None / I “go bare”
[2] I pay for individual malpractice insurance
[3] My practice pays my malpractice premiums
[4] I am an employee of an institution that pays my malpractice premiums
[5] I am an employee of an organization or institution that provides legal defense but not malpractice insurance
[6] Other: __________________________________________________

Please rate the following statements about obstetrics as accurately as possible. Please choose whether you:

[1] Strongly disagree
[2] Disagree
[3] Neither agree nor disagree
[4] Agree
[5] Strongly agree

1. _____Restricting maternal intake of all nutrition by mouth during labor prevents serious adverse maternal outcomes.

2. _____Elective cesarean section should not be performed on a woman desiring several children.

3. _____Doulas (i.e. private labor coaches, or trained labor companions) improve maternal and newborn outcomes.

4. _____Episiotomy should be avoided if at all possible.

5. _____The use of continuous external fetal monitoring (EFM) increases the risk for cesarean delivery.

6. _____In the absence of maternal and fetal medical indications, vaginal deliveries confer more risk than cesarean deliveries.

7. _____I employ episiotomy routinely, because it is easier to repair than lacerations that
result when an episiotomy is not used.

8. _____Fear of liability claims limit the options I present to my obstetrical patients.

9. _____Liability insurance company policies forbid me from performing vaginal births after cesareans (VBACs).

10. _____Use of upright (non lithotomy) positions during the pushing and birth has no positive impact on perinatal outcomes.

11. _____All women in early active labor should have an amniotomy (i.e. artificial rupture of membranes or AROM ) if they present with their membranes intact.

[1]Strongly disagree [2]Disagree [3]Neither agree nor disagree [4]Agree [5]Strongly Agree

12. _____Few women would choose to have a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) if they knew the consequences of uterine rupture.

13. _____I regularly employ episiotomy to shorten the second stage of labor and delivery.

14. _____Low risk labor patients should be offered the option of intermittent fetal heart rate monitoring in labor.

15. _____Elective cesarean section should only be performed after accurately determining 39 weeks of gestation.

16. _____Mediolateral episiotomies result in less postpartum pain than median episiotomies.

17. _____Prior to an induction, patients should be counseled about the possible need for reinduction or cesarean delivery.

18. _____The hospitals in which I attend births do not have sufficient staff to support intermittent fetal heart rate monitoring during labor.

19. _____Most patients attempting vaginal delivery benefit from oxytocin (Pitocin) augmentation of their labor.

20. _____I regularly employ episiotomy to prevent pelvic floor relaxation.

21. _____Hospital policies forbid me from performing VBACs.

22. _____If my partner or I were pregnant for the first time, I would recommend an elective cesarean delivery in the absence of any medical or obstetrical indication.

23. _____I have made changes to my practice because of the risk or fear of liability claims.

24. _____Childbirth is only normal in retrospect.

25. _____Clinical guidelines are useful tools for me in daily clinical practice.

26. _____The use of continuous EFM reduces perinatal mortality and morbidity.

[1]Strongly disagree [2]Disagree [3]Neither agree nor disagree [4]Agree [5]Strongly Agree

27. _____Labor induction for non-medical indications (psychosocial or logistical) should only be attempted after establishing a gestational age of 39 weeks.

28. _____I encourage my patients to try alternative or upright positions during the pushing stage.

29. _____Physicians should initiate discussion of elective cesarean delivery as part of routine prenatal care.

30. _____I refer patients who want to attempt a trial of labor after a prior cesarean delivery to another practitioner.

31. _____Women should have the right to refuse an episiotomy.

32. _____I recommend that most patients use a doula for their labor and delivery.

33. _____Women should be able to have a caesarean section even if there are no clear maternal or fetal indications.

34. _____There is high interobserver and intraobserver variability in interpretation of fetal heart rate tracing.

35. _____Hospital standards of care or policies sometimes get in the way of optimal management of individual patients.

36. _____Routine artificial rupture of membranes (AROM) increases the risk of cesarean delivery.

37. _____I would refer out any patient who wants to hire a doula.

38. ¬¬_____Time and scheduling pressures affect the way I manage labor and delivery.

