##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57187/4189

Original article

Vol. 156 No. 4 (2026)

Five years of an Alongside Midwifery Unit at a Swiss Perinatal Centre: a retrospective descriptive study

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:4189
Published
27.04.2026

Summary

BACKGROUND: Overmedicalisation during childbirth, especially in low-risk pregnancies, is an increasing issue. Alongside Midwifery Units (AMUs) are a midwife-led, low-intervention option that maintains access to hospital resources. However, in 2022, only 3.7% of births in Switzerland took place outside hospitals. The UK has emphasised educating women about their birth choices, notably through the “Birthplace in England” programme and NICE guidelines. Evidence shows that out-of-hospital births in low-risk pregnancies are safe for mother and child. This retrospective descriptive study analyses maternal and neonatal outcomes, transfer rates and indications for transfer over a 5-year period at the AMU of the Cantonal Hospital Aarau.

METHODS: All women registering for delivery at the AMU between May 2017 and December 2022 were considered. Strict inclusion criteria ensured a low-risk cohort (singleton, cephalic presentation, 370/7 to 420/7 weeks, uncomplicated pregnancy). Exclusion criteria were pre-existing maternal or fetal disease, prior caesarean section and need for continuous maternal or fetal monitoring. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and included maternal characteristics, mode of delivery, transfer indications, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Statistical analyses were primarily descriptive. Comparisons between women delivering at the AMU and those transferred to the maternity ward used Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher’s exact tests (α = 0.05, unadjusted). The study was approved by the regional ethics committee (BASEC-Nr. 2023-00745).

RESULTS: Of 1196 women registered, 1034 were included in the analysis. Among 838 women who started labour at the AMU, 75% (n = 627) delivered there, while 25% (n = 211) were transferred peripartum, mainly due to failure to progress (53.1%) or analgesia request (34.6%). Most transferred women (74.8%) still had a vaginal birth. At 48.3% vs 17.7%, women who gave birth at the AMU were significantly more likely to have no birth injury. The postpartum transfer rate was 7.7%, primarily for retained placenta, perineal repair or uterine atony. Neonatal outcomes were favourable: 0.6% of AMU births had a 5-minute APGAR <7 and 0.8% required NICU admission.

CONCLUSION: The AMU with the continuity-of-care model at a Swiss Perinatal Centre provides a safe, low-intervention birth option for low-risk pregnancies, with high rates of vaginal birth and low rates of severe maternal or neonatal complications. Strict selection cr

