Saturday, October 20, 2012

Postpartum Depression Screening

Postpartum depression has been called "the most common problem associated with childbirth," affecting about 13% of new mothers, or approximately 500,000 women each year (1). Postpartum depression (PPD) can have lasting effects on mothers and babies; untreated (or insufficiently treated), it can lead to bonding difficulties and developmental delays in infants (2). Women who experience PPD report the typical symptoms of situational or chronic depression: sadness; loss of energy; changes in eating habits (significantly decreased or increased apetite); emotional numbness; insomnia; loss of interest in sex; irritability and anger (sometimes intense), as well as mood swings, poor bonding, and strong feelings of shame and guilt associated with cultural disapproval of perceived weakness or selfishness of mothers who feel anything less than total bliss towards their new babies (4).

At least half of these mothers, and potentially many more, are never diagnosed, and may suffer needlessly-- a true tragedy of modern medicine, considering that screening for the disorder is simple, fast, reliable, and inexpensive. There are several tools available to screen new mothers for PPD; the most common is the tried-and-true Edinburgh Postnatal Depresson Scale (5), which was developed in the UK and has been used for over 20 years to reliably predict patients' risk of developing PPD (6,7). The format is simple: a 10-item self-administered questionnaire, which should be answered by the mother herself, that can be completed in about five minutes and reviewed immediately with care providers. The tool is available at no cost to the administering institution, and can be duplicated with attribution; it is easy to score and results are instantaneous. Each item is scored with 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, and the resulting score is compared to a standardized scale-- the higher the score (30 is the maximum), the more likely the woman is to develop PPD. A score of 12 or higher is considered to be predictive of PPD, while a score of 21-30 is considered high risk and may necessitate immediate consult with the woman's physician (8).

The EPDS has been validated as effective by many quantitative studies, although sound clinical judgment should always be used in interpreting results (10). Each individual found to be at risk should be evaluated by a medical professional not only shortly after birth, but at the initial postpartum checkup (4-6 weeks), and, ideally, at 3 and 6 months postpartum (11). Some researchers have suggested that screening should be done not only in obstretric offices, but in pediatric clinics as well, to facilitate the identification of as many cases as possible (12). Further, since most mothers who experience PPD also experienced at least one depressive episode prenatally, it has been recommended by some that obstetricians should screen their pregnancy patients at least once per trimester during routine prenatal care (13). While ACOG (the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists) cites inadequate evidence to recommend a standard of care, they do recognize the need for screenings, as well as treatment, follow up, and referral as required (14).






References Cited



1.  http://www.medicinenet.com/postpartum_depression/article.htm,  retrieved 10/20/2012

2. Is your new mom depressed? (Did you ask?) Schaar GL - Journal for Nurse Practitioners -  November/December 2011; 7(10); 879-880

3.  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/postpartum-depression/DS00546/DSECTION=symptoms,  retrieved 10/20/2012

4.  http://www.postpartumprogress.com/6-surprising-symptoms-of-postpartum-depression-and-anxiety,  retrieved 10/20/2012

5.  http://www.fresno.ucsf.edu/pediatrics/downloads/edinburghscale.pdf,  retrieved 10/20/2012

6. Cox, J.L., Holden, J.M., and Sagovsky, R. 1987. Detection of postnatal depression: Development of the 10-item

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. British Journal of Psychiatry 150:782-786.

7. Applying new techniques to an old ally: A qualitative validation study of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale

Godderis R - Women Birth - March, 2009; 22(1); 17-23

8. Schaar 2011

9. Godderis 2009

10. Mothers With Positive or Negative Depression Screens Evaluate a Maternal Resource Guide

Pascoe JM - Journal of Pediatric Health Care - November/December 2010; 24(6); 378-384

11.Screening for postpartum depression. Cole C - Journal for Nurse Practitioners - 01 January 2009; 5(6): 460-461

12. Pascoe 2010

13. Screening for perinatal depression with limited psychiatric resources. Jevitt, C., Zapata, L., Harrington, M., and Berry, E. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, Vol. 11, No. 6

14. Screening for Depression During and After Pregnancy. Committee on Obstretic Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, February 2010. Retrieved from  http://www.acog.org/~/media/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Obstetric%20Practice/co453.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20121020T1538438353,  10/20/2012



Thursday, May 3, 2012

Willow's Unrest

I'm about ready to change the name of this blog: Willow's Unrest. Whatcha think? There's no rest for a birth activist/VBACtivist/lactivist/intactivist. There's no end to the stupidity, the lack of education, the lack of desire to acquire knowledge. I think that last is the worst. It's one thing to be ignorant. It's something altogether different to remain that way on purpose. You can lead a horse to water...

