WHC midwives or OBs

[Anonymous]

This is my first pregnancy and WHC is the logical hospital for me to use location-wise, plus I’ve been there and found it fine. I know I have to choose between midwives and OBs but I don’t fully understand the difference or what the midwives will do that the OBs won’t do and visa versa. To be honest I don’t really want to research it or make a choice - I just want the best practices for a healthy baby and a healthy me. I will stand on my head if research shows that is best but I have no philosophical feelings about any of this. I’d prefer a female doctor but it’s not that important to me.

Does anyone with a similar attitude have any advice? I’m leaning towards the OBs because it seems more direct but I don’t want to miss out on any bouncy ball goodness that is somehow incompatible with a regular doctor for reasons I don’t understand if bouncy balls are really great.

[Anonymous]

Unless you’re highly motivated to have midwife care, go with an OB.

[Anonymous]

I liked the care I got with the midwives. All the testing is the same. I can’t compare the visits because I didn’t see OBs. One blood test turned up something and I got immediately referred to a specialist. I saw several midwives who were extremely thorough. I wanted (and got) an unmedicated birth, but it wouldn’t have been a problem if I had wanted drugs during labor. Nice to have postpartum visits in the hospital from various midwives and some issues came up and someone was there to help advocate for me. Not sure the OB would have had time, fwiw.

[Anonymous]

I’ve only seen midwives for my pregnancies (including the WHC midwives for my current pregnancy) and if you’re not high risk I would consider them. I’ve met 6 of the WHC midwives so far (I think there are at least 12 in the practice) and every one has been wonderful. They spend a lot of time with me—our visits are never rushed. I think that’s a main difference from an OB generally but I can’t speak for the WHC OBs in particular. The midwives coordinate with the WHC OB practice and will refer you if you develop a risk factor or need care that is out of their scope. I’m hoping for a low-intervention birth and I believe the midwives will do everything they can to help me achieve that, but I’ve also heard that the WHC OBs are (as far as OBs go) also very supportive of low-intervention births.

[Anonymous]

I can't speak to WHC midwives specifically, but in general I have found that midwives tend to be less research based in general. I went to midwives (in MoCo) for my first pregnancy and they recommended things like raspberry leaf tea for ease of labor (for which there is zero evidence) and they IMHO overstated the risks of epidurals and strongly recommended against it. In addition to that, I have looked through the website for the GWU midwives and they really emphasize random and non-evidence based things (for example, exercising outside versus inside). I don't know if WHC midwives are like this, but the website of GWU midwives also really turned me off by emphasizing how you have to really commit to their super high standards of exercise, eating, and committing to a "natural" birth.

Again, I can't speak to WHC specifically, but my experience across a few providers suggests that OBs are less of a headache, less judgey, and more evidence-based. If your contractions are permitting it, you can bounce on an exercise ball during labor and still see an OB, no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak to WHC midwives specifically, but in general I have found that midwives tend to be less research based in general. I went to midwives (in MoCo) for my first pregnancy and they recommended things like raspberry leaf tea for ease of labor (for which there is zero evidence) and they IMHO overstated the risks of epidurals and strongly recommended against it. In addition to that, I have looked through the website for the GWU midwives and they really emphasize random and non-evidence based things (for example, exercising outside versus inside). I don't know if WHC midwives are like this, but the website of GWU midwives also really turned me off by emphasizing how you have to really commit to their super high standards of exercise, eating, and committing to a "natural" birth.

Again, I can't speak to WHC specifically, but my experience across a few providers suggests that OBs are less of a headache, less judgey, and more evidence-based. If your contractions are permitting it, you can bounce on an exercise ball during labor and still see an OB, no problem.

I'm a non-OB provider (NP, have a Master's in Nursing) and have delivered twice with the WHC Midwives. I became a midwifery patient when my WHC OB was unavailable for a last minute appointment to confirm an early loss prior to my first successful pregnancy. I was so impressed with the care they (specifically, Margaret) provided that I chose to switch to the midwives for well-woman and OB care.

