Out-of-hospital births and the experiences of emergency ambulance clinicians and birthing parents: A scoping review of the literature
=====================================================================================================================================

* Michella G. Hill
* Alecka Miles
* Belinda Flanagan
* Sara Hansen
* Brennen Mills
* Luke Hopper

## Abstract

**Objective** Emergency ambulance services attend a wide array of medical and trauma patients. Infrequently, this includes imminent or out-of-hospital births (OOHBs). There is a paucity of research pertaining to OOHBs. This scoping review explores emergency ambulance clinician involvement with OOHBs, and patient and clinician experiences with birthing in the out-of-hospital setting.

**Design** Scoping review; two reviewers independently determined inclusion using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and ‘participant, concept, context’ criteria.

**Methods** CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Wiley Online were searched from database inception until 20 February 2024. Articles discussing an unplanned OOHB, or a planned home birth with complications where an emergency ambulance was required were included.

**Results** Sixty-three articles were included for review. The majority (*n*=36) involved retrospective research. Most articles were published since 2015 (*n*=38), with the highest contributing countries being USA (*n*=17) and Australia (*n*=13). Risks factors for OOHBs were varied with maternal age or being multigravida/multiparous often cited. Ninety-nine complications were described in the literature ranging from relatively minor ailments such as nausea and vomiting through to life-threatening situations such as maternal or neonatal cardiac arrest. The most common management/interventions reported were assisting with birth, maternal intravenous cannulation, and medication administration.

Birth parents, partners and clinicians all describe OOHBs as anxiety-provoking but joyous when a healthy neonate is born. The OOHB experience is enhanced for patients when clinicians communicate well, while those who appeared inexperienced increased patient anxiety.

OOHBs experience many challenges to optimal care, falling under the broad categories of ‘emergency ambulance clinicians desiring additional education and training’, ‘communication and collaboration difficulties’, ‘environmental issues’, ‘technology and aids’ and ‘other’ limitations.

**Conclusion** OOHBs are rare events requiring expert assistance to optimise patient outcomes. There remains significant challenges to unplanned OOHBs; ongoing training and skill competency is required to improve patient safety and clinician confidence.

**Strength and limitations.**

*   This review provides a comprehensive overview of unplanned OOHBs attended by emergency ambulance clinicians in high-income countries; this also includes planned home births or freebirths where emergency ambulance assistance was required.

*   We utilised a rigorous methodology framework as per the JBI guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews.

*   This review did not consider risk of bias, rigour, or quality from included studies, however most research in this space is from retrospective or qualitative research methodologies.

*   Only peer-reviewed, full text publications in English were included. Educational material, conference papers, letters to the editor, or opinion articles were excluded.

**Review registration** This scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework ([https://osf.io/bd62h](https://osf.io/bd62h)), registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/TA35Q.

**What is already known on this topic** Unplanned out-of-hospital births occur rarely, yet have the capacity to be life-threatening events for both birth parent and neonate.

**What this study adds** This study provides an extensive overview of emergency ambulance clinician involvement in unplanned out-of-hospital births, birth complications and interventions provided. Furthermore, it comprehensively explores the patient and clinician experience, which is frequently described as traumatic and anxiety-provoking, with evidence suggesting support services such as telehealth could aid both the patient and emergency ambulance clinician in these situations.

**How this study might affect research, practice, or policy** Quality ongoing training, education, and exposure to birthing for emergency ambulance clinicians is strongly recommended. Ensuring emergency ambulance service guidelines have been appropriately adapted for unplanned out-of-hospital birth is also encouraged, as it appears some guidelines (such as resuscitative hysterotomy in maternal cardiac arrest) are unrealistic for the out-of-hospital environment.

Keywords
*   Emergency medical services
*   allied health personnel
*   obstetrics
*   parturition
*   birth
*   out-of-hospital birth

## Introduction

Emergency ambulance service caseload varies widely, ranging from high impact trauma to low-acuity or chronic medical presentations.(1) Obstetrics care is included in this diverse workload with pregnant patients presenting with perinatal emergencies or non-obstetrics related presentations.(2) Occasionally, it can involve assisting with precipitous births or aiding with a planned home birth where the midwife has requested emergency ambulance assistance for the neonate or birth parent following unanticipated complications. Births which occur in an unplanned location in the out-of-hospital (OOH) environment are known as ‘births before arrival’ (BBA) or ‘out-of-hospital births’ (OOHBs).(2)

The incidence of intrapartum cases attended by emergency ambulance clinicians is relatively low compared to other callouts. For example, one study found intrapartum cases represented 0.05% of the Queensland Ambulance Service caseload in 2010–2011, with around 10% of these progressing to an OOHB in paramedic care. While this percentage sounds negligible, intrapartum cases amounted to 6,135 callouts.(3) The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports annually on Australia’s Mothers and Babies. This report advises in 2021 the recorded place of birth for 7% of women was ‘other’,(4) which includes births that did not occur in the planned location, freebirths where there was no clinician in attendance, births at community health centres, and OOHBs. ‘Other’ births appear to be increasing, up from 4% in 2016.(4) While it is unknown how many of these ‘other’ births were attended by emergency ambulance clinician’s, these rare events are often classified as ‘low-frequency, high-risk’ callouts.

Unfortunately, OOHBs have an increased incidence of adverse outcomes for both the birth parent and neonate compared to hospital, maternity unit or planned home births.(2,5) Complications may be unanticipated and unavoidable such as preterm births (defined as <37 weeks gestation), but also include postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and neonatal hypothermia which must be effectively managed OOH to avoid adverse outcomes.(2,5) Birth parents and emergency ambulance clinicians have described OOHBs as distressing and sometimes requiring psychological support following their experiences.(6,7) Some emergency ambulance clinicians have indicated they feel underprepared to handle an OOHB or obstetrics emergencies and report a lack of recent education and training on the subject.(8) Given the infrequency of OOHBs, obstetric-specific clinical knowledge and skills may be untested for years before being required in a high-risk emergency.

