Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-rbfsf Total loading time: 1.405 Render date: 2022-06-25T21:11:07.499Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Chapter 17 - Obstetric Emergencies in Midwife-Led Settings

from Section 3 - Intrapartum Emergencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2021

Edwin Chandraharan
Affiliation:
St George's University of London
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's University of London
Get access

Summary

An increasing number of parents are choosing to give birth in midwife-led settings such as alongside midwifery units and freestanding midwifery units [1]. These are midwife-led facilities which may be on the same premises as an obstetric unit (alongside [AMU]) or away from an obstetric unit on its own premises (freestanding [FMU]). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [2] published guidance for healthcare professionals and parents on the safety of birthing in these units. Evidence has found that it is safer for primiparous women to give birth in either an AMU or an FMU and for multiparous women to give birth at home [3, 4]. This is because women are less likely to need intervention such as the use of forceps or epidural for analgesia than if they give birth in obstetric-led facilities. With the introduction of a government-supported paper, ‘Better Births’ [5], more emphasis is being put on information and education for parents on birthing in community-based settings to increase home birth rates and the care given in the community (Figure 17.1).

Type
Chapter
Information
Obstetric and Intrapartum Emergencies
A Practical Guide to Management
, pp. 120 - 132
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NICE. Intrapartum Care for Healthy Women and Babies. Guidance and Guidelines. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG190Google Scholar
NPEU. Birthplace in England Research Programme. www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/birthplaceGoogle Scholar
Blix, E, Huitfeldt, AS, Øian, P, Straume, B, Kumle, M. Outcomes of planned home births and planned hospital births in low-risk women in Norway between 1990 and 2007: a retrospective cohort study. Sex Reprod Healthcare. 2012;3(4):147–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2012.10.001Google ScholarPubMed
National Maternity Review. Better Births: Improving outcomes of maternity services in England: A five year forward view for maternity care. 2015. www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/national-maternity-review-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Knight, M. The findings of the MBRRACE-UK confidential enquiry into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ogrm.2018.12.003Google Scholar
Chandraharan, E, Krishna, A. Diagnosis and management of postpartum haemorrhage. BMJ. 2017;358:j3875. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3875. PMID: 28954732.Google ScholarPubMed
Al-Zirqi, I, Vangen, S, Forsen, L, Stray-Pedersen, B. Prevalence and risk factors of severe obstetric haemorrhage. 2008;115(10):1265–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01859.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, SJ. Prophylactic ergometrine-oxytocin versus oxytocin for the third stage of labour. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000201.pub2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crofts, JF, Fox, R, Ellis, D, Winter, C, Hinshaw, K, Draycott, TJ. Observations from 450 shoulder dystocia simulations. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(4):906–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181865f55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehta, SH, Sokol, RJ. Shoulder dystocia: risk factors, predictability, and preventability. Semin Perinatol. 2014;38(4):189–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2014.04.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, T, Stuart, O, Sahota, D, Suen, S, Lau, T, Lao, T. Head-to-body delivery interval and risk of fetal acidosis and hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy in shoulder dystocia: a retrospective review. 2011;118(4):474–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471–0528.2010.02834.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, MK, Bailit, JL, Branch, DW, Burkman, RT, Van Veldhusien, P, Lu, L, et al. A comparison of obstetric maneuvers for the acute management of shoulder dystocia. Obstet Anesth Dig. 2012;32(2):119–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.aoa.0000414102.87385.4Google Scholar
Draycott, T, Sanders, C, Crofts, J, Lloyd, J. A template for reviewing the strength of evidence for obstetric brachial plexus injury in clinical negligence claims. Clin Risk. 2008;14(3):96100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/cr.2008.080020Google Scholar
NICE. Intrapartum Care. Guidance and Guidelines. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs105Google Scholar
Sagi-Dain, L, Sagi, S. The role of episiotomy in prevention and management of shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70(5):354–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000000179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reitter, A, Daviss, B-A, Bisits, A, Schollenberger, A, Vogl, T, Herrmann, E, et al. Does pregnancy and/or shifting positions create more room in a woman’s pelvis? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):662.e1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, J, Cox, J. Prolapsed cord. 2015. https://patient.info/doctor/prolapsed-cordGoogle Scholar
Chebsey, C, Siassakos, D, Draycott, T. A review of umbilical cord prolapse and the influence of training on management. Fet. Matern. Med. Rev. 2012;23(02):120–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0965539512000058Google Scholar
Sayed Ahmed, W, Hamdy, M. Optimal management of umbilical cord prolapse. IJWH. 2019;10:459–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/ijwh.s130879Google Scholar
Soar, J, Deakin, CD, Nolan, JP, Abbas, G, Alfonzo, A, Handley, AJ, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2005. Resuscitation. 2005;67:S135S170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.10.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, Hodnett, ED, Saigal, S, Willan, AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9239):1375–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, S, Parker, P, Scamell, M. Expertise in physiological breech birth: a mixed-methods study. Birth. 2018;45(2):202–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Impey, LWM, Murphy, DJ, Griffiths, M, Penna, LK on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation. BJOG. 2017;124:e151e177. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.14465Google Scholar
Louwen, F, Daviss, B-A, Johnson, KC, Reitter, A. Does breech delivery in an upright position instead of on the back improve outcomes and avoid cesareans? Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;136(2):151–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12033Google Scholar
Bisits, A. There is a place in current obstetric practice for planned vaginal breech birth. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(3):372–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, C. PROMPT Course Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Walker, S, Scamell, M, Parker, P. Deliberate acquisition of competence in physiological breech birth: a grounded theory study. Women Birth. 2018;31(3):e170e177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.09.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, S, Scamell, M, Parker, P. Principles of physiological breech birth practice: a Delphi study. Midwifery. 2016;43:1–6. : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.09.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogner, G, Strobl, M, Schausberger, C, Fischer, T, Reisenberger, K, Jacobs, VR. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(6):707–13. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0048. PMID: 25204214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mechanisms of upright breech birth. Vimeo; https://vimeo.com/305098551?ref=tw-shareGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×