Their care is evidence-based and not at all "crunchy" or "folksy." All the midwives are CNMs and are fully credentialed providers. They were trustworthy and provided excellent care before, during, and after both my pregnancies. They are high-touch, low-intervention for low(er)-risk pregnancies. I was AMA for my second pregnancy with them and received all the extras recommended for older moms by ACOG, plus any I opted in for due to my age (including NIPT, genetic counseling, more frequent ultrasounds, weekly NSTs at the end of my pregnancy). If, for some reason, you risk out of their practice, the transition to WHC's OBs is relatively seamless because they all share the same office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak to WHC midwives specifically, but in general I have found that midwives tend to be less research based in general. I went to midwives (in MoCo) for my first pregnancy and they recommended things like raspberry leaf tea for ease of labor (for which there is zero evidence) and they IMHO overstated the risks of epidurals and strongly recommended against it. In addition to that, I have looked through the website for the GWU midwives and they really emphasize random and non-evidence based things (for example, exercising outside versus inside). I don't know if WHC midwives are like this, but the website of GWU midwives also really turned me off by emphasizing how you have to really commit to their super high standards of exercise, eating, and committing to a "natural" birth.

Again, I can't speak to WHC specifically, but my experience across a few providers suggests that OBs are less of a headache, less judgey, and more evidence-based. If your contractions are permitting it, you can bounce on an exercise ball during labor and still see an OB, no problem.

I'm a non-OB provider (NP, have a Master's in Nursing) and have delivered twice with the WHC Midwives. I became a midwifery patient when my WHC OB was unavailable for a last minute appointment to confirm an early loss prior to my first successful pregnancy. I was so impressed with the care they (specifically, Margaret) provided that I chose to switch to the midwives for well-woman and OB care.

Their care is evidence-based and not at all "crunchy" or "folksy." All the midwives are CNMs and are fully credentialed providers. They were trustworthy and provided excellent care before, during, and after both my pregnancies. They are high-touch, low-intervention for low(er)-risk pregnancies. I was AMA for my second pregnancy with them and received all the extras recommended for older moms by ACOG, plus any I opted in for due to my age (including NIPT, genetic counseling, more frequent ultrasounds, weekly NSTs at the end of my pregnancy). If, for some reason, you risk out of their practice, the transition to WHC's OBs is relatively seamless because they all share the same office.

Forgot to add that I delivered both my children with epidurals and the midwives were 100% supportive of my preference.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been a patient with the GW midwives and OBs as well as the WHC OBs and I did a consult with the WHC midwives and I know many people who have delivered with both, so I am very familiar with all these practices. If OP doesn’t feel strongly about having a midwife, I really think she should see an OB for her care. The WHC OB group is excellent, they support unmedicated vaginal birth, they spend plenty of time with their patients (an argument I often see for midwives is that they spend more time with patients and provide more compassionate care and in my experience this has not been true, I’ve had OBs spend more time with me and listen better to me than midwives, in fact in some instances some midwives really favor a “tough love” approach that is maternalistic and condescending), and they can handle the full range of any and all complications that would arise in your pregnancy. There really is no reason to go with the midwives over the OBs unless the OP has a strong preference for midwifery led care. Since she clearly does not, and does not understand the professional differences between both, I don’t see a compelling argument for the midwives. They really are not the norm since something like 90 percent of US women deliver with an OB.

Another problem with midwives is that they can allow the ideology of natural childbirth to influence their practice in ways that can increase risk to moms and babies. If OBs are said to be too risk averse, midwives have the opposite problem—they can ignore or not recognize risk factors and warning signs because they believe birth is a natural life event. In my experience, most new parents would rather have the former than the latter for their care provider during the birth of their child. And this fact can be especially true of some midwifery groups in town. Midwives are also mid level providers who can’t handle all complications of pregnancy and labor and delivery so anyone delivering with a midwife has to be comfortable with the risk of needing to be transferred to OB care. Having experienced a transfer to OB care midway through my birth, it’s not an experience I would recommend. Since OP clearly doesn’t have a preference, she should start with the provider can handle everything that could come up during her pregnancy and birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak to WHC midwives specifically, but in general I have found that midwives tend to be less research based in general. I went to midwives (in MoCo) for my first pregnancy and they recommended things like raspberry leaf tea for ease of labor (for which there is zero evidence) and they IMHO overstated the risks of epidurals and strongly recommended against it. In addition to that, I have looked through the website for the GWU midwives and they really emphasize random and non-evidence based things (for example, exercising outside versus inside). I don't know if WHC midwives are like this, but the website of GWU midwives also really turned me off by emphasizing how you have to really commit to their super high standards of exercise, eating, and committing to a "natural" birth.