References

  1. 1. Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, Ciapponi A, Colaci D, Comandé D, et al. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet. 2016 Oct;388(10056):2176–92. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31472-6
  2. 2. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections. 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550338
  3. 3. Gaille A, Brodbekc S, Ruf B. Statistikbericht der Schweizer Geburtshäuser: Interessengemeinschaft der Geburtshäuser Schweiz 2023 Available from: https://www.geburtshaus.ch/uploads/news/IGGH_Statistik_Bericht_2023_DE_final.pdf
  4. 4. Sandall J, Fernandez Turienzo C, Devane D, Soltani H, Gillespie P, Gates S, et al. Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Apr;4(4):CD004667. 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6
  5. 5. Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, McCourt C, et al.; Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2011 Nov;343 nov23 4:d7400. 10.1136/bmj.d7400
  6. 6. National Health Services (NHS) England. Implementing Better Births: Continuity of Carer. 2017. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/implementing-better-births-continuity-of-carer/2017
  7. 7. Callander EJ, Jackson H, McLachlan HL, Davey MA, Forster DA. Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Clin Med. 2024;4(2):e000008. 10.1136/gocm-2024-000008
  8. 8. McLachlan HL, Forster DA, Davey MA, Farrell T, Gold L, Biro MA, et al. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012 Nov;119(12):1483–92. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x
  9. 9. National Health Services (NHS) England. Increasing the number of births at home and in midwifery led units: A best practice toolkit. 2015. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/london/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/11/Increasing-the-number-of-births-at-home-and-in-midwifery-led-units_A-best-practice-toolkit.pdf
  10. 10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Clinical Guideline 190: Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. 2014. https://www.england.nhs.uk/london/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/11/Increasing-the-number-of-births-at-home-and-in-midwifery-led-units_A-best-practice-toolkit.pdf
  11. 11. Desplanches T. Swiss Peristat Project: Swiss National Science Foundation; 2023 [SNF grant 222882. Available from: https://www.hesge.ch/heds/rad/projets/swiss-peristat-care-quality-indicators
  12. 12. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). S3-Leitlinie Vaginale Geburt am Termin (AWMF Registernummer. 015/083). AWMF online; 2020. https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/015-083.html
  13. 13. Maude RM, Skinner JP, Foureur MJ. Putting intelligent structured intermittent auscultation (ISIA) into practice. Women Birth. 2016 Jun;29(3):285–92. 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.12.001
  14. 14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guideline 229: Fetal monitoring in labour. 2022. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng229/resources/fetal-monitoring-in-labour-pdf-66143844065221
  15. 15. Gerzen L, Tietjen SL, Heep A, Puth MT, Schmid M, Gembruch U, et al. Why are women deciding against birth in alongside midwifery units? A prospective single-center study from Germany. J Perinat Med. 2022 May;50(8):1124–34. 10.1515/jpm-2022-0041
  16. 16. Morr AK, Malah N, Messer AM, Etter A, Mueller M, Raio L, et al. Obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births: a cohort study in an obstetric department of a University Hospital in Switzerland. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Oct;21(1):728. 10.1186/s12884-021-04209-2
  17. 17. Andraczek T, Magister S, Bautzmann S, Poppke S, Stepan H, Tauscher A. [Birth in the Midwife-Led Delivery Room of a Perinatal Center - Learning Curve, Outcomes and Benchmark]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2023 Oct;227(5):364–76. 10.1055/a-2082-2176
  18. 18. Al Wattar BH, Honess E, Bunnewell S, Welton NJ, Quenby S, Khan KS, et al. Effectiveness of intrapartum fetal surveillance to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2021 Apr;193(14):E468–77. 10.1503/cmaj.202538
  19. 19. Downe S, Finlayson K, Oladapo OT, Bonet M, Gülmezoglu AM. What matters to women during childbirth: A systematic qualitative review. PLoS One. 2018 Apr;13(4):e0194906. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194906
  20. 20. Karlsdottir SI, Halldorsdottir S, Lundgren I. The third paradigm in labour pain preparation and management: the childbearing woman’s paradigm. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014 Jun;28(2):315–27. 10.1111/scs.12061
  21. 21. Lally JE, Murtagh MJ, Macphail S, Thomson R. More in hope than expectation: a systematic review of women’s expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med. 2008 Mar;6(1):7. 10.1186/1741-7015-6-7
  22. 22. Elkington M, Kurinczuk JJ, Pasupathy D, Plachcinski R, Rogers J, Williams C, et al.; UKMidSS Steering Group. Postpartum haemorrhage occurring in UK midwifery units: A national population-based case-control study to investigate incidence, risk factors and outcomes. PLoS One. 2023 Oct;18(10):e0291795. 10.1371/journal.pone.0291795
