Hi Sally
do you know when it was published?? I have access to the journal but if you have the dates it narrows it down a lot
Katrina
x-tad-smallerDoes anyone have access to this guideline??/x-tad-smaller
x-tad-smaller /x-tad-smaller
x-tad-smallerThe AWHONN
Hi Sue,
I think you have missed the point.
The alternative is not continuous fetal monitoring. As the research
shows this is not best practice.
The alternative is perhaps guidelines that say 15 minutely in second
stage for low risk women. As these guidelines say:
The American College of
Sally,
I think you have a very valid point could argue it effectively.
Good luck !
Brenda
- Original Message -
From: Sue Cookson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
I certainly have never seen any evidence. All one gets is
textbooks and protocol manuals telling you that you must but not
referencing the reason.
Cheers
Judy
--- Sally Westbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to go further with today's radical thought.
I believe there is not
@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
Pete, the only problem is that the somebodies, in positions of power,
have
set a standard that a reasonable midwife has to adhere to, or suffer
the
consequences if there is an adverse
: Re: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
This is so true.
We constantly have to justify our belief in the natural process of birth and
should a mishap happen in midwifery care, the midwife is all but burnt at
the stake.
By contrast, most hospitals have regular mortality meetings to discuss
al Message -
From:
sally
williams
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 7:31
PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] intermittent
auscultation
Once a month, where I work, we have a Practice Improvement
Committee Mee
So true Sue!! - hung out to dry then burnt at the stake!
- Original Message -
From: Susan Cudlipp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
This is so true.
We constantly have
Hi listers
I will check our policies at work when I am there next, but all our policies have research that is referenced to it! So I will check our monitoring policy and let you know
:-)
Katrina
attachment: smallnps2.jpg
www.niagaraparkshow.com.au
I would like to go further with todays
radical thought.
I believe there is not evidence to support
the 5 minutely interval of intermittent monitoring in a low risk population in
second stage of labour.
What do people think about this.
Do you think I could argue this point
I remember asking Anne Frye what she thought about this and she said Second
stage heart tones are the insanity of N. American midwives. It is completely
disruptive of the trance state in second stage to be poking at the mother with
a fetoscope. In a woman with normal BP, cephalic presentation
Sally I agree with what both you and Gloria are saying, with a low risk
women term and all progressing well in labour where is the evidence to
support any auscultation, I also believe that it can he horribly
invasive and could easily be construed as intervention. Surely as
professionals we can
Pete, the only problem is that the somebodies, in positions of power, have
set a standard that a reasonable midwife has to adhere to, or suffer the
consequences if there is an adverse outcome, ie, a dead or compromised baby.
Also, when one is employed by the Govt. there is an expectation that the
their job !
Dear Lord
Brenda
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
Sally I agree with what both you and Gloria are saying, with a low risk
women term
: Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
Pete, the only problem is that the somebodies, in positions of power,
have
set a standard that a reasonable midwife has to adhere to, or suffer the
consequences if there is an adverse outcome, ie, a dead
Brenda
- Original Message -
From: Mary Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
Pete, the only problem is that the somebodies, in positions of power,
have
set a standard
Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] intermittent auscultation
Pete, the only problem is that the somebodies, in positions of power,
have
set a standard that a reasonable midwife has to adhere to, or suffer
Interesting line on intermittent auscultation.
If mws aren't given the OK to listen intermittently, then every woman
would be strapped to a CTG machine with its accompanying restrictions of
time and position.
Having done a placement recently where CTG's were the norm because of
the hospital's
18 matches
Mail list logo