Again, I can't speak to WHC specifically, but my experience across a few providers suggests that OBs are less of a headache, less judgey, and more evidence-based. If your contractions are permitting it, you can bounce on an exercise ball during labor and still see an OB, no problem.

I'm a non-OB provider (NP, have a Master's in Nursing) and have delivered twice with the WHC Midwives. I became a midwifery patient when my WHC OB was unavailable for a last minute appointment to confirm an early loss prior to my first successful pregnancy. I was so impressed with the care they (specifically, Margaret) provided that I chose to switch to the midwives for well-woman and OB care.

Their care is evidence-based and not at all "crunchy" or "folksy." All the midwives are CNMs and are fully credentialed providers. They were trustworthy and provided excellent care before, during, and after both my pregnancies. They are high-touch, low-intervention for low(er)-risk pregnancies. I was AMA for my second pregnancy with them and received all the extras recommended for older moms by ACOG, plus any I opted in for due to my age (including NIPT, genetic counseling, more frequent ultrasounds, weekly NSTs at the end of my pregnancy). If, for some reason, you risk out of their practice, the transition to WHC's OBs is relatively seamless because they all share the same office.

So what about that do the OBs not do? It sounds great, I just don’t understand the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a patient with the GW midwives and OBs as well as the WHC OBs and I did a consult with the WHC midwives and I know many people who have delivered with both, so I am very familiar with all these practices. If OP doesn’t feel strongly about having a midwife, I really think she should see an OB for her care. The WHC OB group is excellent, they support unmedicated vaginal birth, they spend plenty of time with their patients (an argument I often see for midwives is that they spend more time with patients and provide more compassionate care and in my experience this has not been true, I’ve had OBs spend more time with me and listen better to me than midwives, in fact in some instances some midwives really favor a “tough love” approach that is maternalistic and condescending), and they can handle the full range of any and all complications that would arise in your pregnancy. There really is no reason to go with the midwives over the OBs unless the OP has a strong preference for midwifery led care. Since she clearly does not, and does not understand the professional differences between both, I don’t see a compelling argument for the midwives. They really are not the norm since something like 90 percent of US women deliver with an OB.

Another problem with midwives is that they can allow the ideology of natural childbirth to influence their practice in ways that can increase risk to moms and babies. If OBs are said to be too risk averse, midwives have the opposite problem—they can ignore or not recognize risk factors and warning signs because they believe birth is a natural life event. In my experience, most new parents would rather have the former than the latter for their care provider during the birth of their child. And this fact can be especially true of some midwifery groups in town. Midwives are also mid level providers who can’t handle all complications of pregnancy and labor and delivery so anyone delivering with a midwife has to be comfortable with the risk of needing to be transferred to OB care. Having experienced a transfer to OB care midway through my birth, it’s not an experience I would recommend. Since OP clearly doesn’t have a preference, she should start with the provider can handle everything that could come up during her pregnancy and birth.

Thanks! I think that’s what I’m going to do. I could not be less qualified to know which is better and I get no juice from a sense of control so I’m just going to default to the doctors. -OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a patient with the GW midwives and OBs as well as the WHC OBs and I did a consult with the WHC midwives and I know many people who have delivered with both, so I am very familiar with all these practices. If OP doesn’t feel strongly about having a midwife, I really think she should see an OB for her care. The WHC OB group is excellent, they support unmedicated vaginal birth, they spend plenty of time with their patients (an argument I often see for midwives is that they spend more time with patients and provide more compassionate care and in my experience this has not been true, I’ve had OBs spend more time with me and listen better to me than midwives, in fact in some instances some midwives really favor a “tough love” approach that is maternalistic and condescending), and they can handle the full range of any and all complications that would arise in your pregnancy. There really is no reason to go with the midwives over the OBs unless the OP has a strong preference for midwifery led care. Since she clearly does not, and does not understand the professional differences between both, I don’t see a compelling argument for the midwives. They really are not the norm since something like 90 percent of US women deliver with an OB.

