Sentences with phrase «at start of labour»

Nia Griffith was addressing Welsh delegates at the start of Labour's conference in Brighton.

Women's Institute members excepted, at the start of the Labour years nearly every charity, businessman or other social leader was fearful of saying anything negative about Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn's big interview at the start of the Labour conference has been praised as the «best interview by a Labour leader in over a decade» by John Prescott.

At the start of the Labour government's second term in 2001, Blunkett was promoted to Home Secretary, [23] fulfilling an ambition of his.

Speaking in Brighton at the start of the Labour Party conference, ED Miliband will say the Bedroom Tax has become a symbol of an out of touch government standing up only for the interests of a privileged few.

Blair was first elected to parliament in 1983 at the start of the Labour's long road back to power.

The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America.

MANA stats show horrible rates of intrapartum deaths (baby alive at start of labour, dead during it) and perinatal deaths, babies that die in the hours or days immediately before and after birth.

«We found that for low - risk mothers at the start of their labour it is just as safe to deliver at home with a midwife as it is in hospital with a midwife,» said Professor Simone Buitendijk of the TNO Institute for Applied Scientific Research.

For some, this means a few hours in the bath at the start of their labour, and for others it means delivering their babies in a birthing pool.

Healthy, term babies of low risk mothers who were alive and well at the start of labour and died due to unnecessary interventions during labour, which means a normal labour, progressing without delay or signs of foetal distress and an OB intervened «just because».

The figure provides an overview of why women left care before labour and their intended place of birth at the start of labour.

We focused on the 5418 women who intended to deliver at home at the start of labour.

Data were analysed for all women and then for women without complications at the start of labour.

The World Health Organization says, «We define normal birth as: spontaneous in onset, low - risk at the start of labour and remaining so throughout labour and delivery.

Not exact matches

Update: It was revealed Thursday that the Ontario Ministry of Labour will begin cracking down on unpaid interns at magazines, starting with Toronto Life and The Walrus.

When a number of Ontario funds — at one point, the province was home to 46 labour - sponsored funds — started failing due to a combination of poor investments, falling sales and rising redemptions, he scooped up several and consolidated them into the Canadian Fund.

Besides, as Izzo notes, if you look at labour market trends, the U.S. has been adding 180,000 news jobs a month since the latest round of tapering started in September 2012, compared to 130,000 in the prior six months.

The expectation is that if labour doesn't progress at a certain rate that there are risks (infection, maternal exhaustion, fetal death) associated with further waiting; that the longer labour stalls the less likely it is to start progressing normally (if the baby is too stuck to move after two hours of labour, it's probably too stuck to move after two days of labour) and there are no benefits to a long labour.

... [T] here was a significant excess of the primary outcome in births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units in the restricted group of women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.

'' Normal births» * for healthy women with low risk pregnancies by their planned place of birth at start of care in labour.

The strength of this association was increased when the sample was restricted to women with no complicating conditions at the start of care in labour (adjusted odds ratio 2.80, 1.59 to 4.92).

For the restricted sample of women without any complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the odds of a primary outcome event were higher for births planned at home compared with planned obstetric unit births (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52) but there was no evidence of a difference for either freestanding or alongside midwifery units compared with obstetric units.

Categorised by parity for all women and restricted to those without complicating conditions at start of care in labour

Objective To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies.

Transfers during labour or immediately after birth among healthy women with low risk pregnancies by their planned place of birth at start of care in labour.

Results for all women and restricted to those without complicating conditions at start of care in labour

Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units).

The study was a prospective cohort study with planned place of birth at the start of care in labour as the exposure (home, freestanding midwifery unit, alongside midwifery unit, or obstetric unit).12 Women were included in the group in which they planned to give birth at the start of care in labour regardless of whether they were transferred during labour or immediately after birth.

Before the analysis of the outcomes, the co-investigators and independent advisory group agreed to modify the analysis plan to include additional analyses of outcomes restricted to women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

There were marked differences between planned places of birth in the proportion of women with complicating conditions identified by the attending midwife at the start of care in labour (table 1 ⇑).

There was no difference overall between birth settings in the incidence of the primary outcome (composite of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities), but there was a significant excess of the primary outcome in births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units in the restricted group of women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

The strengths of the study include the ability to compare outcomes by the woman's planned place of birth at the start of care in labour, the high participation of midwifery units and trusts in England, the large sample size and statistical power to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes, the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias due to non-consent, the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk (according to current clinical guidelines) and to further increase the comparability of the groups by conducting an additional analysis restricted to women with no complicating conditions identified at the start of care in labour, and the ability to control for several important potential confounders.

Characteristics of healthy women with low risk pregnancies by their planned place of birth at start of care in labour.

The overall test for interaction (heterogeneity) was of borderline statistical significance for all women (P = 0.06), and was significant for women with no complicating conditions at the start of care in labour (P = 0.03).

Having a first baby at home allows labour to unfold at its own pace, and since the mum doesn't have to go anywhere to birth, there is less emphasis on identifying the actual start of labour and trying to put time limits on early contractions or surges.

International comparison of perinatal mortality (stillbirth and first week deaths according to WHO definitions) among planned home births starting labour at home

Planned birth at home in low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour was associated with significant cost savings and a significant decrease in adverse perinatal outcomes avoided.

In further analyses restricted to women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the adjusted odds of adverse perinatal outcomes were higher for births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52).

Fig 2 Cost effectiveness plane: planned birth at home compared with planned birth in obstetric units for nulliparous low risk women without complicating conditions at start of care in labour

For low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratios associated with switches from planned birth in obstetric unit to non-obstetric unit settings fell in the south west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane (representing, on average, reduced costs and worse outcomes).25 The mean incremental cost effectiveness ratios ranged from # 143382 (alongside midwifery units) to # 497595 (home)(table 4 ⇓).

Restriction of the analyses to low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour narrowed the cost differences between planned places of birth: total mean costs were # 1511 for an obstetric unit, # 1426 for an alongside midwifery unit, # 1405 for a free standing midwifery unit, and for # 1027 the home (table 2 ⇓).

Profiles of resource use, and their associated unit costs, for each planned place of birth are reported in detail in appendices 1 and 2 on bmj.com.25 The total mean costs per low risk woman planning birth in the various settings at the start of care in labour were # 1631 ($ 1950, $ 2603) for an obstetric unit, # 1461 ($ 1747, $ 2332) for an alongside midwifery unit, # 1435 ($ 1715, $ 2290) for a free standing midwifery unit, and # 1067 ($ 1274, $ 1701) for the home (table 1 ⇓).

This was replicated for women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

Nearly a third of women who planned and started their labours at home ended up being transferred as complications arose — including for instance an abnormal fetal heart rate, or if the mother required more effective pain relief in the form of an epidural.

Clemmie gained her qualifications at the University of the West of England in 2006 and started a career in midwifery at Southmead Maternity Unit where her she developed an interest in active labour and water birth.

If you start having contractions it's useful to time them before you contact your midwife, so she can assess what stage of labour you're at.

im 39 +1 and i have SPD my last baby was a week over and labour lasted 24 mins was very painful but quick and over and done with at the same time this time last time i was checked (2weeks ago my cervix was still long and tuby and 1 cm dialated which is because of me having kids already ive just bought some castor oil and nervas about taking it but i do nt want to be started of not a big fan of needles just would like some advice anyone please?

«The starting point is for Labour to recognise that in the minds of voters, the two parties are at least partly substitutable.