O’Driscoll, K, Jackson, RJA, Gallagher, JT. Prevention of prolonged labour. Br Med J 1969;2:477–80Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Stronge, JM, Minogue, M. Active management of labour. Br Med J 1973;3:135–7Google Scholar

Kaufman, KJ. Effective control or effective care. Birth 1993;20:150–61Google Scholar

Olah, KS, Gee, H. The active mismanagement of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:729–31Google ScholarPubMed

Axten, S. Is active management always necessary? Modern Midwife 1995;5:18–20Google Scholar

Pates, JA, Satin, AJ. Active management of labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2005;32:221–30Google Scholar

Wagner, M. Pursuing the Birth Machine: the Search for Appropriate Birth Technology, Sydney & London: ACE Graphics; 1994Google Scholar

Stratton, JF. Active management of labour: Standards vary among institutions. Br Med J 1994;309:1015 author reply 1016–17Google Scholar

Thornton, JG. Active management of labour; it does not reduce the rate of caesarean delivery. Br Med J 1996;313:378Google Scholar

Thornton, JG. Active management of labour. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:366–9Google Scholar

Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet and Gynaecol 2013;27:297–308Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Johnson, JH, Figueroa, R, Garry, D, Elimian, A, Maulik, D. Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:513–18Google Scholar

Smith, JF, Wax, JR. Rupture of the unscarred uterus. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

Lang, CT, Landon, MB. Uterine dehiscence and rupture after previous cesarean delivery. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

Rossi, AC1, Prefumo, F. Pregnancy outcomes of induced labor in women with previous cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014 September 2. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Abildgaard, H, Ingerslev, MD, Nickelsen, C, Secher, NJ. Cervical dilation at the time of cesarean section for dystocia – effect on subsequent trial of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:193–7Google Scholar

Friedman, EA. Labor: Clinical Evaluation and Management, 2nd edn. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1978Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Turner, M, Brassil, M, Gordon, H. Active management of labor associated with a decrease in the cesarean section rate in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:150–4Google Scholar

Akoury, H, Brodie, G, Caddick, R, et al. Active management of labor and operative delivery in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:255–8Google Scholar

Boylan, P, Frankowski, R, Rountree, R, et al. Effect of active management on the incidence of cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparas. Am J Perinatol 1991;8:373–9Google Scholar

Lopez-Zeno, J, Peaceman, A, Adashek, JA, Socol, ML. A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor. N Engl J Med 1992;326:450–4Google Scholar

Frigoletto, F, Lieberman, E, Lang, J, et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med 1995;333:745–50Google Scholar

Cammu, H, van Eeckhout, E. A randomised controlled trial of early versus delayed use of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion in nulliparous labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:313–18Google Scholar

Fraser, W, Vendittelli, F, Krauss, I, Breart, G. Effects of early augmentation of labour with amniotomy and oxytocin in nulliparous women: a meta-analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:189–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fraser, W, Marcoux, S, Moutquin, J, et al. Effect of early amniotomy on the risk of dystocia in nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1145–9Google Scholar

Boylan, P, Parisi, V. Effect of active management on latent phase labor. Am J Perinatol 1990;7:363–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Masoli, P, Picó, V, Pellerano, IB. Manejo activo del parto. Experiencia en el hospital Gustavo Fricke. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 1986;51:223–30Google Scholar

Vengadasalam, D. Active management of labour: an approach to reducing the rising caesarean rate. Singapore J Obstet Gynecol 1986;17:33–6Google Scholar

Hogston, P, Noble, W. Active management of labor: the Portsmouth experience. J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;13:340–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Impey, L, Hobson, J, O’Herlihy, C. Graphic analysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:438–43Google Scholar

Hendricks, CH, Brenner, WE, Kraus, G. Normal cervical dilatation pattern in late pregnancy and labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1970;106:1065–82Google Scholar

Scorza, WE. Management of premature rupture of the fetal membranes at term. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711Google Scholar

Zhang, J, Landy, HJ, Branch, DW, et al. (Consortium on Safe Labor.) Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1281–7Google Scholar

Stewart, PJ, Duhlberg, C, Arnill, AC, Elmslie, T, Hall, PF. Diagnosis of dystocia and management with cesarean section among primiparous women in Ottowa Carleton. Can Med Assoc J 1990;142:459–63Google Scholar

Wing, DA. Induction of labor. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

Boulvain, M, Stan, CM, Irion, O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub2Google Scholar

Ayers, S, Collenette, A, Hollis, B, Manyonda, I. Feasibility study of a Latest Date of Delivery (LDD) system of managing pregnancy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:167–71Google Scholar

Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27:297–308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maternity Care Working Party. Making Normal Birth a Reality: Image of a Normal Birth; 2007; available at: www.appg-maternity.org.ukGoogle Scholar

Cartmill, R, Thornton, J. Effect of presentation of partogram information on obstetric decision-making. Lancet 1992;339:1520–2Google Scholar

World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet 1994;343:1399–404Google Scholar

Lavender, T, Hart, A, Smyth, R. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Impey, L, Boylan, P. Active management of labour revisited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:183–7Google Scholar

Cardozo, LD, Gibb, DM, Studd, JW, et al. Predictive value of cervimetric labour patterns in primigravidae. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982;89:33–8Google Scholar

Melmed, H, Evans, M. Predictive value of cervical dilatation rates, I. Primigravids. Obstet Gynecol 1976;47:1568–75Google Scholar

Hogston, P, Noble, W. Active management of labor: the Portsmouth experience. J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;17;340–2Google Scholar

Impey, L, Hobson, J, O’herlihy, C. Graphic analysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:438–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Osbourne, A. A culture of fear: the midwifery perspective. Midwifery Matters Issue no. 100, Spring 2004Google Scholar