It is essential that emergency ambulance clinicians maintain their specialised obstetrics skills and knowledge above the minimum competencies required to ensure the well-being of both the birth parent and neonate (or foetus). In an emergency, this knowledge must be readily retrievable for patient safety, and ideally the clinician should be confident in their abilities.

The objective of this review is to explore: 

*   Emergency ambulance clinician involvement in OOHBs, including incidence, risk factors and complications;

*   Birth parent, significant partner, and emergency ambulance clinician experiences with OOHBs; and

*   The barriers and challenges in providing optimal treatment provision for unplanned OOHBs by emergency ambulance clinicians.

## Methods

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework and methodology for conducting scoping reviews (9–11) was used with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines reported.(12) The protocol for this review was published a-priori which provides comprehensive details relating to the search protocol.(13)

### Eligibility criteria

Articles were included in line with the ‘population, concept, and context’ criteria recommended by Lockwood et al.(12) and search terms were devised in consultation with two Edith Cowan University librarians. For the purposes of this review, the *population* is birthing parents who have an out-of-hospital birth and the emergency ambulance clinicians who attend them. The *concept* is birth, which includes imminent births and/or immediate postpartum care provided by emergency ambulance clinicians. The *context* is out-of-hospital emergency care, and occurred in a ‘high-income’ country as defined by the World Bank.(14) Exclusions related to obstetric patients treated for non-birth-related presentations, planned home births with midwifery assistance not requiring an emergency ambulance, births in hospitals or birthing clinics, post-birth institutional transfers for birth parent and/or neonate, educational materials, textbooks, and abstracts without the full article.

### Search strategy

Utilising the three-step process recommended by JBI, an initial search of the CINAHL and Medline databases was conducted on 22–23 November 2022 following the priori.(13) Located articles were analysed for text words used in the Title and Abstract, and the index terms used to describe the publication. A second search of the databases CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Wiley Online was with articles included up to 20 February 2024. The full list of keywords used to conduct the full search are described below.

Population: ambulance* OR “emergency medical service*” OR “emergency medical technician*” OR aeromedical OR “helicopter transport*” AND

Concept: birth* OR “born before arrival” OR childbirth OR deliver* OR “emergency birth” OR labo*r OR matern* OR neonat* OR newborn OR obstetric* OR outborn OR parturition OR perinat* OR postpartum AND

Context: “out of hospital” OR “out-of-hospital” OR “out of institution” OR “out-of-institution” OR paramedic* OR pre*hospital

The third step involved reviewing the reference lists of selected articles to locate additional studies. To reduce selection bias and inclusion error two reviewers (MH, AM) independently screened publications to ensure the articles met the criteria.

### Data charting

A data extraction tool was utilised to logically chart key information from each included publication. Extracted information included authors, year of publication, title, country, study aims, participants, methods and results relevant to research questions. Three articles were independently assessed by two reviewers (MH, BM) and the extracted data was compared to ensure relevant data was included. Further data extraction was predominantly undertaken by one researcher (MH). The data extraction tool has been included as a Supplementary, Table 1. A quality assessment of each article was not undertaken for this review. A descriptive summary of findings has been provided.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/T2)

Supplementary Table 1: Included articles for Out-of-hospital births and experiences of emergency ambulance clinicians and birthing parents: a scoping review of the literature.

### Ethics

This study does not require ethical review as all the information obtained comes from publicly available resources. This scoping review has been registered with Open Science Framework ([https://osf.io/bd62h](https://osf.io/bd62h)), registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/TA35Q.

## Results

The final analysis of the five databases yielded 9,649 records for consideration and 230 duplicate records were removed. Figure 1 below shows a detailed PRISMA-ScR flow diagram(15) illustrating the identification, screening, and selection process for the 63 included articles.

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F1)

Figure 1: Selection process for included articles in the scoping review.
*Reasons for exclusion, Reason 1 – were Review articles; removed to avoid duplication of data. (Ensured all relevant articles were already considered for this review). Reason 2 – were not in English. Reason 3 – were educational material, textbooks, abstract only, Letters to the Editor, or discussion article (not research). Reason 4 – according to World Bank, research not done on a ‘high-income’ country. Reason 5 – births under midwifery care where ambulance assistance is not required and/or maternity unit/institutional births. Reason 6 – not relevant to research questions (e.g., interfacility transfers of neonate post-birth; simulation exercises) Reason 7 – birth occurred after transportation to hospital. No automation was utilised in the screening process (all manually screened).

### General characteristics of included articles

The top three countries contributing studies to this review were the United States of America (USA) (*n*=17), Australia (*n*=13) and the United Kingdom (UK) (*n*=8). Figure 2 provides a comprehensive summary of contributing countries.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F2)

Figure 2. 
Countries which contributed articles to the scoping review

Figure 3 shows the methodologies utilised for the included articles, with retrospective data (i.e.: historical patient care records or hospital data) being the most widely used study design.

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F3)

Figure 3: 
Research methodologies employed for articles included in the Scoping Review

The number of participants pooled across the research amounted to 1,868,304 (Table 1). The number of neonates born OOH amounted to 40,596. There were only 85 emergency ambulance clinicians represented in the data set. It should be noted that while home births were specifically excluded from this review, articles which discussed home births where emergency ambulance clinicians became involved in the birth were still included.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/T1)

Table 1: Total number of participants included in the Scoping Review

Publication dates ranged from 1987 to 2023, with a higher frequency of publications seen since 2015 (Figure 4).

![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/F4)

Figure 4: 
Number of included articles published by year.

