Intrapartum fetal monitoring and the spectre of litigation

Emerald - 2007
CarolHindley1, Ann M.Thomson1
1School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe routine use of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has resulted in an increased burden of operative and vaginal instrumental deliveries for women at low obstetric risk. Such modes of delivery increase maternal mortality and morbidity risks. This study aims to explore midwives' values, attitudes and beliefs when using intrapartum fetal monitoring techniques in clinical practice.Design/methodology/approachA total of 58 registered midwives across two NHS Trusts in one region in the north of England were interviewed using a qualitative approach.FindingsMidwives attempted to manage the psychological burden of the threat from clinical negligence by using EFM. This meant that some midwives used electronic monitoring regardless of clinical need. Midwives lack confidence in the ability of EFM to accurately detect fetal compromise but are aware that the visual monitoring record is recognised as a valuable piece of legal evidence. The midwives' perceptions of professional self‐efficacy in seeking to avoid a claim in clinical negligence contributed to defensive practice. Research limitations/implications – The study was conducted in only two hospitals in one region of England; however the Trust demographics were similar and midwifery practice within the unit reflects national maternity standards of care.Practical implicationsMultidisciplinary strategies may be required to overcome barriers to the effective implementation of clinical guidelines where intrapartum fetal monitoring is concerned and Trust audit departments must undertake regular audit cycles in order to ascertain practice compliance with best evidence.Originality/valueThe paper provides information so that midwives' knowledge regarding the limitations of EFM can be improved.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Alfirevic, Z., Devane, D. and Gyte, G.M.L. (2006), “Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour”, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 3.

Altaf, S., Oppenheimer, C., Shaw, R., Waugh, J. and Dixon‐Woods, M. (2006), “Practices and views on fetal heart monitoring: a structured observation and interview study”, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 113, pp. 409‐18.

Aronson, J. (1994), “A pragmatic view of thematic analysis”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1‐4.

Banta, D.H. and Thacker, S.B. (2001), “Historical controversy in health technology assessment: the case of electronic fetal monitoring”, Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 707‐19.

Bassett, K.L., Iyer, N. and Kazanjian, A. (2000), “Defensive medicine during hospital obstetrical care: a by product of the technological age”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 523‐37.

Benner, P. and Tanner, C. (1987), “How expert nurses use intuition”, American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 23‐31.

Bick, D., McCourt, C. and Beake, S. (2004), “Choice, culture, and evidence‐informed practice: addressing the future of the UK maternity services”, Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 162‐6.

Boyatziz, R. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Campbell‐Tiech, A. (2001), “Woolf, the adversarial system and the concept of blame”, British Journal of Haematology, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 261‐4.

Capstick, B. (2004), “The future of clinical negligence litigation?”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 328, pp. 457‐9.

Davis‐Floyd, R.E. (2004), Birth as an American Rite of Passage, 2nd ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Dover, S.L. and Gauge, S.M. (1995), “Fetal monitoring – midwifery attitudes”, Midwifery, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 18‐27.

Dubay, L., Kaestner, R. and Waidmann, T. (1999), “The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates”, Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 18, pp. 491‐522.

Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP (2002), “Cerebral Palsy G v. The West Surrey and East Hampshire Health Authority”, Medical Negligence Review, The European Legal Alliance, London, p. 3.

Green, B. (2005), “Midwives' coping methods for managing birth uncertainties”, British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 293‐8.

Haggerty, L.A. (1999), “Continuous electronic fetal monitoring: contradiction between practice and research”, Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, Neonatal Nursing, Vol. 28, pp. 409‐16.

Hankins, G.V. and Speer, M. (2003), “Defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy”, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 102, pp. 628‐36.

Hindley, C. and Thomson, A.M. (2005), “The rhetoric of informed choice: perspectives from midwives on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring”, Health Expectations, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 306‐14.

Hindley, C., Hinsliff, S.W. and Thomson, A.M. (2006), “English midwives' views and experiences of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring in women at low obstetric risk: conflicts and compromises”, J. Midwifery Women's Health, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 354‐60.

Hinsliff, S.W., Hindley, C. and Thomson, A.M. (2004), “A survey of regional guidelines for intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring in women at low obstetric risk”, Midwifery, Vol. 20, pp. 345‐57.