Block, J. Pushed: The Painful Truth about Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press; 2007Google Scholar

Wagner, M. Born in the USA: How a Broken Maternity System Must Be Fixed to Put Women and Children First. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2007Google Scholar

Lake, R, Epstein, E. The Business of Being Born. A documentary film (2007) www.thebusinessofbeing born.com/about.htmGoogle Scholar

Hodnett, ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186(Suppl.):160–72Google Scholar

Klaus, M, Kennel, JH, Klaus, PH. Doula Book; How a Trained Labor Companion Can Help You Have a Shorter, Easier, and Healthier Birth. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo; 2002Google Scholar

Hodnett, ED, Gates, S, Hofmeyr, J, Sakala, C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 July DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5Google Scholar

Zhang, J, Bernasko, JW, Leybovich, E, Fahs, M, Hatch, MC. Continuous labor support from labor attendant for primiparous women: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:739–44Google Scholar

Smyth, RM, Markham, C, Dowswell, T. Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013Google Scholar

Friedman, EA, ed. Labor Clinical Evaluation and Management, 2nd edn. New York: Appleton-Century – Crofts, 1978Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711Google Scholar

Garite, TJ, Porto, M, Carlson, NJ, Rumney, PJ, Reimbold, PA. The influence of elective amniotomy on fetal heart rate patterns and the course of labor in term patients: a randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1827–32Google Scholar

Funai, EF, Norwitz, ER. Management of normal labor and delivery. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Wei, S, Wo, BL, Qi, HP, et al. Early amniotomy and early oxytocin for prevention of, or therapy for, delay in first stage spontaneous labour compared with routine care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Impey, L, Hobson, J, O’herlihy, C. Graphic analysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:438–43Google Scholar

Lopez-Zeno, J, Peaceman, A, Adashek, JA, Socol, ML. A controlled trial of a program of active management of labour. N Engl J Med 1992;326:450–4Google Scholar

Frigoletto, F, Lieberman, E, Lang, JM, et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med 1995;333:745–50Google Scholar

Brown, HC, Paranjothy, S, Dowswell, T, Thomas, J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013Google Scholar

Oxytocin: Drug information. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

Ehsanipoor, RM, Satin, MR. Overview of normal labor and protraction and arrest disorders. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Kenyon, S, Tokumasu, H, Dowswell, T, et al. High-dose versus low-dose oxytocin for augmentation of delayed labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013Google Scholar

Kotaska, AJ, Klein, MC, Liston, RM. Epidural analgesia associated with low-dose oxytocin augmentation increases cesarean births: a critical look at the external validity of randomized trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194; 809–14Google Scholar

Clayworth, S. The nurse’s role during oxytocin administration. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2000;25:80–4Google Scholar

Dystocia and augmentation of labor. ACOG practice bulletin no 49. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1445–54; and Int J Gynecol Obstet 2004;49:315–24Google Scholar

NICE Guidelines. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. RCOG Press; 2007. Updated 2010 www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg55Google Scholar

Chua, S, Kurup, A, Alkumaran, S, Ratnam, SS. Augmentation of labor: does internal tocography result in better obstetric outcome than external tocography? Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:164–7Google Scholar

Lucidi, RS, Chez, RA, Creasy, RK. The clinical use of intrauterine pressure catheters. J Matern Fetal Med 2001;10:420–2Google Scholar

Heuser, CC, Knight, S, Esplin, MS, et al. Tachysystole in term labor: incidence, risk factors, outcomes, and effect on fetal heart tracings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:32.e1–6. Epub 2013 Apr 6Google Scholar

Frey, H, Meister, M, Kleweis, S, Stuart, J. Discussion: ‘Tachysystole in term labor’. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:e6–7Google Scholar

Stewart, RD, Bleich, AT, Lo, JY, et al. Defining uterine tachysystole: how much is too much? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:290.e1–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lothian, JA. Preparation for labor and childbirth. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

Gagnon, AJ, Sandall, J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007Google Scholar

Simkin, PT, Klein, MC. Nonpharmacological approaches to management of labor pain. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Website: www.keepingbirthnormal.comGoogle Scholar

Partogram-app, available at: www.apparentapps.comGoogle Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Lowe, NK. The nature of labor pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:16–24Google Scholar

Rowlands, S, Permezel, M. Physiology of pain in labour. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1998;12:347–62Google Scholar

Lowe, NK. Individual variation in childbirth pain. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1987;7:183–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodnett, ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:160–72Google Scholar

Jones, L, Othman, M, Dowswell, T, et al. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Lally, JE, Murtagh, MJ, Macphail, S, Thomson, R. More in hope than expectation: a systematic review of women’s expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med 2008;6:7Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. New York: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Blomberg, RG, Olsson, SS. The lumbar epidural space in patients examined with epiduroscopy. Anesth Analg 1998;68:157–60Google Scholar

Althaus, J, Wax, J. Analgesia and anesthesia in labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2005;32:231–44Google Scholar

Lieberman, E, O’Donoghue, C. Unintended effects of epidural analgesia during labor: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:31–68Google Scholar

Grant, GJ. Adverse effects of neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia for obstetrics. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Mayberry, LJ, Clemmens, D, De, A. Epidural analgesia side-effects, co-interventions, and care of women during childbirth: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:81–93Google Scholar

Anim-Somuah, M, Smyth, RM, Jones, L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011Google Scholar

Chen, KT. Intrapartum fever. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Impey, L, MacQuillan, K, Robson, MS. Epidural analgesia need not increase operative delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:358–63Google Scholar

Kotaska, AJ, Klein, MC, Liston, RM. Epidural analgesia associated with low-dose oxytocin augmentation increases cesarean births: A critical look at the external validity of randomized trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:809–14Google Scholar

