Electronic fetal monitoring
@melaniethemidwife (aka Melanie Jackson) has put together a fabulous summary of our recent research paper. Thanks Melanie – you have captured it really well! Small, K. A., Sidebotham, M., Fenwick, J., & Gamble, J. (2020, Sept). Intrapartum cardiotocograph monitoring and perinatal outcomes for women at risk: Literature review. Women and Birth, 33(5), 411-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.10.002
Faith in technology, commercial interests, and liberalisation of tort law had more to do with the introduction of CTG monitoring than research evidence did.
Today’s post shares the back story behind our paper. #CTG #EFM #PerinatalMortality #CP
@TransformingMCC
@ProfJennyGamble
@MarySidebotham
@GriffithMidwifery
Computerised interpretation of the #CTG with #INFANT doesn’t save healthcare costs. It is time to abandon it.
The history of maternity care is essentially the story of men trying to make sense of women as a mysterious “other” to men. This is true of the history of fetal heart rate monitoring too.
Today’s post takes up back to the basics and discusses what CTG monitoring is (and isn’t).
Unlike Dr Who, we can’t drop into our future timeline to see what the consequences of our current decisions are. If we could, would we make different choices?
Does CTG monitoring generate more harm than benefit for babies? Here’s the evidence….
What are women’s experiences with intrapartum CTG monitoring? Sadly, we don’t actually know….
