Let’s just pop you on a trace. A reflection on language.

Is it OK to manipulate the information we share with birthing women about fetal monitoring so they do what we want?

Is it OK to manipulate the information we share with birthing women about fetal monitoring so they do what we want?

Today’s post summarises the evidence about the use of admission CTGs.

I was excited to see a new paper, setting out the evidence for intermittent auscultation in labour (Anderson, et al., 2023). It was published in a journal for US based nurse-midwives, so it relates to the context of care in that country. Let’s see how they did in terms of getting the facts right. Is their evidence accurate? They wrote that: All this is correct, except that one of the […]

I have a love-hate relationship with birth plans (by any name). Progressive standardisation of care means a woman entering maternity care systems risk being swept along with the current, her body being used to meet the organisation’s goals and priorities, not her own. Women who dare to hope for something different might be told they have “unrealistic expectations of the control they will have over the experience”, as the New […]

If you wouldn’t use runes to decide whether to do a cesarean section, why would you use a #CTG?

I’m not saying the goal of shared decision making is inherently wrong – it’s simply too little and too late.

All aspects of maternity care arise as consequences of the decisions that imperfect humans make, often structured by imperfect guidelines, derived from an imperfect or absent research base.

Most women want to be involved in decisions about their maternity care. Do many actually get what they want?

This is my regular reminder that CTG monitoring is a choice. Write like you believe this is true.

This is what CTG monitoring practice looks like in the Netherlands. How does this compare to where you are?