Cagnon, AJ, Waghorn, K. Supportive care by maternity nurses: a work sampling study in an intrapartum unit. Birth 1996;23:1–6Google Scholar

McNiven, P, Hodnett, E, O’Brian-Pallas, LL. Supporting women in labor: a work sampling of the activities of labor and delivery nurses. Birth 1992;19:3–9Google Scholar

Gale, J, Fothergill-Bourbonnais, F, Chamberlain, M. Measuring nursing support during childbirth. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2001;26:264–71Google Scholar

Ophir, E, Odeh, M, Hirsch, Y, Bornstein, J. Uterine rupture during trial of labor: Controversy of induction’s methods. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2012;67:734–45Google Scholar

Bricker, L, Lavender, T. Parenteral opioids for labor pain relief: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:94–109Google Scholar

Ullman, R, Smith, LA, Burns, E, Mori, R, Dowswell, T. Parenteral opioids for maternal pain relief in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010Google Scholar

Jones, L, Othman, M, Dowswell, T, et al. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Olofsson, C, Ekblom, A, Ekman-Ordeburg, G, et al. Lack of analgesic effect of systemically administered morphine or pethidine on labour pain. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:968–72Google Scholar

Grant, GJ. Pharmacologic management of pain during labor and delivery. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Box, D, Cochran, D. Safe reduction in the administration of naloxone to newborn infants. Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health, Fourth Spring Meeting, York, UK, April 10–13, 2000. Arch Dis Child 82(Suppl 1):A312000Google Scholar

Caldwell, J, Wakile, LA, Notarianni, LJ, et al. Maternal and neonatal disposition of pethidine in childbirth – a study using quantitative gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Life Sci 1978;22:589–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rooth, G, Lysikiewicz, A, Huch, R, Huch, A. Some effects of maternal pethidine administration on the newborn. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983;90:28–33Google Scholar

Chamberlain, G, Wraight, A, Steer, P. Pain and Its Relief in Childbirth. The results of a National Survey Conducted by the National Birthday Trust. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1993Google Scholar

Liu, ZQ, Chen, XB, Li, HB, Qiu, MT, Duan, T. A comparison of remifentanil parturient-controlled intravenous analgesia with epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg 2014;118:598–603Google Scholar

Schnabel, A, Hahn, N, Broscheit, J, et al. Remifentanil for labour analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2012;29:177–85Google Scholar

Babenco, HD, Conard, PF, Gross, JB. The pharmacodynamic effect of a remifentanil bolus on ventilatory control. Anesthesiology 2000;92(2):393–8Google Scholar

Kan, RE, Hughes, SC, Rosen, MA, et al. Intravenous remifentanil: placental transfer, maternal and neonatal effects. Anesthesiology 1998;88(6):1467–74Google Scholar

Stocki, D, Matot, I, Einav, S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and respiratory effects of patient-controlled intravenous remifentanil analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia in laboring women. Anesth Analg 2014;118:589–97Google Scholar

Hawkins, JL, Beaty, BR. Update on obstetric anesthesia practices in the US. Anesthesiology 1999;91:A1060Google Scholar

Simkin, PT, Klein, MC. Nonpharmacological approaches to management of labor pain. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Klomp, T, van Poppel, M, Jones, L, et al. Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Dowswell, T, Bedwell, C, Lavender, T, Neilson, JP. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relief in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009Google Scholar

Derry, S, Straube, S, Moore, RA, Hancock, H, Collins, SL. Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Dworkin, RH, Turk, DC, Wyrwich, KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Consensus Statement. J Pain 2008:9:105–21Google Scholar

Cheng, YW, Shaffer, BL, Bryant, AS, Caughey, AB. Length of the first stage of labor and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol 2010;116:1127–35Google Scholar

Gharoro, EP, Enabudoso, EJ. Labor management: an appraisal of the role of false labor and latent phase on the delivery mode. J Obstet Gynecol 2006;26:534–7Google Scholar

Maghoma, J, Buchmann, EJ. Maternal and fetal risks associated with prolonged latent phase of labor. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:16–9Google Scholar

Bailit, JL, Dierker, LR, Blanchard, MH, Mercer, BM. Outcome of women presenting in active versus latent phase of spontaneous labor. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:77–9Google Scholar

Jackson, DB, Lang, JM, Ecker, J, Swartz, WH, Heeren, T. Impact of collaborative management and early admission in labor on method of delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2003;32:147–57Google Scholar

Chelmow, D, Kilpatrick, SJ, Laros, RK. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:486–91Google Scholar

Friedman, EA, Neff, RK. Labor and Delivery: Impact on Offspring. Littleton, MA: PSG, 1987Google Scholar

Malone, FD, Geary, M, Chelmow, D, et al. Prolonged labor in nulliparas: lesson from the active management of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:211–15Google Scholar

Holmes, P, Oppenheimer, LW, Wen, SW. The relationship between cervical dilatation at initial presentation in labor and subsequent interventions. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:1120–4Google Scholar

Hemminki, E, Simukka, R. The timing on hospital admission and progress of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986;22:85–94Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Funai, EF, Norwitz, ER. Persistent anterior cervical lip. In: Management of normal labor and delivery. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Belfort, MA. Overview of postpartum hemorrhage. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Brill, Y, Windrim, R. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: review of antenatal predictors of success. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25:275–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pattinson, RC, Farrel, E. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007Google Scholar

Maharaj, D. Assessing cephalopelvic disproportion: back to the basics. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2010;65:387–95Google Scholar

Orion, O, Boulvain, M. Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011Google Scholar