39. _____Most women with one previous cesarean delivery with a low-transverse incision should be counseled about VBAC and offered a trial of labor.

40. _____Episiotomies increase the risk of third and fourth degree tears.

41. _____Clinical guidelines are overly rigid and difficult to adapt to individual patients.

This final section lists potential sources that you may consult to stay up to date on obstetrical standards of care. How often are the following sources useful in making clinical decisions?

[1] Never
[2] Rarely
[3] Sometimes
[4] Often
[5] Always

1. _____ACOG Practice Bulletins
2. _____ACOG Committee Opinions
3. _____Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals (e.g. the Green Journal, the Grey Journal)
4. _____Cochrane Database
5. _____Electronic evidence-based services (e.g. Epocrates, UptoDate)
6. _____Books and/or textbooks
7. _____Professional conferences
8. _____Physicians in my practice
9. _____Physicians in my local community
10. _____Physicians I trained with in residency
11. _____Physicians I consider experts in the field
12. Other sources: ______________________________________________________

Have you ever been the subject of a professional liability claim or litigation?
[1] Yes
If yes – Did the liability claim involve an obstetrical claim?
[a] Yes
[b] No
[2] No

Thank you for your time and participation!

Mammograms and the USPSTF: it’s the denominator, stupid

There has been a lot of brouhaha over the new mammography recommendations by the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). Rachel at Women’s Health News has an excellent round up of posts on the issue, if you feel like you need to do some background reading.

I am also a big fan of Barbara Ehrenreich’s take on it.

Take your time if you need to check out those links, since I highly recommend it. Back? Good.

I have many thoughts on this issue. First of all, I am completely in support of the new recommendations. If you have been reading my blog for long, this may come as no surprise, since I tend to prefer using interventions only when absolutely necessary, and am a big fan of evidence based medicine.

Secondly, I don’t think it is anti-feminist to discuss the anxiety caused by false positive diagnoses, whether it be false positive mammography results or false positive prenatal genetic screening results. Not only is the anxiety potentially substantial to many, but, the false positives also lead to more invasive tests. My mother, who is as low risk as I am for breast cancer (white, has had children and has breastfed, non-smoker, not a heavy drinker, no first degree relatives who have had breast cancer, etc.) is also endowed with huge breasts, as I am. She had at least three biopsies and lots of ultrasounds in her 40’s. None of these came up with anything of concern, but there was plenty of anxiety leading into them. And, a biopsy is not comfortable or risk free. Come to think of it, neither is a mammogram. In fact, the radiation from repeated mammograms may actually cause breast cancer in some women. I know this is an anecdotal story, but my mother is the primo example of who this consensus opinion is talking about. These mammograms are not improving outcomes in typical low risk women in their 40’s, like my mom was when she started getting mammograms and subsequent biopsies.

Third, I had an argument with a fellow student today. He said that the public wants the extra mammograms, and they are too stupid to understand the nuance to the issue. He also said all they want is “the best care.” I said the best care is evidence based care, and that I plan on educating my patients. I do not believe in the can-I-have-fries-with-that-have-it-your-way approach to medicine. I do believe that patients’ values and opinions definitely matter. But, in the end, if a patient insists on a procedure I think will cause more harm than good, I will politely refuse and refer them to a practitioner that will accommodate them, if I know of one.

Fourth, and possibly coolest, I heard a discussion on Doctor Radio that made my nerdy day. The oncologist, Dr. Silvia Formenti, is fully supportive of the new recommendations. She also explained why there is an apparent discrepancy in breast cancer survival rates between the United States and United Kingdom, which is one of the few if only outcomes that appear better in the United States. She explained that this is a false comparison, since the denominator is different. My public health instructor has always harped about the denominator of any rate being key, but I thought it was just a nitpicky instructor thing – sure, you only include women of childbearing age in maternity rate stats, got it – but it’s more important than that. Dr. Formenti said that the reason our rates seem better is that we are currently overscreening younger women, and overtreating in situ cancers. So, our denominator is stacked with low risk women who are not really that sick. In fact, I spent too much time looking over the ACOG site for the article, but I read something recently in one of their publications that showed that a wait-and-see protocol for such cancers led to a shocking remission rate. I remember it being over 20%, but since I cannot find the article, please don’t quote me on it.