### Emergency ambulance involvement in OOHBs, including incidence, risk factors and complications

#### Incidence

The incidence of imminent birth callouts for ambulance services varied from 0.5% – 0.6%,(3,16) while actual OOHBs were reported at 0.02% – 0.3%.(3,16–22) For aeromedical retrievals, one service reported neonates born within 24-hours of the call request comprised 2.7% of all paediatric cases.(23) Maternal cardiac arrests, while extremely rare, contributed a number of articles in the scoping review (*n*=4),(24–27), with many articles discussing specific case studies reporting on management and patient outcomes.

#### Risk Factors

Risk factors for OOHBs and increased neonatal morbidity and mortality are depicted in Supplementary Table 2. The analysis of risk factors was highly heterogenous between studies. Risk factors such as ‘maternal age (older)’ or ‘birth weight (low)’ were often not defined with exact integers due to differing definitions between studies. A few articles used descriptive analysis reporting on ‘known risk factors’ from patient characteristics, whilst others used proportional analysis. Some studies compared OOHBs to another cohort and used statistical significance to determine possible risk factors. Articles using methodologies such as univariate or multivariate regression modelling have a separate citation column in Supplementary Table 2, to separate these studies from the less rigorous methodologies. Two articles discussed different factors in their regression analysis and were not included in Supplementary Table 2: Akl et al.(28) reviewed aeromedical transfers for obstetrics patients, and found no in-flight births, although there were two births during ground transportation.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/T3)

Supplementary Table 2: Identified risk factors for out-of-hospital births and increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality.

However, the clinical factors which were associated with shorter duration between landing and birth were nulliparity, cervical dilation ≥4cm, ruptured membranes, and a gestational age of >32 weeks. Javaudin et al.(29) assessed what factors were associated with significant improvement in neonatal body temperature during transportation to hospital, which were the outside temperature, gestational age, birth weight and the initial body temperature taken on arrival at the scene.

#### Complications

Supplementary Table 3 shows the wide-ranging types of complications encountered by emergency ambulance clinicians. The most common complications for the birth parent reported in the literature were PPH, abdominal pain, APH and breech presentations.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/T4)

Supplementary Table 3: Peripartum complications encountered by emergency ambulance clinicians.

Premature birth, death/stillbirth, low birth weight, and hypothermia were most common for the neonate (Supplementary Table 3). Neonatal death and maternal cardiac arrest are likely to be over-represented in the literature in relation to the actual number of incidents which occur, as they are often reported as a single case study, which highlights the rarity and impact on clinicians.

#### Emergency ambulance clinician interventions

Many studies did not specifically report on interventions provided to patients. Supplementary Table 4 describes the management of OOHBs by emergency ambulance clinicians reported in the literature. Transportation to hospital and ‘vital signs’ were not included as a ‘management or intervention’ within the Table, as this would be relevant for most OOHBs.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/T5)

Supplementary Table 4. Emergency ambulance clinician interventions and/or management for OOHBs

### Birth parent, significant partner, and emergency ambulance clinician experiences with OOHBs

#### Birth parent & partner experiences

If a birth occurred in an unplanned location, birth parents (inclusive of significant partners) had often contacted the hospital within a few hours of the birth and experienced difficulty in determining the ‘right’ time to attend hospital.(6,30,68,70,71) Midwives triaging the birth parent frequently advised parents to stay at home until the labour was more advanced and were viewed as ‘gate keepers’ for admission, in some cases not sending an ambulance as requested.(69–71) The most common reasons surmised for an OOHB occurring were that for some birth parents the labour was not as painful as expected, or simply occurred precipitously, sometimes enroute to hospital.(6,56,68–72) Some parents deliberately delayed going to hospital to minimise interventions and have a more ‘natural’ birth, while others were organising suitable childcare for older siblings.(69,71)

Once it was apparent birth would occur outside the hospital, birth parents and partners often reported initial feelings of anxiety which were overtaken with focussing on the birth, and ultimately a feeling of achievement or empowerment following the birth.(6,68–71) Challenges such as no pain relief, blood loss, taxing environments (e.g.: car, ambulance), possible complications, and risk of hypothermia were often discussed.(6,56,68–72) Feelings of shame or guilt at not getting to the hospital before birth was reported by a few parents, or reliving what could have gone wrong, (6,68–71) while some were reconsidering future birth locations as they found the unplanned OOHB a positive empowering experience.(69,71) Partners who had previously been present at a birth reported this exposure assisted them with the OOHB as they knew what to expect. However, some partners would have liked to be more educated regarding what to do in the case of an OOHB occurring.(68,70)

Being coached through the birth via telephone was reassuring for many,(68,69,72) while one case was alarmed to be put on silence mode by a midwife during an en-caul birth.(6) Poor telephone networks affected some birth parent’s ability to contact the hospital or emergency ambulance when necessary.(69,72) Arrival of the ambulance was regarded as a relief and partners could shift their focus onto the birth parent. However, concerns were expressed by a number of birth parents about the apparent lack of training and expertise of ambulance clinicians, and in some cases the lack of respect, privacy, consideration of the birth plan, and consensual care which had implications for patient safety.(6,68,69,73) The emergency ambulance clinician’s communication skills and ability to place the birth parent at ease determined whether clinicians were perceived positively or negatively and could influence the tone of the OOHB experience.(6,68,70,73) Birth parents who perceived emergency ambulance clinician’s as unconfident interpreted the decision to provide rapid transportion to hospital as further evidence of low confidence, rather than being confident to allowing the birth to occur on scene.(8,73) Birth parents and partners reported being more relaxed if a midwife was present, and some expected a midwife to accompany emergency ambulance clinicians to a birth.(68,69)

Rural birth parents reported disappointment at centralisation of maternity services to regional areas requiring considerable travel to access. Cases have been reported where a birth parent was driving to hospital but had to stop due to advanced labour, and the ambulance had difficulty locating the patient due to unclear mapping.(69,72) Other birth parents described discomfort while being transported via ambulance while trying to safeguard their newborn.(70) Transfers could take longer than the birth parent had anticipated as well,(6) in some cases patients were diverted from one hospital to another.(70)