Sanchez-Ramos, K, Bernstein, S, Kaunitz, AM. Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:997–1002Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Ehsanipoor, RM, Satin, AJ. Overview of normal labor and protraction and arrest disorders. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Verhoeven, CJ, Mulders, LG, Oei, SG, Mol, BW. Does ultrasonographic foetal head position prior to induction of labour predict the outcome of delivery? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;164:133–7Google Scholar

Gardberg, M, Laakkonen, E, Salevaara, M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:746–9Google Scholar

Cunningham, FG, Leveno, KJ, Hauth, JC (eds). Normal Labor and Delivery. In: Williams Obstetrics, 22nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005:407–41Google Scholar

Cruikshank, DP, White, CA. Obstetric malpresentations: Twenty years’ experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;116:1097–104Google Scholar

Sadeh-Mestechkin, D, Walfisch, A, Shachar, R, et al. Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278:225–30Google Scholar

Rosen, M, Debanne, S, Thompson, K, Dickinson, JC. Abnormal labor and infant brain damage. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:961–5Google Scholar

Rodis, JF. Shoulder dystocia: Intrapartum diagnosis, management, and outcome. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

ACOG Practice Bulletin 40. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1045–50Google Scholar

Øverland, EA1, Vatten, LJ, Eskild, A. Pregnancy week at delivery and the risk of shoulder dystocia: a population study of 2,014,956 deliveries. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121:34–41Google Scholar

Rodis, JF. Shoulder dystocia: Risk factors and planning delivery of at risk pregnancies. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Rouse, DJ, Owen, J. Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography; a Faustian bargain? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:332–8Google Scholar

Politi, S, DʼEmidio, L, Cignini, P, et al. Shoulder dystocia: an Evidence-Based approach. J Prenat Med 2010;4:35–42Google Scholar

Cruikshank, DP, Cruikshank, JE. Face and brow presentations: A review. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1981;24:333–51Google Scholar

Stitely, ML, Gherman, RB. Labor with abnormal presentation and position. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2005;32:165–79Google Scholar

Speer, DP, Peltier, LF. Pelvic fractures and pregnancy. J Trauma 1972;12:474–80Google Scholar

Riehl, JT. Caesarean section rates following pelvic fracture: A systematic review. Injury 2014;45:1516–21Google Scholar

Harper, LM, Caughy, AB, Odibo, AO, et al. Normal progress of induced labor. Obstet Gynecol 2012;96:671–7Google Scholar

Seyb, ST, Berka, RJ, Socol, ML, Dooley, SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:600–7Google Scholar

Macer, JA, Macer, CL, Chan, LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1690–6Google Scholar

Cammu, H, Marten, G, Ruyssinck, G, Amy, JJ. Outcome after elective induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:240–4Google Scholar

Luthy, DA, Malmgren, JA, Zingheim, RW. Increased Cesarean section rates associated with elective induction in nulliparous women; the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1511–15Google Scholar

Dublin, S, Lydon-Rochelle, M, Kaplan, RC, Watts, DH, Critchlow, CW. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;18:986–94Google Scholar

van Gemund, N, Hardeman, A, Scherjon, SA, Kanhai, HH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset: a matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003;56:133–8Google Scholar

Maslow, AS, Sweeny, AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:917–22Google Scholar

Jonsson, M, Cnattingius, S, Wikström, AK. Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:198–203Google Scholar

Kauffman, K, Bailit, J, Grobman, W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:858–63Google Scholar

Vahratian, A, Zhang, J, Troendle, JF, et al. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:698–704Google Scholar

Guerra, GV, Cecatti, JG, Souza, JP, et al. WHO Global Survey on Maternal Perinatal Health in Latin America Study Group. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ 2011;89:657–65Google Scholar

Yeast, JD, Jones, A, Poskin, M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery; a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:628–33Google Scholar

Johnson, DP, Davis, NR, Brown, AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1565–72Google Scholar

Johnson, AM, Bellerose, L, Billstrom, R, Deckers, E, Beller, P. Evaluating outcomes of labor inductions beyond 39 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123 Suppl 1:58SGoogle Scholar

Vrouenraets, FP, Roumen, FJ, Dehing, CJ, et al. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:690–7Google Scholar

Nuutila, M, Halmesmäki, E, Hiilesmaa, V, Ylikorkala, O. Women’s anticipations of and experiences with induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:704–9Google Scholar

Bramadat, IJ. Induction of labor: an integrated review. Health Care Women Int 1994;15:135–48Google Scholar

Shetty, A, Burt, R, Rice, P, Templeton, A. Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour—a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;123:56–61Google Scholar

Henderson, J1, Redshaw, M. Women’s experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:1159–67Google Scholar

Hildingsson, I, Karlström, A, Nystedt, A. Women’s experiences of induction of labour: findings from a Swedish regional study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011;51:151–7Google Scholar

Mishanina, E, Rogozinska, E, Thatthi, T, et al. Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J 2014;186:665–73Google Scholar

Grobman, WA. Elective induction: when? ever? Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007;50:537–546Google Scholar

Gibson, KS, Waters, TP, Bailit, JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211:249. Epub 2014 Mar 12Google Scholar

Stock, SJ, Ferguson, E, Duffy, A, et al. Outcomes of elective induction of labor compared with expectant management: population based study. Br Med J 2012;344:e2838Google Scholar

Darney, BG, Snowden, JM, Cheng, YW, et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:761–9Google Scholar

Keirse, MJ. Elective induction, selective deduction, and cesarean section. Birth 2010;37:252–56Google Scholar

Berghella, V, Blackwell, SC, Ramin, SM, Sibai, BM, Saade, GR. Use and misuse of the term “elective” in obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:372–6Google Scholar

Caughey, AB, Sundaram, V, Kaimal, AJ, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:252–63Google Scholar