I know I've burbled on before about feeling burned out, ready to let it all go. I've spilled miles of ink and tapped keys till I developed callouses about why people ought to care about birth-- theirs and all women's. This is nothing new. But I find I've kept it in until I can't contain it anymore-- hence this post. Forgive me, won't you?

I wrote this several years ago. It's not great, but I still feel this way, so let me get it off my chest-- then I'll get back to my rant. It originated in an offhand comment someone tossed out-- something about "so-and-so could care less about VBAC":


I suppose I could care less. I could choose to accept the near-30% cesarean rate in the United States. That would mean accepting that wholly one-third of women in this country are unable to deliver the babies their bodies conceived and grew. That would mean buying the whole bill of goods-- doctors know best, birth is the business of surgeons-- read men, because even female OBs are conditioned to be metaphorically masculine in the operating room-- and women are just incidental to the process. Our wombs are dark, dangerous dungeons from which our babies must be cut free. Pregnancy and birth is a primitive, nasty, brutish affair that must be managed and controlled and interfered with every step of the way, from the time the stick comes up blue until the baby is released from its mother's imprisoning flesh.

I could care less about VBAC. I could accept that my cesareans were necessary, lifesaving events that were responsible for giving me healthy, whole children. I could bless the quirk of fate that made my daughter stay footling breech, the neat serendipity that gave wrapped her cord around her neck three times and made external version impossible. Thanks to that, I had a cesarean! Hurray! I was a first-time mother, and I didn't have to bother with messy, unpredictable labor. Rather, the nice medpros in blue scrubs wheeled me into a cold operating room-- one of them punctured my spinal column and anesthestised me, another cut me open and gave me my perfect baby girl. Not only that, but in that one stroke, she guaranteed that I would never have to concern myself with birth again-- in future, I need only open my datebook and choose a day that seems best to me to have my precious babies hand-delivered.

I could care less about VBAC. I didn't need to stress myself nearly to the breaking point, searching high and low for a care provider to see me through my second pregnancy. The year of hell I endured, of postpartum depression and PTSD, of being unable to bond with my son, were all entirely unnecessary. Why did I do that to myself? To him? I could have cared less about VBAC.

I could care less about VBAC. I could spend my days at the hospital where I work complimenting the cesarean moms about the roundness of their children's heads (if they were all round, which they aren't) instead of poring over their charts and trying to figure out where it all went wrong. Why couldn't they deliver? Why were they cut? Why is "failure to progress" a valid diagnosis for a *scheduled* c-section?

I could care less about VBAC. I could throw away the list I keep of VBACs and CBACs at my hospital. I could celebrate the surgeries instead-- Goddess knows the list would be far longer. I could stop agonising about this generation of surgically delivered children. I could accept that it's "just another way to be born" and believe that there are no far-reaching consequences of arriving via "vaginal bypass surgery."

I could care less about VBAC. I could turn my back on the research that refutes the position of the OBs, whose concern lies mainly with their pocketbooks and their malpractice insurance rather than with the patients they purport to care for. I could accept that it's right and good for a new mother to be unable to breastfeed her infant because she's too drugged or in too much pain or her IV line won't reach far enough. I could accept that iatrogenic prematurity is nothing to be worried about, a few days in a NICU is a fine start to life. I could agree that not wanting to "stretch one's bottom" is an acceptable reason to choose major abdominal surgery.

I could care less about VBAC. I could take the fading ICAN sticker off my van and stop slipping cards into my patients' education folders. I could insist that homebirth-- not to mention HBAC!--  is dangerous and wrong, and all women can and should simply report to the hospital at 38 weeks on the dot to have their babies removed. I could close my eyes and mind and heart to the pain in the stories I read. I could join the hordes who insist "only a healthy baby matters" and tell my scar-sisters to "get over it." I could ignore my own lingering hurt, pretend my babies and I weren't affected by their "births."

I could care less about VBAC.

Other than the statistic-- the cesarean rate in the United States is now 32.8%, according to the CDC-- I still feel the same as I did when I wrote that, 3 or 4 years ago. Little has changed; I'm a little further out from my surgical deliveries, but I'm no less outraged. I certainly don't want another one, should I ever be blessed with another pregnancy ! And yet I'm still expected to button my lip, keep it to myself, pretend that it's only a healthy baby that matters. Say nothing that might offend. Or frighten. 