The hospital admission was usually regarded positively; however, a few birth parents described a lack of empathy from midwives who focussed more on the neonate or birth of the placenta. A need for debriefing was expressed, to understand what happened and allow the birth parent or partner to process the birth experience.(6,68–70)

#### Emergency ambulance clinician experiences

When emergency ambulance clinicians’ experiences were explored, many studies reported on the infrequency of OOHBs and a lack of training concerning obstetrics.(8,57,58,65) It was felt classroom learning did not translate well to real-life births where there is little clinical support, and often limited space and equipment and poor lighting and climate control.(65) Concerns were reported surrounding the limited opportunity for continuing education through clinical obstetrics placements.(8,58) Lack of exposure to births frequently led to low confidence in attending these cases.(8,57,58,65) A small number of services had midwives to assist for OOHB callouts while others could utilise telehealth for clinical support.(8,58)

OOHBs were often in challenging locations and the decision to stay on location or provide urgent transport to hospital is a critical clinical decision.(8,57,58) While it was recognised most OOHBs were uncomplicated, clinicians would ‘think through’ possible scenarios to best prepare themselves prior to arrival.(8,57,58) Uncomplicated births were a relief and viewed as a joyful occasion,(57,58) however complications were anxiety-provoking; some clinicians reported that due to lack of education/exposure they may be slower to recognise complications than is desirable, which could impact patient safety.(8,57) Prioritisation of care between the birth parent and neonate was difficult and some clinicians expressed concern handling a newborn.(57,65) Appropriate obstetrics and neonatal equipment were sometimes unavailable, for example neonatal thermometers and pulse oximetry capabilities.(57,58,65) Hill et al.(8) reported limited pain management options and fear of causing harm, especially to the neonate. Another study found if the neonate appeared well, no clinical observations may be undertaken, especially if the birth parent had complications.(65) Concerningly, optimal patient management may only occur if supported by clinical practice guidelines (guidelines may not support delayed cord cutting for example) or prompts provided in an electronic patient record.(8,65)

Additional challenges from clinicians’ perspectives included providing support to the family during birth or transport, long distances to definitive care, telecommunication difficulties, refusal to transport, demand for a female clinician to attend, language barriers, reliance on antenatal books for essential medical information, and lack of specialist clinical support.(8,57,58) Vagle et al.(58) suggested there may be a mismatch in the general public’s expectations of emergency ambulance clinicians’ role and skill level regarding births. Some clinicians desired a debriefing after attending an OOHB, especially if adverse outcomes occurred.(57,58) Handovers could be abrupt, and strained relations with midwives at the hospital were described.(57,58) There was a clear desire for high quality continuing education to enhance obstetric skills and knowledge.(8,57,58,65) Multiple authors (5,16,21,40,53,54,67,70,74) suggested there was a need to develop appropriate guidelines regarding OOHBs.

#### Barriers and challenges to optimal treatment provision for unplanned OOHBs and associated complications

Supplementary Table 5 includes the barriers and challenges identified within the 63 reviewed articles when attending OOHB’s. Identified barriers and challenges were varied, ranging from the desire for additional training, to revised OOHB guidelines, onto more practical issues such as minimal equipment appropriate for neonates being available on ambulances, and lack of role clarity when another clinician was also in attendance such as a midwife. The barriers and challenges have been broadly grouped into five categories: ‘education and training’, ‘communication and collaboration’, ‘environment’, ‘technology and aids’, and ‘other’.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/10/2024.11.09.24316932/T6)

Supplementary Table 5: Barriers and challenges for emergency ambulance clinicians when managing out-of-hospital births

## Discussion

This scoping review examined peer-reviewed research concerning imminent or OOHBs involving emergency ambulance clinician care. Emergency ambulance service data specifically analysing unplanned OOHBs, incidence, interventions, complications, and outcomes were uncommon within the literature. When reported, the incidence of OOHBs has remained low over time, at <1% of ambulance caseload.(3,16–20) However, recent international literature indicates an upwards trend of unplanned OOHBs, also influenced by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.(17,75) Townsend et al.(76) describes recent changes to pregnant patients’ engagement with healthcare systems worldwide, with reduced antenatal visits and an increase in virtual/remote care and unscheduled hospitalisations. Maternity unit closures in rural regions have further complicated access to maternity care, increasing OOHBs.(77) As these factors are influencing unplanned OOHBs, this creates an urgency in improving current emergency ambulance service training, education, and clinician confidence in this area.

For every OOHB there are ∼10 additional patients transported to hospital during labour.(2,3,16,19,50) Emergency ambulance clinicians scope of practice differs from midwives and often does not include skills such as foetal heart auscultation or confirming effacement, which determines whether the patient is in active second stage of labour.(3,22,42,50) Therefore, rapid history-taking and patient observation help inform the decision to provide urgent transport or stay on scene.(8) However, some studies did report on the ability to confirm dilation,(43,63,66) indicating differing roles and scope of practice worldwide. Whilst a majority of cases are precipitous and uncomplicated, as many as 28% of OOHBS may be premature(3) and 86% of neonates may experience hypothermia(40), although most studies reported lower incidences of these conditions. The most common maternal complication reported was PPH (Supplementary Table 3). PPH was often undefined in terms of the volume of blood loss,(16,20,65,21,22,41,46,48,52,59,60) while hypothermia definitions varied from <36.5 degrees to <36.0 degrees, creating some heterogeneity within results. Independent predictive risk factors for neonatal morbidity and mortality following an OOHB include multiparity, maternal pathology, prematurity and neonatal hypothermia.(5) OOH management of PPH and hypothermia may not be as effective as in-hospital care, which increases the risk of adverse outcomes for birth parent and neonate.(29,32,33,37–41,45–47,65,67) In some countries midwives accompany ambulance personnel for OOHBs,(6,60) and in France mobile intensive care units (MICU) respond to these requests comprising of a driver, nurse and senior emergency doctor.(29). This contrasts to the Australian and American systems where paramedics, or in some regions, volunteer ambulance officers, attend OOH emergencies (including OOHBs),(78,79) although, it is not uncommon for a medical doctor to attend during aeromedical transfers in Australia.(28) Unsurprisingly, OOHBs and associated complications have improved outcomes if a skilled clinician is present.(35,80,81) Given the centralisation of many maternity services, this poses considerable problems for rural and remote regions where there may be large distances to definitive care.(21,57,82–84) Aeromedical retrieval is sometimes an option but is subject to availability and weather conditions, so may not always be viable.(28,63,66)