So, the denominator matters, and not just in a nit-picky way. Also, I was happy to see that the National Health Service, of which I am a fan, is not failing women with breast cancer, which was bugging me a little. What especially impressed me with her commentary was that not only is she a renowned oncologist and an attending at NYU Langone, but she practices in the United States. She could have easily said “Hooray for my team, hooray for my field, we’re kicking butt.” It’s really refreshing to hear someone value truth over seeming to be the best.

And, finally, I am a little chagrined by how many people are saying that these USPSTF recommendations are going to change the way the insurance companies reimburse mammography, and change medicine in the United States dramatically. I am still waiting for that to happen due to their recommendations of labor and delivery from November of 2008, in which many interventions are panned as inconclusively supported by evidence or detrimental to patients (such as third trimester estimation of fetal weight, denying nutrition p.o. to laboring patients, and episiotomy) and others are highlighted as extremely effective and highly recommended (e.g. upright positioning for pushing and the continuous support of a doula during labor.) I wish there was an uproar following those dramatic recommendations, but there was barely a peep. Hello, sweeping changes? Helloooooooo?

Reply turned post, did I say walk away?

OK, OK, I didn’t walk away. I did, actually, for 24 hours. But then I came back to the Stuff White People Like: Talking About Birth post at the Unnecessarean.

Both of the problem posters resurfaced, and both misrepresented other posts in order to make their points.

One poster is a lost cause and a selfish embarrassment to the online birth community, who I refuse to link to anymore, and the other is Dr. Amy.

Here is my response to Dr. Amy: (I just realized none of my links are live, since I forgot to copy my formatted comment. If you want any of the links to the original studies or stats, please follow the link to the original thread above.)

Dr. Amy, if you have to misrepresent what people say in order to be right, something is wrong with your argument. “THE cesarean rate” (which is a meaningless term without more qualification) is not what was being discussed. You of all people shouldn’t be chastising others on precision in statistics. Hospitals have crossed the 50% cesarean mark. In fact, a few in Miami-Dade County have. So, what is the problem with that statement of fact? Nothing.

Medicine has to define what is within physiologically normal range in order to know when to intervene. It is the central premise of all medicine, including obstetrics. Why has ACOG had to make statements saying that elective inductions and elective cesarean sections should not occur prior to a definitive confirmation of 39 weeks gestational age? Because NOT delivering before that point is physiologically normal, and the evidence indicates that the trend of “modern obstetrics” to induce and do elective cesareans before that point was to the detriment of both mothers and babies, and has made our outcomes worse recently, instead of better.

No one is saying all medical interventions are bad. You keep on repeating that we have lower poor outcomes due to modern obstetrics. You are the only one arguing about this straw man argument. Modern obstetrics as a whole is not monolithically good or bad. All of its practices need to be examined to see how they effect outcomes, just like the New England Journal of Medicine did, if you follow my link above, and just like the US Preventative Services Task Force did, and just like the birth advocacy community will continue to do.

Your crusade against this examination of evidence of individual interventions and intentional exaggeration of risks is still “neither evidence-based not patient centered, often to the detriment of both women and infants”.

And, what happened to the conversation about privilege? No one is saying we need to educate women of color to follow our luxury of caring about natural birth. We want to include their voices in the conversation, and both Tamika and Mai’a have confirmed that we need to listen better. We also need to make sure they are included in our attempts to improve practices and outcomes, while not assuming their values and social contexts are the same as the dominant culture.

Reply turned post, need to walk away style

Well, if anyone is up to following the drama, plus some new drama, please head on to the next thread on The Unnecesarean: Stuff White People Like: Talking About Birth.

If you want to take a controversial topic like birth advocacy and throw in something MORE to argue about, talk about privilege in birth. I love Jill’s original post, and I totally agree that we, as women of privilege, whether it is neurotypical privilege, cis privilege, able bodied privilege, heterosexual privilege, married privilege, socioeconomic privilege (the only one many people are able to acknowledge, if any), attractive non overweight body privilege, dominant culture and language privilege, another privilege I am too privileged to know I have or simple race privilege, have a responsibility to examine that privilege and try to see how it intersects with topics about which we are passionate.