Gülmezoglu, AM, Crowther, CA, Middleton, P, Heatley, E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Wennerholm, UB, Hagberg, H, Brorsson, B, Bergh, C. Induction of labor versus expectant management for post-date pregnancy: Is there sufficient evidence for a change in clinical practice? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:6–17Google Scholar

Wood, S, Cooper, S, Ross, S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121:674–85; discussion 685Google Scholar

Macones, GA. Elective induction of labor: Waking the sleeping dogma? Ann Intern Med 2009;151:281–2Google Scholar

NHS maternity 2010. NHS maternity statistics, 2009–10. NHS Information Centre (http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1475)Google Scholar

Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, Osterman, MJK, Mathews, TJ. Births: Final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013;62:1–90Google Scholar

Goffinet, F, Dreyfus, M, Carbonne, B, Magnin, G, Cabrol, D. Survey of the practice of cervical ripening and labor induction in France. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2003;32:638–46 (in French)Google Scholar

Wing, DA, Lockwood, CJ, Barss, VA. Induction of labor. UpToDate, Accessed November 2014. www. UpToDate.comGoogle Scholar

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. Induction of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 107, 2009Google Scholar

Leduc, D, Biringer, A, Lee, L, Dy, J. Induction of labor. SOGC Clinical practice guideline No 296, September 3013. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35:S1–18Google Scholar

Koopmans, CM, Bijlenga, D, Groen, H, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:979–88Google Scholar

Bewley, S, Shennan, A. HYPITAT and the fallacy of pregnancy interruption. Lancet 2010;375:119Google Scholar

North, RA. Classification and diagnosis of pre-eclampsia. In: Lyall, F, Belfort, M, eds. Pre-eclampsia: Etiology and Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press; 2007Google Scholar

National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hypertension in pregnancy: the management of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. August 2010 (revised reprint January 2011) www.nice.org.uk (accessed October 2014)Google Scholar

Tomashek, KM, Shapiro-Mendoza, CK, Davidoff, MJ, Petrini, JR. Differences in mortality between late-preterm and term singleton infants in the United States, 1995–2002. J Pediatr 2007;151:450–56Google Scholar

Loftin, RW, Habli, M, Snyder, CC, et al. Late preterm birth. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2010;3:10–9Google Scholar

Ramachandrappa, A, Jain, L. Health issues of the late preterm infant. Pediatr Clin North Am 2009;56:565–77Google Scholar

Santos, IS, Matijasevich, A, Domingues, MR, et al. Late preterm birth is a risk factor for growth faltering in early childhood: a cohort study. BMC Pediatr 2009;9: 71. Published online November 16, 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-71Google Scholar

Bassil, KL, Yasseen, AS, Walker, M, et al. The association between obstetrical interventions and late preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:538.e1–9Google Scholar

Pauli, JM, Lauring, JR, Stetter, CM, et al. Management of gestational hypertension: the impact of HYPITAT. J Perinat Med 2013;41:415–20Google Scholar

van der Tuuk, K, Koopmans, CM, Groen, H, et al. Impact of the HYPITAT trial on doctors’ behaviour and prevalence of eclampsia in the Netherlands. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2011;118:1658–60Google Scholar

Rossi, AC, Mullin, P, Prefumo, F. Prevention, management, and outcomes of macrosomia: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013;68:702–9Google Scholar

Sanchez-Ramos, K, Bernstein, S, Kaunitz, AM. Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:997–1002Google Scholar

Pereira, S, Frick, AP, Poon, LC, Zamprakou, A, Nicolaides, KH, et al. Successful induction of labor: prediction by preinduction cervical length, angle of progression and cervical elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014 May 15. doi: 10.1002/uog.13411. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Verhoeven, CJ, Opmeer, BC, Oei, SG, et al. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:500–8Google Scholar

Gokturk, U, Cavkaytar, S, Danısman, N. Prediction of successful labor induction by measuring cervical length, fetal head position and posterior cervical angle can be alternative method to Bishop score? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;15:1–30. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Bishop, EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266–8Google Scholar

Prysak, M, Castronova, FC. Elective induction versus spontaneous delivery: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:47–52Google Scholar

Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC, Neilson, J, et al. Preparing for the induction of labor. In: A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000Google Scholar

Grobman, WA. Predictors of induction success. Semin Perinatol 2012;36:344–7Google Scholar

Ugwumadu, A. Understanding cardiotocographic patterns associated with intrapartum fetal hypoxia and neurologic injury. Best Practice Res Clin Obst Gynaecol 2013;27:509–36Google Scholar

Tucker Blackburn, S. Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Physiology: A Clinical Perspective, 3rd revised edition. Saunders; 2007Google Scholar

Ugwumadu, A. Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121:1063–70Google Scholar

Hankins, GD, Speer, M. Defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:628–36Google Scholar

ACOG Committee Opinion no. 348, November 2006: Umbilical cord gas and acid-base analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:1319–22Google Scholar

Hankins, GD, MacLennan, AH, Speer, ME, Strunk, A, Nelson, K. Obstetric litigation is asphyxiating our maternity services. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1382–5Google Scholar

Macones, GA, Hankins, GD, Spong, CY, Hauth, J, Moore, T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112: 661–6Google Scholar

National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and Their Babies During Labour. NICE Clinical Guideline No. 55. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health London, UK: RCOG Press, 2007Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1232–40Google Scholar

Jackson, M, Holmgren, CM, Esplin, MS, Henry, E, Varner, MW. Frequency of fetal heart rate categories and short-term neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:803–8Google Scholar

Blackwell, SC, Grobman, WA, Antoniewicz, L, Hutchinson, M, Gyamfi Bannerman, C. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:378.e1–5. Epub 2011 June 29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

NICE Guidelines. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. RCOG Press; 2007. Updated 2010 www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg55Google Scholar