Limited studies report on OOHBs from the patient, bystander or clinician perspective. There is a significant gap in the research pertaining to birth parent and partner’s experience of adverse outcomes (acknowledging sensitivity/privacy considerations); nevertheless, understanding the more complex scenarios is important as this may provide compelling evidence for service improvement, guideline revision, and training. Some emergency ambulance clinician’s describe serious adverse outcomes when attending OOHBs and how harrowing this is,(8,58) with little discussion provided in the literature regarding organisational support following a difficult case.(25,27) It is unclear how often organisational support services are accessed, whether this is actively encouraged by organisations, and whether this benefits the clinician if the services are utilised. Occupational stress and trauma experienced by these clinicians is worthy of further research to assess the impact of trauma on individuals and organisations, and how to reduce the possibility of long-term stress disorders and ill health in this valuable resource.

Significant barriers remain for treatment and management of OOHB patients. Many of these challenges are inherent to any OOH situation, such as difficult extrications, weather, language difficulties or bystanders complicating scenes. Specific to OOHBs, collaboration between maternity services, receiving hospitals, and ambulance services appears to be problematic in certain countries or regions,(36,53,55,57,58,74) in addition to lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities when a midwife is also in attendance.(60,65) Previously, interfacility training has proven beneficial for both students and experienced clinicians in understanding roles, improving communication, and facilitating learning transfer between midwives and paramedics concerning OOHBs.(85–87) The rarity of these events has raised concerns regarding emergency ambulance clinician knowledge and skill decay, with multiple authors recommending improvements in ongoing training and education provision to clinicians to better retain skills currency.(Supplementary Table 5)

## Strengths and limitations

This review provides a comprehensive overview of imminent births and unplanned OOHBs attended by emergency ambulance clinicians in high income countries. This also includes planned home births or freebirths where emergency ambulance assistance is required. A rigorous methodology framework was utilised including the JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines.(9–12) This review did not consider risk of bias, rigour, or quality of included studies, which is not uncommon for scoping reviews.(10) However, most research in this space was identified as using retrospective data of patient records or qualitative research methodologies, which is considered a lower level of evidence.(88) Five databases were reviewed by one author using the search strategy described in Figure 1, and located articles were corroborated for inclusion by a second author. However, any consideration of limitations must include the possibility of missed articles. Additionally, only articles published in English were included, excluding data from non-English publications. Nevertheless, this review provides a comprehensive review of available literature pertaining to OOH involvement in OOHBs or where there is potential for an OOHB in paramedic care.

## Conclusion

Reviewing 63 articles concerning emergency ambulance clinician involvement in OOHBs, it is apparent these situations remain a low-frequency, high-risk event. The majority of articles were drawn from the USA, Australia, and United Kingdom, and included over 40,596 unplanned OOHBs. The literature found 51 factors which increased the risk of an OOHB, and 26 factors which increase the incidence of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Emergency ambulance clinicians encountered 99 peripartum complications with 32 interventions utilised for OOHBs. Usually birth parent, partner and clinician experienced initial anxiety before the birth, however this turned to focussing on the birth, followed by relief and joy if a healthy neonate was born. Many challenges exist to optimal management of OOHBs, broadly encompassing communication, collaboration with other healthcare professionals (such as midwives or emergency department clinicians), environmental and technological issues. It is reported that many emergency ambulance clinicians would benefit from ongoing training and education pertaining to these rare events to improve patient outcomes.

## Supporting information

PRISMA-ScR check list [[supplements/316932_file03.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Author Contributions

Concept and design of the research: MH, BM, LH, SH, AM and BF.

Screened articles for inclusion criteria: MH, AM.

Data extraction and consistency of included data: MH, BM. Draft article: MH.

Revisions: AM, SH, BM, BF and LH.

Content expert: BF.

## Funding

This research was undertaken with assistance from a PhD scholarship awarded as part of Dr Luke Hopper’s ECU Vice Chancellor’s Research Fellow Scholarship for 2020. There are no grant/award numbers associated with this.

## Competing interests

None declared.

## Patient consent

Not required

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## Abbreviations

BBA
:   Born before arrival (or birth before arrival)

JBI
:   Joanna Briggs Institute

OOH
:   Out-of-hospital

OOHB
:   Out-of-hospital birth

PPH
:   Postpartum haemorrhage

PRISMA-ScR
:   Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews

UK
:   United Kingdom

USA
:   United State of America

*   Received November 9, 2024.
*   Revision received November 9, 2024.
*   Accepted November 10, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Rosser A. PP16 A review of the annual case epidemiology and clinical exposure of 45 paramedics, in a UK ambulance service: a service evaluation. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident …; 2020.
    
    

2.  2.McLelland G, McKenna L, Morgans A, Smith K. Epidemiology of unplanned out-of-hospital births attended by paramedics. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/S12884-018-1842-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29291732&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

3.  3.Flanagan B, Lord B, Barnes M. Is unplanned out-of-hospital birth managed by paramedics ‘infrequent’,‘normal’and ‘uncomplicated’? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):436.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29273024&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

4.  4.Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing. Australia’s Mothers and babies: place of birth [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 12]. Available from: [https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/australias-mothers-babies/contents/labour-and-birth/place-of-birth](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/australias-mothers-babies/contents/labour-and-birth/place-of-birth)
    
    

5.  5.Javaudin F, Hamel V, Legrand A, Goddet S, Templier F, Potiron C, et al. Unplanned out-of-hospital birth and risk factors of adverse perinatal outcome: findings from a prospective cohort. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27(1):26.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30825876&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

6.  6.Svedberg E, Strömbäck U, Engström Å. Women’s experiences of unplanned pre-hospital births: A pilot study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2020;51:100868.
    