Well, if you want some good, on topic discussion, read Jill’s post, my comment, and a few of ther subsequent comments. Then, in walks Dr. Amy with what seems like a much more reasonable tone, but if you read between the non-ranty lines, she is still painting evidence based non interventionist birth advocates as a convenient straw woman, (B3 on Mommy Wars Bingo), and then tears it down as only a reasonable woman could by saying “Why can’t we get along and non-judgmentally respect these choices?”, as if that is how she has ever approached this topic. If you need to refresh your memory about her typical approach to this discussion, just go back one thread or try the google with her name and the term “home birth”.

And then, Feminist Breeder, a commenter I have had issues with regarding race on my own blog to the point I had to ask her to stop posting on the subject (here, here, and here) showed up, and engaged in privilege denialism. Strong black women in her community have more control and faith in their bodies, and reject those unnecessary interventions that white women don’t have the sass to refuse. And the rich white women drive to a poor neighborhood to use their awesome midwifery clinic! We are so totes post racial, birth wise, folks!

So, I replied. I was SO relieved not to see a flame war on there…yet. I would love to have some women of color (or other nonprivileged points of view, for that matter) come and represent their own perspective, but I know that the amount of anger and annoyance I feel at the same tired arguments about privilege are probably multiplied exponentially when they read them, and it is not their job to educate the ignorant and argumentative.

Anyway, here was my reply:

Dr. Amy, I appreciate the nicer tone you are taking on this thread as opposed to the thread you have ditched like a rat leaving a sinking ship.

However, I have thought and said almost all of the things you have written about how all mothers are worthy. And, I am sure I am not the only one.

You are still creating a straw man, or woman, for that matter. I am not, Jill is not, and many birth advocates are not people who think women who choose less interventions are somehow more noble or better mothers. That is a simplistic, shallow, ridiculous point of view, and I don’t have it, and it is not the point of view of the birth advocacy movement.

Sure, you can find examples of such caricatures of holier-than-thou crunchy moms if you look hard enough on certain message boards, but it is just as easy to find moms on much more conventional mommy message boards mocking anyone who doesn’t opt for an epidural. In a country where 85% + of women who deliver vaginally have an epidural, and less than 1% have a home birth, I have a really hard time when people cast the women who get epidurals as the underdogs and women who fight to refuse one as the oppressors.

You may have chosen one quote of Kukla’s that seems to support that view. (By the way, way to embrace an opinion piece in a peer reviewed journal right after you criticize me for doing so). I prefer this work of hers, “Finding Autonomy In Childbirth.

Here is a quote:

“For all women, however, finding autonomy in birth requires access to safe modes of delivery that are appropriate to their personal and social circumstances and their values and sense of integrity and dignity, and circumstances that enable them to experience themselves as the primary (albeit relationally embedded) agents of their own birthing process.”

I think it’s fairly obvious by this quote, the article and her other works, like Mass Hysteria, she does not throw the baby out with the bathwater, to make a bad and somewhat inappropriate analogy. Just because some person with a natural mom goodness ruler may cast judgment in some circles (and I argue that is NOT the most prevalent attitude, regardless of the hand wringing about it by Kukla and many others), that does not mean the evidence based natural birth advocacy movement is somehow flawed.

Also, Feminist Breeder, I have seen the exact opposite of what you describe, and although I am not in Chicago, I find it unlikely that women of color have more birth advocacy there than white women, or feel like they have more control over their bodies than white women. And women of color are not exercising their increased advocacy thinking that “no one is going to tell them they can’t do something.” I’m sorry, that is a caricature of the sassy angry black woman, and it is just not the reality of most women of color. You and I have clashed on this issue before, and that’s all I am going to say.

In both of these arguments, you can see one of my pet peeves is seeing the underdog cast as the privileged. Women who breastfeed are not oppressing women who don’t or can’t by breastfeeding, and breastfeeding advocacy is not tainted by a mom who has been anecdotally judged for that. Women who advocate for less non-evidence based unnecessary medical interventions in the birth process are not telling mothers who chose an epidural she has failed as a mother, or that her child is going to be different as a teenager. And women of color are not enjoying their increased autonomy over their bodies.