Melchior, J, Bernhard, N. Incidence and pattern of fetal heart rate alterations during labor. In Kunzel, W, ed. Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Clinical Practice and Pathophysiology. Berlin: Springer; 1985:73.Google Scholar

Walker, J. Foetal anoxia. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1953;61:162–80Google Scholar

Ahanya, SN, Lakshmanan, J, Morgan, BL, Ross, MG. Meconium passage in utero: mechanisms, consequences, and management. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2005;60:45–56Google Scholar

Nathan, L, Leveno, KJ, Carmody, TJ, Kelly, MA, Sherman, LM. Meconium: a 1990s perspective on an old obstetric hazard. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:329–32.Google Scholar

Ramin, KD, Leveno, KJ, Kelly, MA, Carmody, TJ. Amniotic fluid meconium: a fetal environmental hazard. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:181–4Google Scholar

Garcia-Prats, JA. Clinical features and diagnosis of meconium aspiration syndrome. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Ghidini, A, Spong, CY. Severe meconium aspiration syndrome is not caused by aspiration of meconium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:931–8Google Scholar

Blackwell, SC, Moldenhauer, J, Hassan, SS, et al. Meconium aspiration syndrome in term neonates with normal acid-base status at delivery: is it different? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1422–5; discussion 1425–6Google Scholar

Dollberg, S, Livny, S, Mordecheyev, N, Mimouni, FB. Nucleated red blood cells in meconium aspiration syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:593–6Google Scholar

Jazayeri, A, Politz, L, Tsibris, JC, Queen, T, Spellacy, WN. Fetal erythropoietin levels in pregnancies complicated by meconium passage: does meconium suggest fetal hypoxia? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:188–90Google Scholar

Vintzileos, AM, Nochimson, DJ, Guzman, ER, et al. Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:149–55Google Scholar

Thacker, SB, Stroup, DF, Peterson, HB. Efficacy and safety of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: an update. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:613–20Google Scholar

Nelson, KB, Dambrosia, JM, Ting, TY, Grether, JK. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996;334:613–18Google Scholar

Parer, JT, King, T. Fetal heart rate monitoring: is it salvageable? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:982–7Google Scholar

Young, BK. Intrapartum fetal heart rate assessment. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Devane, D, Lalor, JG, Daly, S, McGuire, W, Smith, V. Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal Heart Rate Patterns: Monitoring, Interpretations, and Management. Technical Bulletin No. 207. July 1995Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Use of Electronic Fetal Monitoring: The Use and Interpretation of Cardiotocography in Intrapartum Surveillance. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2001Google Scholar

Greenwood, C, Lalchandini, S, MacQuillan, K, et al. Meconium passed in labor: How reassuring is clear amniotic fluid? Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:89–93Google Scholar

Grant, A. Monitoring the fetus during labour. In: Chalmers, I, Keirse, MJNC, Enkin, M, eds. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989Google Scholar

Jørgensen, JS, Weber, T. Fetal scalp blood sampling in labor: a review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014;93:548–55Google Scholar

Reif, P, Haas, J, Schöll, W, Lang, U. [Foetal scalp blood sampling: impact on the incidence of Caesarean section and assisted vaginal deliveries for non-reassuring foetal heart rate and its use according to gestational age]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2011;215:194–8Google Scholar

Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D, Gyte, GM. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013Google Scholar

Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF, Scott, JR, et al. Emergency cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracings: compliance with ACOG guidelines. J Reprod Med 2003;48:975–81Google Scholar

Westgren, M, Kruger, K, Ek, S, et al. Lactate compared with pH analysis at fetal scalp blood sampling: a prospective randomized study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:29–33Google Scholar

Kruger, K, Hallberg, B, Blennow, M, Kublickas, M, Westgren, M. Predictive value of fetal scalp blood lactate concentration and pH as markers of neurologic disability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1072–8Google Scholar

East, CE, Leader, LR, Sheehan, P, Henshall, NE, Colditz, PB. Intrapartum fetal scalp lactate sampling for fetal assessment in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010Google Scholar

Garite, TJ, Dildy, GA, McNamara, H, et al. A multicenter controlled trial of fetal pulse oximetry in the intrapartum management of nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1049–58Google Scholar

Klauser, CK, Christensen, EE, Chauhan, SP, et al. Use of fetal pulse oximetry among high-risk women in labor: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1810–7Google Scholar

East, CE, Brennecke, SP, King, JF, et al. The effect of intrapartum fetal pulse oximetry, in the presence of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate pattern, on operative delivery rates: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (the FOREMOST trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:606.e1–16Google Scholar

Bloom, SL, Spong, CY, Thom, E, et al. (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network). Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2195–202Google Scholar

Olofsson, P, Ayres-de-Campos, D, Kessler, J, et al. A critical appraisal of the evidence for using cardiotocography plus ECG ST interval analysis for fetal surveillance in labor. Part II: the meta-analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014;93:571–86Google Scholar

Macones, G. Management of intrapartum category I, II, and III fetal heart rate tracings. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014.Google Scholar

Hofmeyr, GJ, Lawrie, TA. Amnioinfusion for potential or suspected umbilical cord compression in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Hendrix, NW, Chauhan, SP. Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2005; 32: 273–86.Google Scholar

Kulier, R, Hofmeyr, JG. Tocolytics for suspected intrapartum fetal distress. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006Google Scholar

Draper, ES, Kurinczuk, JJ, Lamming, CR, et al. A confidential enquiry into cases of neonatal encephalopathy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2002;87(3):176–80Google Scholar

Dupont, C, Touzet, S, Rudigoz, RC, et al. Critical events in obstetrics: a confidential enquiry in four high-level maternities of the AURORE perinatal network. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2008;14:165–68Google Scholar