    

7.  7.Bhoopalam PS, Watkinson M. Babies born before arrival at hospital. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98(1):57–64.
    
    

8.  8.Hill MG, Flanagan B, Mills B, Hansen S, Hopper L. Paramedic training, experience, and confidence with out-of-hospital childbirth (OOHB) in Australia. Australas Emerg Care [Internet]. 2023;26(2):119–25. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588994X22000690](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588994X22000690)
    
    

9.  9.Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.11124/jbies-20-00167&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33038124&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

10. 10.Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520–32.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.11124/jbies-22-00123&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36081365&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

11. 11.Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Inst Man Evid Synth. 2020;1–24.
    
    

12. 12.Lockwood C, Dos Santos KB, Pap R. Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: Scoping review methods. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2019;13(5):287–94.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31756513&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

13. 13.Hill M, Miles A, Flanagan B, Mills B, Hopper L. Out-of-hospital births and the experiences of emergency ambulance clinicians and birthing parents: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2022;12:e062313. Available from: [https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/5/e062313.full.pdf](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/5/e062313.full.pdf)
    
    

14. 14.World Bank. The World by Income and Region [Internet]. 2022. Available from: [https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html](https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html)
    
    

15. 15.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.
    
    

16. 16.Cash RE, Swor RA, Samuels-Kalow M, Eisenbrey D, Kaimal AJ, Camargo CA. Frequency and severity of prehospital obstetric events encountered by emergency medical services in the United States. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12884-021-03884-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33388035&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

17. 17.Cash RE, Kaimal AJ, Clapp MA, Samuels-Kalow ME, Camargo CA Jr.. Change in emergency medical services-attended out-of-hospital deliveries during COVID-19 in the United States. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2022;27(3):303–9.
    
    

18. 18.Klemettilä E, Rahkonen L, Nuutila M, Lääperi M, Harve-Rytsälä H. Role of oxytocin in prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in unplanned out-of-hospital deliveries treated by emergency medical services. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(7):901–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31943125&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

19. 19.Pirneskoski J, Peräjoki K, Nuutila M, Kuisma M. Urgent EMS managed out-of-hospital delivery dispatches in Helsinki. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):1–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13049-016-0199-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

20. 20.Verdile VP, Tutsock G, Paris PM, Kennedy RA. Out-of-hospital deliveries: a five-year experience. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1995;10(1):10–3.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10155399&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

21. 21.Cash RE, Kaimal AJ, Samuels-Kalow ME, Boggs KM, Swanton MF, Camargo Jr CA. Epidemiology of emergency medical services-attended out-of-hospital deliveries and complications in the United States. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2023;1–8.
    
    

22. 22.Eisenbrey D, Dunne RB, Fales W, Torossian K, Swor R. Describing Prehospital Deliveries in the State of Michigan. Cureus. 2022;14(7).
    
    

23. 23.Alink MBO, Moors XRJ, de Jonge RCJ, Den Hartog D, Houmes RJ, Stolker RJ. Prehospital management of peripartum neonatal complications by helicopter emergency medical service in the South West of the Netherlands: an observational study. Air Med J. 2020;39(6):489–93.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33228900&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

24. 24.Lenz H, Stenseth LB, Meidell N, Heimdal HJ. Out-of-hospital perimortem cesarean delivery performed in a woman at 32 weeks of gestation: A case report. A&A Pract. 2017;8(4):72–4.
    
    

25. 25.Moors XRJ, Biesheuvel TH, Cornette J, Van Vledder MG, Veen A, de Quelerij M, et al. Analysis of prehospital perimortem caesarean deliveries performed by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in the Netherlands and recommendations for the future. Resuscitation. 2020;155:112–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32745580&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

26. 26.Gatti F, Spagnoli M, Zerbi SM, Colombo D, Landriscina M, Kette F. Out-of-hospital perimortem cesarean section as resuscitative hysterotomy in maternal posttraumatic cardiac arrest. Case Rep Emerg Med. 2014;2014.
    
    

27. 27.Kupas DF, Harter SC, Vosk A. Case conference: out-of-hospital perimortem cesarean section. Prehospital Emerg Care. 1998;2(3):206–8.
    
    

28. 28.Akl N, Coghlan EA, Nathan EA, Langford SA, Newnham JP. Aeromedical transfer of women at risk of preterm delivery in remote and rural W estern A ustralia: Why are there no births in flight? Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(4):327–33.
    
    

29. 29.Javaudin F, Roche M, Trutt L, Bunker I, Hamel V, Goddet S, et al. Assessment of rewarming methods in unplanned out-of-hospital births from a prospective cohort. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020;28:1–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31900203&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

30. 30.Unterscheider J, Ma’Ayeh M, Geary MP. Born before arrival births: impact of a changing obstetric population. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 2011;31(8):721–3.
    
    

31. 31.Beeram M, Solarin K, Young M, Abedin M. Morbidity and mortality of infants born before arrival at the hospital. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1995;34(6):313–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/000992289503400604&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7656511&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

32. 32.Rodie V, Thomson A, Norman J. Accidental out-of-hospital deliveries: an obstetric and neonatal case control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(1):50–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.0001-6349.2001.00420.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11942887&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

33. 33.Wyckoff MH, Perlman JM. Effective ventilation and temperature control are vital to outborn resuscitation. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2004;8(2):191–5.
    
    

34. 34.Habek D. Prehospital preterm difficult breech delivery–two case reports. Signa vitae J intesive care Emerg Med. 2015;10(2):10–2.
    