Let me back up; I've wandered off into my rant without giving any context. Sorry about that. 

I'm a nurse. I became a nurse in self-defense, after my CBAC in 2002. My experience was so horrific-- so degrading and inhumane, that I was determined never, ever to be at the mercy of medpros again. For my entire nursing career I have worked in one facility, a mid-sized urban hospital that I must decline to identify. I work primarily in mother-baby, though I sometimes go to NICU or labour & delivery. I spend the vast majority of my time caring for new mothers and infants. Education is such a huge part of my job that last year I became a Certified Childbirth Educator through CAPPA, and I'm one of my facility's instructors for the hospital-approved Prepared Childbirth Class. I teach 4-6 classes annually, to (usually) first-time parents, covering the typical "What to Expect from Your Hospital Delivery" curriculum. On the up side, I get to use the InJoy Birth/Parenting Education videos, which are well made and comprehensive-- the ones we use were filmed at the same hospital where I delivered my first child, and "my" midwife is featured, which always gives me pause for thought. On the down side, there's little room for, as Opus was wont to do, departing the text. I have 5 hours, total, over 2 weeks, to cover pregnancy, labor, birth, postpartum, and newborn information. I'm not allowed to teach breastfeeding at all-- I'm required to refer my couples to the hospital's Official Breastfeeding class. Cytotec? Can't go there. VBAC? Can't cover it. Circumcision? Nope. Other than to answer basic questions, I can't say anything "controversial." Nothing that might dissuade a mother from opting out of the culturally and medically sanctioned norm. I'm not technically allowed to provide resources-- the best I can do is say, "I strongly recommend that you look ____ up and educate yourself."

My opinion doesn't count for anything, as far as the hospital is concerned. Never mind evidence-based. Forget personal experience. Hell, don't even worry about patient advocacy-- which is, as a nurse, my highest concern! Just stick to the party line, and for Goddess's sake, don't make waves!

Deep breath. Okay. I try to toe the line. I answer questions in a manner as vanilla as I can make it. I think I usually manage... or I did. I'm due to start a new class tomorrow night-- and today the nurse-manager of our labour & delivery unit informed me that I need to "be more aware" of what I'm saying. Apparently, she received a comment from a patient who took my class last December, who was (understandably!) upset because I allegedly said that "if you have a c-section, you might as well leave the hospital in a body bag." 

First of all, I assured the manager-- as I am assuring you, now-- that I never, ever, ever said any such thing. I have never uttered the words "c-section" and "body bag" in any kind of proximity to one another. I've wracked my brain, and I can't figure out anything that might have given anyone such a notion. The manager replied that she didn't know where the patient had come up with the idea, maybe I said it, maybe I didn't, but  just be careful. I reiterated that I would, and hung up the phone.

Then I wept. 

I do teach my classes that cesareans, while sometimes necessary and lifesaving, are not the optimal way to begin motherhood. I have, when asked, elaborated on potential consequences, both in the short term and in future pregnancies. I emphasize that most of the time vaginal birth is preferable, and it's well worth it to try to avoid surgical delivery. When couples ask me about my deliveries, I try to stick to the basics: I had a primary c-section for double-footling breech, a failed induction and repeat c-section, and then a homebirth VBAC. I don't tell my stories. I don't talk about the years of postpartum depression and PTSD. I have spoken of the wound complication I had after my CBAC, because a dad asked if anyone ever had incision problems. Yes, postpartum wound infections occur. I was lucky; I "only" developed a seroma and minor infection; I didn't have a full dehiscence that required surgical treatment, debridement, packing and repacking for months, as some mothers have. 

Essentially, I'm forced to abide by a version of "Don't ask, don't tell." I'm not supposed to offer anything off menu, so to speak. But if asked, I'm not going to lie... and I'm not going to "pretty it up." I will never tell a client "I loved my c-sections!" But I certainly never have, and never will, tell an expectant mother that having a cesarean will kill her. **

True, my CBAC made me want to die. I can't pretend otherwise. I once sparked a flame war on a prominent pregnancy and birth support forum by stating that I would rather bury a child than endure a forced c-section. Was that overly shocking? Unquestionably, though in my defense I was mired in severe depression at the time, and words cannot describe the anger and bitterness that were my constant companions then. Did I truly feel that way? Yes, I did. Do I now? No... probably not. But if another woman, after a traumatic birth, chose to express herself that way... I would support her. 