Papworth, S, Cartlidge, P. Learning from adverse events – the role of confidential enquiries. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2005;10:39–43Google Scholar

Liston, R, Crane, J, Hamilton, E, et al. Fetal health surveillance in labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2002;24:250–76Google Scholar

Rosser, J. Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI). Highlights of the 6th annual report. Pract Midwife 1999;2:8–19Google Scholar

Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium. 8th Annual Report. Confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. London: Elsevier; 2001Google Scholar

Young, P, Hamilton, R, Hodgett, S, et al. Reducing risk by improving standards of intrapartum fetal care. J R Soc Med 2001;94:226–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

O’Mahony, F, Settatree, R, Platt, C, Johanson, R. Review of singleton fetal and neonatal deaths associated with cranial trauma and cephalic delivery during a national intrapartum-related confidential enquiry. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:619–26Google ScholarPubMed

Tan, KH, Wyldes, MP, Settatree, R, Mitchell, T. Confidential regional enquiry into mature stillbirths and neonatal deaths: a multi-disciplinary peer panel perspective of the perinatal care of 238 deaths. Singapore Med J 1999;40:251–5Google Scholar

Liston, R, Sawchuck, D, Young, D; Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists of Canada; British Columbia Perinatal Health Program. Fetal health surveillance: antepartum and intrapartum consensus guideline. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29:S3–56Google Scholar

Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium. Confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy: 4th Annual Report, 1 January–31 December 1995Google Scholar

RCOG. Confidential enquiry into maternal and child health maternity services in 2002 for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. London: RCOG Press; 2004Google Scholar

Likosky, DS. Clinical microsystems: a critical framework for crossing the quality chasm. J Extra Corpor Technol 2014;46:33–7Google Scholar

Nelson, EC, Batalden, PB, Godfrey, MM. Quality Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. New York: Wiley; 2006Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Hodnett, ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:S160–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Farrow, VA, Leddy, MA, Lawrence, H, Schulkin, J. Ethical concerns and career satisfaction in obstetrics and gynecology: a review of recent findings from the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2011;66:572–9Google Scholar

Anderson, BL, Hale, RW, Salsberg, E, Schulkin, J. Outlook for the future of the obstetrician-gynecologist workforce. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:e1–e8Google Scholar

Bettes, BA, Chalas, E, Coleman, VH, Schulkin, J. Heavier workload, less personal control: impact of delivery on obstetrician/gynecologists’ career satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:851–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bettes, BA, Strunk, AL, Coleman, VH, Schulkin, J. Professional liability and other career pressures: impact on obstetrician-gynecologists’ career satisfaction. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:967–973Google Scholar

Spickard, A, Gabbe, SG, Christensen, JF. Mid-career burnout in generalists and specialist physicians. JAMA 2002;288:1447–50Google Scholar

Defoe, DM, Power, ML, Holzman, GB, Carpentieri, A, Schulkin, J. Long hours and little sleep: work schedules of residents in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:1015–8Google Scholar

Storr, CI, Trinkoff, AM, Anthony, JC. Job strain and non-medical drug use. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999;55:45–51Google Scholar

Myers, MF. Don’t let your practice kill your marriage. Med Econ 1998;9:78–87Google Scholar

Maulen, B. Depression, divorce, malpractice, bankruptcy: why do so many physicians commit suicide? MMW Fortschr Med 2002;144:4–8Google Scholar

Kravitz, RL, Leigh, JP, Samuels, SJ, Schembri, M, Gilbert, WM. Tracking career satisfaction and perceptions of quality among US obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:463–70Google Scholar

Queenan, JT. The future of obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:441–2Google Scholar

Gibbons, JM. Springtime for obstetrics and gynecology: will the specialty continue to blossom? Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:443–5Google Scholar

Pearse, WH, Haffner, WHJ, Primack, A. Effect of gender on the obstetric-gynecologic work force. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:794–7Google Scholar

Frigoletto, FD, Greene, MF. Is there a sea change ahead for obstetrics and gynecology? Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1342–3Google Scholar

Fang, YM, Egan, JF, Rombro, T, Morris, B, Zelop, CM. A comparison of reasons for choosing obstetrician/gynecologist subspecialty training. Conn Med 2009;73:165–70Google Scholar

Weinstein, L. The laborist: a new focus of practice for the obstetrician. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:310–12Google Scholar

Funk, C, Anderson, BL, Schulkin, J, Weinstein, L. Survey of obstetric and gynecologic hospitalists and laborists. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:177.e1–4 Epub 2010 June 26Google Scholar

Feldman, DS, Bollman, DL, Korst, LM, et al. The laborist: what is the frequency of this model of care and how is it being used in California? Obstet Gynecol 2014;123 Suppl 1:144SGoogle Scholar

Olson, R, Garite, TJ, Fishman, A, Andress, IF. Obstetrician/gynecologist hospitalists: can we improve safety and outcomes for patients and hospitals and improve lifestyle for physicians? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:81–6. Epub 2012 June 23Google Scholar

McNeil, DA, Vekved, M, Dolan, SM, et al. A qualitative study of the experience of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care for physicians. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13 Suppl 1:S1-6. Epub 2013 January 31Google Scholar

Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, et al. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2011;60:1–70Google Scholar

Pitchforth, E, Watson, V, Ryan, M, et al. Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;115:560–9Google Scholar

Huntley, V, Ryan, M, Graham, W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth 2001;28:254–63Google Scholar

Spurgeon, P, Hicks, C, Barwell, F. Antenatal, delivery and postnatal comparisons of maternal satisfaction with two pilot Changing Childbirth schemes compared with a traditional model of care. Midwifery 2001;17:123–32Google Scholar

Hundley, V, Ryan, M. Are women’s expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111:550–60Google Scholar