    

35. 35.Schramm WF, Barnes DE, Bakewell JM. Neonatal mortality in Missouri home births, 1978-84. Am J Public Health. 1987;77(8):930–5.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3605472&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987J383900003&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.Jones D. Babies born before arrival (BBA) in Newham, London during 2007–2008: a retrospective audit and commentary. MIDIRS Midwifery Dig. 2009;19(2):219–24.
    
    

37. 37.Ovaskainen K, Ojala R, Gissler M, Luukkaala T, Tammela O. Out-of-hospital deliveries have risen involving greater neonatal morbidity: risk factors in out-of-hospital deliveries in one University Hospital region in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(12):1248–52.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26174411&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

38. 38.Renesme L, Garlantézec R, Anouilh F, Bertschy F, Carpentier M, Sizun J. Accidental out-of-hospital deliveries: a case–control study. Acta Paediatr. 2013;102(4):e174–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23301804&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

39. 39.Moscovitz HC, Magriples U, Keissling M, Schriver JA. Care and Outcome of Out-of-hospital Deliveries. Acad Emerg Med [Internet]. 2000;7(7):757–61. Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb02264.x](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb02264.x)
    
    

40. 40.Jones P, Alberti C, Julé L, Chabernaud J, Lodé N, Sieurin A, et al. Mortality in out-of-hospital premature births. Acta Paediatr. 2011;100(2):181–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.02003.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20825602&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285971100007&link_type=ISI) 

41. 41.Haloob R, Thein A. Born before arrival. A five year retrospective controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 1992;12(2):100–4.
    
    

42. 42.Boland RA, Davis PG, Dawson JA, Stewart MJ, Smith J, Doyle LW. Very preterm birth before arrival at hospital. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(2):197– 203.
    
    

43. 43.McCubbin K, Moore S, MacDonald R, Vaillancourt C. Medical transfer of patients in preterm labor: treatments and tocolytics. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2015;19(1):103–9.
    
    

44. 44.Rzońca E, Bień A, Wejnarski A, Gotlib J, Bączek G, Gałązkowski R, et al. Suspected Labour as a Reason for Emergency Medical Services Team Interventions in Poland— A Retrospective Analysis. In: Healthcare. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2022. p. 49.
    
    

45. 45.Loughney A, Collis R, Dastgir S. Birth before arrival at delivery suite: associations and consequences. Br J Midwifery. 2006;14(4):204–8.
    
    

46. 46.Thornton CE, Dahlen HG. Born before arrival in NSW, Australia (2000–2011): a linked population data study of incidence, location, associated factors and maternal and neonatal outcomes. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2018;8(3):e019328. Available from: [https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e019328.full.pdf](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e019328.full.pdf)
    
    

47. 47.Di Benedetto MR, Piazze JJ, Unfer V, Ouatu D, Pollastrini L, Vozzi G, et al. An obstetric and neonatal study on unplanned deliveries before arrival at hospital. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1996;23(2):108–11.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8737624&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

48. 48.Lundeen T. Intrapartum and Postpartum Transfers to a Tertiary Care Hospital from Out-of-Hospital Birth Settings: A Retrospective Case Series. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2016;61(2):242–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26930514&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

49. 49.Low RB, Martin D, Brown C. Emergency air transport of pregnant patients: the national experience. J Emerg Med. 1988;6(1):41–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3129490&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

50. 50.McLelland G, Morgans A, McKenna L. Victorian paramedics’ encounters and management of women in labour: an epidemiological study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):13.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25652103&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

51. 51.Sung B, Mergelsberg E, Teah M, D’Silva B, Phau I. The effectiveness of a marketing virtual reality learning simulation: A quantitative survey with psychophysiological measures. Br J Educ Technol. 2020;
    
    

52. 52.McDonald JA, Rishel K, Escobedo MA, Arellano DE, Cunningham TJ. Obstetric emergencies at the United States-Mexico border crossings in El Paso, Texas. Vol. 37, Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública. SciELO Public Health; 2015. p. 76–82.
    
    

53. 53.Sanders W, Fringer R, Swor R. Management of an extremely premature infant in the out-of-hospital environment. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2012;16(2):303–7.
    
    

54. 54.Robertson JF, Braude DA, Stonehocker J, Moreno J. Prehospital Breech Delivery with Fetal Head Entrapment–A Case Report and Review. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2015;19(3):451–6.
    
    

55. 55.McLelland G, McKenna L, Morgans A, Smith K. Paramedics׳ involvement in planned home birth: A one-year case study. Midwifery. 2016;38:71–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26948870&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

56. 56.Foster T, Maillardet V. Baby on the way: Was an ambulance in the plan? J Paramed Pract. 2012;4(11):649–52.
    
    

57. 57.Persson A-C, Engström Å, Burström O, Juuso P. Specialist ambulance nurses’ experiences of births before arrival. Int Emerg Nurs. 2019;43:45–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30190223&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

58. 58.Vagle H, Haukeland GT, Dahl B, Aasheim V, Vik ES. Emergency medical technicians’ experiences with unplanned births outside institutions: A qualitative interview study. Nurs open. 2019;6(4):1542–50.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31660182&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

59. 59.Beckmann L, Barger M, Dorin L, Metzing S, Hellmers C. Vaginal birth after cesarean in german out-of-hospital settings: maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with their second child. Birth. 2014;41(4):309–15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/birt.12130&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25180460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

60. 60.Egenberg S, Puntervoll SA, Øian P. Prehospital maternity care in Norway. Tidsskr Den Nor legeforening. 2011;1–11.
    