Another problem with midwives is that they can allow the ideology of natural childbirth to influence their practice in ways that can increase risk to moms and babies. If OBs are said to be too risk averse, midwives have the opposite problem—they can ignore or not recognize risk factors and warning signs because they believe birth is a natural life event. In my experience, most new parents would rather have the former than the latter for their care provider during the birth of their child. And this fact can be especially true of some midwifery groups in town. Midwives are also mid level providers who can’t handle all complications of pregnancy and labor and delivery so anyone delivering with a midwife has to be comfortable with the risk of needing to be transferred to OB care. Having experienced a transfer to OB care midway through my birth, it’s not an experience I would recommend. Since OP clearly doesn’t have a preference, she should start with the provider can handle everything that could come up during her pregnancy and birth.

Thanks! I think that’s what I’m going to do. I could not be less qualified to know which is better and I get no juice from a sense of control so I’m just going to default to the doctors. -OP

Do what you want OP but the PP you are replying to had an atypical experience with the WHC midwives. Most of her review applies more to GW midwives. WHC midwives do not have an unmedicated vaginal birth agenda.

A practical question you probably can answer: do you want 6 minute (OB) prenatal appointments or 30 minute (HWC MW) ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a patient with the GW midwives and OBs as well as the WHC OBs and I did a consult with the WHC midwives and I know many people who have delivered with both, so I am very familiar with all these practices. If OP doesn’t feel strongly about having a midwife, I really think she should see an OB for her care. The WHC OB group is excellent, they support unmedicated vaginal birth, they spend plenty of time with their patients (an argument I often see for midwives is that they spend more time with patients and provide more compassionate care and in my experience this has not been true, I’ve had OBs spend more time with me and listen better to me than midwives, in fact in some instances some midwives really favor a “tough love” approach that is maternalistic and condescending), and they can handle the full range of any and all complications that would arise in your pregnancy. There really is no reason to go with the midwives over the OBs unless the OP has a strong preference for midwifery led care. Since she clearly does not, and does not understand the professional differences between both, I don’t see a compelling argument for the midwives. They really are not the norm since something like 90 percent of US women deliver with an OB.

Another problem with midwives is that they can allow the ideology of natural childbirth to influence their practice in ways that can increase risk to moms and babies. If OBs are said to be too risk averse, midwives have the opposite problem—they can ignore or not recognize risk factors and warning signs because they believe birth is a natural life event. In my experience, most new parents would rather have the former than the latter for their care provider during the birth of their child. And this fact can be especially true of some midwifery groups in town. Midwives are also mid level providers who can’t handle all complications of pregnancy and labor and delivery so anyone delivering with a midwife has to be comfortable with the risk of needing to be transferred to OB care. Having experienced a transfer to OB care midway through my birth, it’s not an experience I would recommend. Since OP clearly doesn’t have a preference, she should start with the provider can handle everything that could come up during her pregnancy and birth.

Thanks! I think that’s what I’m going to do. I could not be less qualified to know which is better and I get no juice from a sense of control so I’m just going to default to the doctors. -OP

Do what you want OP but the PP you are replying to had an atypical experience with the WHC midwives. Most of her review applies more to GW midwives. WHC midwives do not have an unmedicated vaginal birth agenda.

A practical question you probably can answer: do you want 6 minute (OB) prenatal appointments or 30 minute (HWC MW) ones?

That just doesn’t seem plausible tbh. I mean if everything can get done in a 6 minute appointment I guess the six minute option is better but it just sounds like you have an axe to grind.

[Anonymous]

I used the GW midwives and although I can't wholeheartedly recommend them (and likely won't use them again), I want to reply to the 'axe to grind' comment above - prenatal care with midwives vs. OBs (I switched at 16 weeks) was night and day. No feeling like I was boring them or bothering them with my questions, no feeling like they had something better to do or they were internally rolling their eyes at FTM questions. And no unnecessary tests (not all OBs do this, but Reiter Hill definitely did to me). If I could find a way to only use midwives for prenatal care and deliver with an OB that would be my gold standard.

[Anonymous]

I saw a WHC OB and she spent 30-45 minutes with me every visit. The idea that midwives are the only ones who can spend time with patients is not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw a WHC OB and she spent 30-45 minutes with me every visit. The idea that midwives are the only ones who can spend time with patients is not accurate.

I don't think anyone said that they're the only ones who can. People are saying that it stood out as a positive difference in their experience. But if you google it, you will find that midwife appointments are found to be significantly longer than OB appointments, on average.