Lyon, DS, Mokhtarian, PL, Reever, MM. Predicting style-of-care preferences of obstetric patients: medical vs midwifery model. J Reprod Med 1999;44: 101–6Google Scholar

de Jonge, A, Stuijt, R, Eijke, I, Westerman, MJ. Continuity of care: what matters to women when they are referred from primary to secondary care during labour? A qualitative interview study in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:103. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-103Google Scholar

Rodriguez, C, des Rivières-Pigeon, C. A literature review on integrated perinatal care. Int J Integrated Care 2007;7:1–15Google Scholar

Declercq, ER, Sakala, C, Corry, MP, Applebaum, S. Listening to mothers: report of the first national US survey of women’s childbirth experiences. New York: Maternity Center Association; 2002Google Scholar

Laynne, LL. Unhappy endings: a feminist reappraisal of the women’s health movement from the vantage of pregnancy loss. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:1881–91Google Scholar

Christiaens, W, Gouwy, A, Bracke, P. Does a referral from home to hospital affect satisfaction with childbirth? A cross-national comparison. BMC Health Services Res 2007;7:109–17Google Scholar

Rijnders, M, Baston, H, Schönbeck, Y, et al. Perinatal factors related to negative or positive recall of birth experience in women 3 years postpartum in The Netherlands. Birth 2008;35:107–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Olsen, O, Clausen, J. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar

Catling-Paull, C, Coddington, RL, Foureur, MJ, Homer, CS. Birthplace in Australia Study; National Publicly-funded Homebirth Consortium. Publicly funded homebirth in Australia: a review of maternal and neonatal outcomes over 6 years. Med J Aust 2013;198:616–20Google Scholar

Hendrix, M, Van Horck, M, Moreta, D, et al. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: Feasibility of a RCT in The Netherlands. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;116:537–42Google Scholar

Website of the integrated midwifery-obstetrical birth center “Livive” at the St. Elisabeth hospital in Tilburg, the Netherlands. http://www.Livive.nlGoogle Scholar

Nelson, EC, Batalden, PB, Godfrey, MM. Quality Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. New York: Wiley; 2006Google Scholar

Lukas, CV, Holmes, SK, Cohen, AB, et al. Transformational change in health care systems: an organizational model. Health Care Manage Rev 2007;32:309–20Google Scholar

Wennberg, JE. Dealing with medical practice variations: a proposal for action. Health Affairs 1984;3:6–32Google Scholar

Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Practice Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27:297–308Google Scholar

Website of the integrated midwifery-obstetrical birth center “Livive” at the St. Elisabeth hospital, in Tilburg, the Netherlands. http://www.Livive.nlGoogle Scholar

Cleary, R, Beard, RW, Chapple, J. The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:223–9Google Scholar

Main, EK. Reducing cesarean births rates with data-driven quality improvement activities. Pediatrics 1999;103:374–83Google Scholar

Elliott, JP, Russell, MM, Dickason, LA. The labor adjusted cesarean section rate: a more informative method than cesarean section “rate” for assessing a practitioner’s labor and delivery skills. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:139–43Google Scholar

Lieberman, E, Lang, JM, Heffner, LJ. Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:1–7Google Scholar

Elferink-Stinkens, PM, Van Hemel, OJ, Hermans, MP. Obstetric characteristics profiles as quality assessment of obstetric care. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;51:85–90Google Scholar

Stivanello, E, Rucci, P, Carretta, E, et al. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries. PLoS One 2011;6:e28060Google Scholar

Chaillet, N, Dumont, A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007;34:53–64Google Scholar

Turcot, L, Marcoux, S, Fraser, WD. Canadian Early Amniotomy Study Group. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for operative delivery in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:395–402Google Scholar

Thomas, J, Callwood, A, Broklehurst, P, Walker, J. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;107:579–80Google Scholar

Wilkes, PT, Wolf, DM, Kronbach, DW, Kunze, M, Gibbs, RS. Risk factors for cesarean delivery at presentation of nulliparous patients in labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1352–7Google Scholar

Robson, MS. Classification of cesarean sections. Fetal Maternal Med Rev 2001;12:23–39Google Scholar

Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet and Gynaecol 2013;27:297–308Google Scholar

Torloni, MR, Betran, AP, Souza, JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e14566Google Scholar

Brennan, DJ, Robson, MS, Murphy, M, O‘Herlihy, C. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:308.e1–8Google Scholar

Brennan, DJ, Murphy, M, Robson, MS, O‘Herlihy, C. The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 36 weeks of gestation: contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:273–9Google Scholar

Stivanello, E, Rucci, P, Carretta, E, et al. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries. PLoS One 2011;6:e28060Google Scholar

Kelly, S, Sprague, A, Fell, DB, et al. Examining caesarean section rates in Canada using the Robson classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35:206–14Google Scholar

Costa, ML, Cecatti, JG, Souza, JP, et al. Using a Caesarean Section Classification System based on characteristics of the population as a way of monitoring obstetric practice. Reprod Health 2010;7:13Google Scholar

Colais, P, Fantini, MP, Fusco, D, et al. Risk adjustment models for interhospital comparison of CS rates using Robson’s ten group classification system and other socio-demographic and clinical variables. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012;12:54Google Scholar

Mueller, M, Kolly, L, Bauman, M, Imboden, S, Surbek, D. Analysis of caesarean section rates over time in a single Swiss centre using a ten-group classification system. Swiss Med Wkly 2014;144:1–11Google Scholar

Lee, YY, Roberts, CL, Patterson, JA, et al. Unexplained variation in hospital caesarean section rates. Med J Aus 2013;199:348–53 doi:10.5694/mja13.10279Google ScholarPubMed

Website of Dutch National Perinatal Audit Program. http://www.perinataleaudit.nlGoogle Scholar