  23. 23. Merz WM, Tascon-Padron L, Puth MT, Heep A, Tietjen SL, Schmid M, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcome of births planned in alongside midwifery units: a cohort study from a tertiary center in Germany. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 May;20(1):267. 10.1186/s12884-020-02962-4
  24. 24. Gülmezoglu AM, Lumbiganon P, Landoulsi S, Widmer M, Abdel-Aleem H, Festin M, et al. Active management of the third stage of labour with and without controlled cord traction: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012 May;379(9827):1721–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60206-2
  25. 25. Moser D. Quality aspects relating to giving birth in Switzerland: an analysis of quality indicators in inpatient obstetrics from 2013 to 2017. Front Public Health. 2022 Oct;10:1009412. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1009412
  26. 26. Aasheim V, Nilsen AB, Reinar LM, Lukasse M. Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun;6(6):CD006672. 10.1002/14651858.CD006672.pub3
  27. 27. Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, Peerdeman KM, van den Akker T, Titulaer LM, Roovers JP, Peters LL, et al. Differences in rates of severe perineal trauma between midwife-led and obstetrician-led care in the Netherlands: A nationwide cohort study. Heliyon. 2024 Jan;10(2):e24609. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24609
  28. 28. Bodner-Adler B, Kimberger O, Griebaum J, Husslein P, Bodner K. A ten-year study of midwife-led care at an Austrian tertiary care center: a retrospective analysis with special consideration of perineal trauma. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Oct;17(1):357. 10.1186/s12884-017-1544-9
  29. 29. Houlbracq R, Le Ray C, Blondel B, Lelong N, Chantry AA, Desplanches T; ENP2021 Study Group. Episiotomies and obstetric anal sphincter injuries following a restrictive episiotomy policy in France: An analysis of the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys. PLoS Med. 2025 Jan;22(1):e1004501. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004501
  30. 30. Andraczek T, Tauscher A, Kabbani N, Todorow H, Stepan H. Comparison of intrapartum transfer from out-of-hospital births with intrapartum transfer from an alongside midwifery unit: a real-world data analysis of a German cohort. J Perinat Med. 2025 Jun;53(8):1077–88. 10.1515/jpm-2025-0141
  31. 31. Phillippi JC, Danhausen K, Alliman J, Phillippi RD. Neonatal Outcomes in the Birth Center Setting: A Systematic Review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018 Jan;63(1):68–89. 10.1111/jmwh.12701
  32. 32. Iliodromiti S, Mackay DF, Smith GC, Pell JP, Nelson SM. Apgar score and the risk of cause-specific infant mortality: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2014 Nov;384(9956):1749–55. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61135-1
  33. 33. Razaz N, Cnattingius S, Joseph KS. Association between Apgar scores of 7 to 9 and neonatal mortality and morbidity: population based cohort study of term infants in Sweden. BMJ. 2019 May;365:l1656. 10.1136/bmj.l1656
  34. 34. Sabol BA, Caughey AB. Acidemia in neonates with a 5-minute Apgar score of 7 or greater - What are the outcomes? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):486 e1-6. 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.05.035
  35. 35. Anyaegbunam A, Fleischer A, Whitty J, Brustman L, Randolph G, Langer O. Association between Umbilical Artery Cord pH, Five-Minute Apgar Scores and Neonatal Outcome. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 1 April 1991;(32 (4):):220–3. https://doi.org/10.1159/000293036
  36. 36. Casey BM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The continuing value of the Apgar score for the assessment of newborn infants. N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb;344(7):467–71. 10.1056/NEJM200102153440701
  37. 37. Scarf VL, Rossiter C, Vedam S, Dahlen HG, Ellwood D, Forster D, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Midwifery. 2018 Jul;62:240–55. 10.1016/j.midw.2018.03.024
  38. 38. Goodarzi B, Walker A, Holten L, Schoonmade L, Teunissen P, Schellevis F, et al. Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review. PLoS One. 2020 Jun;15(6):e0234252. 10.1371/journal.pone.0234252
  39. 39. Gravesteijn BY, Boderie N, Beijers R, Bertens L, van den Akker T, van Dillen J, et al.; PREPARE consortium. Choosing for a Homebirth during COVID-19 Lockdown in The Netherlands, who and why: A national prospective questionnaire study. Midwifery. 2025 May;144:104361. 10.1016/j.midw.2025.104361
  40. 40. van den Berg LM, Akooji N, Thomson G, de Jonge A, Balaam MC, Topalidou A, et al.; ASPIRE COVID-19 research team. Making maternity and neonatal care personalised in the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the Babies Born Better survey in the UK and the Netherlands. PLoS One. 2022 Nov;17(11):e0267415. 10.1371/journal.pone.0267415
  41. 41. Hermus M, Boesveld I, van der Pal-de Bruin K, Wiegers T. Development of the Optimality Index-NL2015, an Instrument to Measure Outcomes of Maternity Care. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2017 Sep;62(5):580–8. 10.1111/jmwh.12650