HMSO (1990), “The civil legal aid (assessment of resources) (amendment) regulation”, Instrument No. 484, HMSO, London.

Hunter, B. (2001), “Emotion work in midwifery: a review of current knowledge”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 436‐44.

Kardong‐Edgren, S. (2001), “Using evidence‐based practice to improve intrapartum care”, Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 371‐5.

Kennedy, H.P. (2002), “The midwife as an ‘instrument’ of care”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92, pp. 1759‐60.

MacLennan, A. (1999), “For the international cerebral palsy task force. A template for defining a causal relationship between acute intrapartum events and cerebral palsy: international consensus statement”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 319, pp. 1054‐9.

Mead, M. (2003), “Intrapartum care of women suitable for midwifery‐led care – midwives' perception of their own and their colleagues' practice”, Evidence Based Midwifery, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4‐11.

Menzies‐Lythe, E. (1992), Containing Anxieties in Institutions, Free Association Books, London.

Mullholland, H. and Andalo, D. (2005), “Legal fears blamed for Caesarean rise”, The Guardian Health, 3rd May, Guardian Newspapers Limited, London.

National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2007), Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and their Babies During Childbirth, RCOG Press, London.

Newman, D.M. (2006), Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, 6th ed., Sage, London.

NHSLA (2003), “CNST maternity clinical risk management standards”, available at: www.nhsla.com/publications.

NHSLA (2006), CNST Contribution Setting: Risk Management in Practice, NHS Litigation Authority, London.

Nursing and Midwifery Council (2004), Midwives Rules and Standards, NMC, London.

Pearn, M.A., Mulrooney, C. and Payne, T. (1998), Ending the Blame Culture, Gower, Aldershot.

RCM (2005), “Campaign for normal birth: defensive practice”, Royal College of Midwives, available at: www.rcmnormalbirth.org.uk/.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2001), The Use of Electronic Fetal Monitoring: The Use of Cardiotocography in Intrapartum Fetal Surveillance, RCOG, London.

Russell, C.K. and Gregory, D.M. (1993), “Issues for consideration when choosing a qualitative data management system”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 18 No. 11, pp. 1806‐16.

Sandelowski, M. (2000), “Retrofitting technology to nursing: the case of electronic fetal monitoring”, J. Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nursing, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 316‐24.

Sharma, S., Downey, G. and Heywood, R. (2002), “Guidelines: are they adhered to in clinical practice?”, The Journal of Clinical Governance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 71‐5.

Simpson, K. and Knox, G.E. (2003), “Common areas of litigation related to care during labor and birth: recommendations to promote patient safety and decrease risk exposure”, Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 110‐25.

Sinclair, M. (2001), “Midwives' perceptions of the use of technology in assisting childbirth in Northern Ireland”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 36, pp. 229‐31.

Stanley, F. and Blair, E. (2001), “Birth events and cerebral palsy: facts were not presented clearly”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 322 No. 7277, p. 50.

Symon, A. (2000), “Obstetric litigation effects on clinical practice”, Gynecological and Obstetric Review, Vol. 40 Nos 3/4, pp. 165‐71.

Taylor, M. (1999), “The death of midwifery? It may be closer than you think”, AIMS Journal, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 1‐6.

Tingle, J. (2004), “Compensation culture encourages patients to sue”, British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 13 No. 16, p. 938.

Usha‐Kiran, T.S. (2002), “Complaints and claims in the UK National Health Service”, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 85‐6.

Vincent, C., Taylor‐Adams, S., Chapman, J.E., Hewett, D., Prior, S., Strange, P. and Tizzard, A. (2000), “How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: Clinical Risk Unit and Association of Litigation and Risk Management protocol”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 320, pp. 777‐81.

Wagner, M. (2000), “General situation of obstetrics in the world: how the scientific‐medical power helps to perpetuate the concept: they shall deliver with fear”, paper presented to First International Congress on Home Delivery and Childbirth, Jerez de Frontera, Spain.

Williams, F., du, V., Florey, C., Patel, N., Howie, P. and Tindall, V. (1998), “UK study of intrapartum care for low risk primigravidas: a survey of interventions”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 52, pp. 494‐500.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Thông tin tác giả