Reply turned post, Dr. Amy style

Some of you shuddered when you read the name “Dr. Amy”. Some of you have never heard of this plague of the internet. I will not link to her blog, but you can find it by clicking on her name on her comments on the original post. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

If you have spent any time in the internet birth advocacy community, you have run into Dr. Amy. She claims to be (I am not casting aspersions on her credentials, I am just saying anyone can say she is anything on the interwebs) an ob/gyn, and is a, ahem, vocal opponent of home birth and natural birth advocates. She not only blogs about it at her own spot, which is entirely her right, but she shows up in spaces enjoyed by natural birth advocates and proceeds to show the worst examples of how to distort, selectively apply and and ignore evidence and freely engage logical fallacies to argue her points.

Well, she messed with a friend. And, she is wrong. Wrongity wrong wrong.

So, feel free to read the comment thread here at Jill’s The Unnecessarean. Dr. Amy makes many outrageous statements in several comments, including using the term “or die trying” twice when discussing giving birth without pain medication (implying there is a risk of death by avoiding an elective intervention that actually carries risks) and claiming “the risk of neonatal death from ruptured uterus at VBAC is quite significant”.

So, here is my response, wayyy down on the second page of comments:

Wow, lookie what I missed.

Dr.Amy, I am a research fellow at a medical school researching obstetrics. You are not providing any sources, and you are not providing a reasonable interpretation of the data available on birth. You are also dodging the questions asked of you. Your language choice is biased and awful. The complete lack of ethical balance you bring to these conversations is frankly appalling.

Most “natural” birth advocates, including the one whose blog you are on (Hi, Jill!), advocate for responsible application of medical intervention in situations that the evidence shows warrants such interventions. Otherwise, pregnancy, labor and delivery, and post partum should be allowed to be phsyiologically normal. No one (here, at least) is saying that all women should be forced to forgo pain medication, that medically necessary cesareans should be avoided, or any other of the straw man arguments you continuously create.

As long as you insist on being involved in these discussions, here’s a little reading for homework:

Risk, values, and decision making during pregnancy by Lyerly, et al. It was published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the journal of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, in 2007. I’d be happy to email you a full text copy, if you don’t happen to have access to this publication. In fact, I have a hard copy sitting in my lap.

Here is the abstract:

“Assessing, communicating, and managing risk are among the most challenging tasks in the practice of medicine and are particularly difficult in the context of pregnancy. We analyze common scenarios in medical decision making around pregnancy, from reproductive health policy and clinical care to research protections. We describe three tendencies in these scenarios: 1) to consider the probabilities of undesirable outcomes alone, in isolation from women’s values and social contexts, as determinative of individual clinical decisions and health policy; 2) to regard any risk to the fetus, including incremental risks that would in other contexts be regarded as acceptable, as trumping considerations that may be substantially more important to the wellbeing of the pregnant woman; and 3) to focus on the risks associated with undertaking medical interventions during pregnancy to the exclusion of demonstrable risks to both woman and fetus of failing to intervene. These tendencies in the perception, communication, and management of risk can lead to care that is neither evidence-based nor patient-centered, often to the detriment of both women and infants.”

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the peer reviewed article:

“Although rates of delivery-related perinatal death are indistinguishable between VBAC and primary vaginal delivery, there is a genuine differential in the rate of uterine rupture–related hypoxicischemic encephalopathy. Such perinatal morbidity is indeed devastating. It is also extremely rare. In a recent large prospective study, the probability of this outcome was 0.00046 in infants whose mothers underwent a VBAC trial at term compared with no cases in infants whose mothers underwent repeat cesarean delivery.”

The authors are members of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Risk Research Group, which is sponsored by grants from some of the most prestigious universities and foundations in the United States. It was also presented as a poster at the 54th Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. I DARE you to call this a poor quality source.

So, that’s how you provide evidence supporting a point of view without taking over a blog.

Do us all a favor. Stay on your own blog if you want to spout off biased nonsense. Stop recommending “care that is neither evidence-based nor patient centered, often to the detriment of both women and infants” in our space.