    

61. 61.Scott T, Esen UI. Unplanned out of hospital births--who delivers the babies? Ir Med J. 2005;98(3):70–2.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15869061&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

62. 62.Givens ML, Westermyer R. Term incomplete breech delivery in an ambulance: A case report. J Emerg Med. 2005;28(3):301–3.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15769573&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

63. 63.Pulkkinen I, Pirnes J. In-flight breech delivery in Finnish Lapland. Air Med J. 2014;33(6):302–3.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25441526&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

64. 64.Schultz B V, Hall S, Parker L, Rashford S, Bosley E. Epidemiology of oxytocin administration in out-of-hospital births attended by paramedics. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2020;1–6.
    
    

65. 65.Goodwin L, Voss S, McClelland G, Beach E, Bedson A, Black S, et al. Temperature measurement of babies born in the pre-hospital setting: analysis of ambulance service data and qualitative interviews with paramedics. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(11):826–32.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZW1lcm1lZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIzOS8xMS84MjYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8xMC8yMDI0LjExLjA5LjI0MzE2OTMyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

66. 66.Corsa J, Cleek W, Koons W, Collins N. Maritime Interfacility Transport of Two Laboring Mothers–A Case Report. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2022;26(3):446–9.
    
    

67. 67.Belondrade P, Lefort H, Bertho K, Perrochon J-C, Jost D, Tourtier J-P, et al. Guidelines for care of the newborn baby at birth knowledge by prehospital emergency physicians. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(1):17–23.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29610057&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

68. 68.Jarneid H, Gjestad K, Røseth I, Dahl B. Fathers’ Experiences of Being Present at an Unplanned Out-of-Hospital Birth: A Qualitative Study. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:1235–44.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33132700&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

69. 69.Vik ES, Haukeland GT, Dahl B. Women’s experiences with giving birth before arrival. Midwifery. 2016;42:10–5.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27697614&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

70. 70.Erlandsson K, Lustig H, Lindgren H. Women’s experience of unplanned out-of-hospital birth in Sweden–a phenomenological description. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015;6(4):226–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26614605&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

71. 71.Flanagan B, Lord B, Reed R, Crimmins G. Listening to women’s voices: the experience of giving birth with paramedic care in Queensland, Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):1–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/S12884-019-2644-5/TABLES/6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30606156&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

72. 72.Dietsch E, Shackleton P, Davies C, Alston M, McLeod M. ‘Mind you, there’s no anaesthetist on the road’: women’s experiences of labouring en route. Rural Remote Health. 2010;10(2):241–9.
    
    

73. 73.Flanagan B, Lord B, Reed R, Crimmins G, van der Velde E. Women’s experience of unplanned out-of-hospital birth in paramedic care. BMC Emerg Med [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Dec 28];19(1):1–7. Available from: doi:10.1186/s12873-019-0267-9
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12873-019-0267-9&link_type=DOI) 

74. 74.McLelland G, McKenna L, Archer F. No fixed place of birth: Unplanned BBAs in Victoria, Australia. Midwifery. 2013;29(2):19–25.
    
    

75. 75.Siman-Tov M, Strugo R, Podolsky T, Blushtein O. An assessment of treatment, transport, and refusal incidence in a National EMS’s routine work during COVID-19. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;44:45–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajem.2021.01.051&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33578331&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

76. 76.Townsend R, Chmielewska B, Barratt I, Kalafat E, van der Meulen J, Gurol-Urganci I, et al. Global changes in maternity care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;37:100947.
    
    

77. 77.Kildea S, McGhie AC, Gao Y, Rumbold A, Rolfe M. Babies born before arrival to hospital and maternity unit closures in Queensland and Australia. Women and Birth. 2015;28(3):236–45.
    
    

78. 78.Horak TS, Sanborn AN. The Need for Reliable Robust Maternal Transport Program to Improve Maternal Outcomes in Rural America. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022;65(4):839– 47.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35797591&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

79. 79.O’Meara P, Wingrove G, Nolan M. Frontier and remote paramedicine practitioner models. Rural Remote Health. 2018;18(3):255–62.
    
    

80. 80.World Health Organization. Maternal mortality [Internet]. Newsroom Fact Sheets. 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 21]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality)
    
    

81. 81.Rural Doctors Association of Australia policy position. Rural maternity services in Australia [Internet]. 2021. Available from: [https://www.rdawa.com.au/common/Uploadedfiles/\_Aus/Policy/RuralmaternityservicesinAustralia.pdf](https://www.rdawa.com.au/common/Uploadedfiles/_Aus/Policy/RuralmaternityservicesinAustralia.pdf)
    
    

82. 82.Goh A, Browning Carmo K, Morris J, Berry A, Wall M, Abdel-Latif M. Outcomes of high-risk obstetric transfers in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory: The High-Risk Obstetric Transfer Study. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(5):434–9.
    
    

83. 83.Engjom HM, Morken N-H, Høydahl E, Norheim OF, Klungsøyr K. Increased risk of peripartum perinatal mortality in unplanned births outside an institution: a retrospective population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):210–e1.
    
    

84. 84.Tennett D, Kearney L, Kynn M. Access and outcomes of general practitioner obstetrician (rural generalist)-supported birthing units in Queensland. Aust J Rural Health. 2020;28(1):42–50.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31903661&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

85. 85.Kumar A, Wallace E, Smith C, Nestel D. Effect of an in-situ simulation workshop on home birth practice in Australia. Women and Birth. 2019;32(4):346–55.
    
    

86. 86.Kumar A, Nestel D, Stoyles S, East C, Wallace EM, White C. Simulation based training in a publicly funded home birth programme in Australia: A qualitative study. Women and Birth. 2016;29(1):47–53.
    
    

87. 87.McLelland G, Perera C, Morphet J, McKenna L, Hall H, Williams B, et al. Interprofessional simulation of birth in a non-maternity setting for pre-professional students. 2017 Nov 1;58:25–31. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;58:25–31.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28823781&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F10%2F2024.11.09.24316932.atom) 

88. 88.Greenhalgh TM, Bidewell J, Warland J, Lambros A, Crisp E. Understanding research methods for evidence-based practice in health. Second. Queensland, Australia: John Wiley & Sons; 2020.