I wept because I would never intentionally frighten a pregnant woman. I would never set out to horrify or hurt another mother. But somehow... I did both. I'm angry and remorseful and frustrated. Why go on? Why, if all I do is cause distress? 

Maybe I should just... care less. Stick to the text, never depart. Why, yes, inductions are always medically necessary! Of course epidurals are safe for you and your baby! Your doctor always has your best interest at heart-- he would never section you at 5 pm for "failure to progress," even though the Friedman curve is a myth and you labored nicely to 7 cm in 10 hours, just because he wants to go home and catch the newest CSI episode! Cesareans are always the safest option for "big babies!" No, c-section recovery is no big deal at all!

I guess we'll see how tomorrow night's class goes. I"ll be good; I won't scare anyone. I won't express any opinion that's even a millimeter out of lock-step with the hospital's standard operating procedure. Maybe I'll even feign ignorance if someone asks about potential complications.

No, I won't. I couldn't live with myself. I'm a nurse. I'm a mother. I'm a birth activist. There's no rest for the wicked, they say... I suppose I'm living proof.





** I would never say that... but I might recommend she read the details of the surgical consent form. Unfortunately, cesareans have killed mothers. But no one wants to hear that-- and if I mention it, I'm the bad guy. Goddess help me, maybe it would be better for all concerned if I went back to my archaeological roots and found someplace that would just let me go dig in the dirt.


Sunday, January 8, 2012

Just an Example

As one of my New Year's projects, I've decided to try to informally track the deliveries at my hospital and watch the trends over 2012. This is not a rigorous scientific study, by any means; it's really little more than anecdotal. I plan to record our deliveries daily, and to make note of method of delivery, primary vs repeat cesarean, indication for surgery, etc. This will only include babies who are admitted to the well baby nursery, so there will be a good chunk of missing information right there; we do have a Level IIIb NICU, and it will be difficult to obtain delivery notes on those infants admitted directly to them on days I'm not actually here. So, as I say, this is just a sort of exercise-- in observation, data recording, and preliminary analysis.

I started recording delivery stats on December 19; I have 21 consecutive days of data, as of today. Just for giggles, so to speak, I decided to glance over them-- to see what I had. Here's my data:

n= total deliveries= 68
v= vaginal deliveries= 39  (57.4% of total births)
x= c-sections= 29 (42.6% of total births)
r= repeat c/s= 11 (16.2% of c/s)
p= primary c/s= 18 (26.4% of c/s)

The cesareans were done for a small number of predictable reasons. I broke the indications down into four categories:

1. "failures"-- labeled as such by the OBs, including "FTP (failure to progress)," "FTD (failure to descend)," "failed induction," and the ever-popular, vague, and widely inclusive "NRFHT (non-reassuring fetal heart tones)"

2. primary elective for breech-- no one here will do vaginal breech deliveries on purpose, so for all intents and purposes, these are physician-elected c/s

3. primary elective for maternal reasons-- there were three of these, including one mom who was HSV+ with a current outbreak, one mom who had a history of spina bifida and attendant multiple back surgeries, and one mom who was urged to elect her c/s for that fabulously accurate diagnosis, "suspected macrosomia"

4. other-- only because I wasn't sure where else to put it; I didn't have enough history in the report I got or on the chart; it was presented as a primary nonelective, nonemergent cesarean due to oligohydramnios and "placental issues, nonspecific"

The majority of the primary c-sections fell into the first category: 10/18, or 34.5%. There were 4 breech sections-- three scheduled, one discovered in labor (when mom was ready to push!)-- so 13.8% of the total. The other 4 were also scheduled, for the reasons listed above. That nonelective, nonemergent one resulted in a completely normal newborn with no signs of distress . That allegedly ginormous baby weighed a whopping 8 lbs 4 oz. Oh, and most of those NRFHT sections (ie, for fetal distress) produced babies with APGAR scores of 8/9 and 9/9. Sigh.

So, in the past three weeks (covering Christmas and New Year's), we had a cesarean rate of almost 43%-- well above the national average. I'll be curious to see if this trend continues. I've long suspected that our facility's c/s rate was that high, but I've never been able to demonstrate it. If I can keep this up, at least I'll be on my way to documenting outcomes for one mid-size hospital in Middle America. That's the plan, anyway.