{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,1]],"date-time":"2026-05-01T10:48:35Z","timestamp":1777632515416,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,11]],"date-time":"2016-02-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1455148800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Birth"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction<\/jats:title><jats:p>Many birth units use central fetal monitoring (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content>) under the assumption that greater surveillance improves perinatal outcomes. The unexpected loss of the <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content> system at a tertiary unit provided a unique opportunity to evaluate outcomes and staff attitudes toward <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content>.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>This retrospective cohort study compared patient data from 2,855 electronically monitored women delivering over a 12\u2010month period, where <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content> was available for the first 6 months but unavailable for the following 6 months. Primary outcomes relating to neonatal morbidity and secondary outcomes relating to intrapartum interventions were examined. Additionally, birth unit staff members were surveyed about aspects of care related to <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content>.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>There were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes between the cohorts. While unadjusted analysis suggested a lower spontaneous vaginal birth rate (55.4% vs 60.3%) and a higher cesarean delivery rate (25.1% vs 22.0%, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic> = 0.026), together with higher epidural (53.0% vs 49.2%, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic> = 0.04) and fetal blood sampling (11.8% vs 9.4%, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic> = 0.03) rates in the presence of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content>, these differences were lost when adjusted for prostaglandin ripening. Over half of the staff (56.0% of midwives, 54.0% of obstetricians) reported spending more time with the laboring woman in the period without <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">CFM<\/jats:styled-content>.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title><jats:p>This single institution's experience indicates that in birth units staffed for one\u2010to\u2010one care in labor, central fetal monitoring does not appear to be associated with either a benefit on perinatal outcomes or an increase in cesarean delivery and other interventions. However, it is associated with a reduction in the time a midwife spends with the laboring woman.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/birt.12222","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,11]],"date-time":"2016-02-11T12:07:18Z","timestamp":1455192438000},"page":"100-107","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["Birth Outcomes, Intervention Frequency, and the Disappearing Midwife\u2014Potential Hazards of Central Fetal Monitoring: A Single Center Review"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"43","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5667-0765","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"James","family":"Brown","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynaecology Westmead Hospital Westmead NSW Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Andrew","family":"McIntyre","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynaecology Westmead Hospital Westmead NSW Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Robyn","family":"Gasparotto","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynaecology Westmead Hospital Westmead NSW Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Therese M.","family":"McGee","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynaecology Westmead Hospital Westmead NSW Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,11]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1523-536X.2006.00120.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2011.04.024"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","unstructured":"Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Nomenclature Interpretation and General Management Principles.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletin No.106.2009."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","unstructured":"Fetal Health Surveillance: Antepartum and Intrapartum Consensus Guideline.Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). Guideline No. 197. 2007."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","unstructured":"Intrapartum Care.National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (commissioned by NICE). Clinical Guideline 190. December 2014."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","first-page":"CD006066","article-title":"Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour","volume":"5","author":"Alfirevic Z","year":"2013","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2012-0067"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/(SICI)1520-6661(199711\/12)6:6<317::AID-MFM3>3.0.CO;2-R"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1891\/1058-1243.22.3.156"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_1","unstructured":"Safe Midwifery Staffing for Maternity Settings.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guideline (NG4).2015."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_1","unstructured":"ScerboMW AbuhamadAZ.Monitoring fetal health. AHQR Patient Safety Network. Cases and Commentaries. January 2015."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0030-1268718"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_14_1","unstructured":"Intrapartum fetal surveillance guidelines.Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG). Second edition.2006."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2009.02279.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2008.01843.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(11)61484-0"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_18_1","first-page":"CD003766","article-title":"Continuous support for women during childbirth","volume":"7","author":"Hodnett ED","year":"2013","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_2_6_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"78","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1523-536X.1997.tb00345.x","article-title":"Commentary: Are nurses effective providers of labor support? Should they be? Can they be?","volume":"24","author":"Hodnett E","year":"1997","journal-title":"Birth"}],"container-title":["Birth"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fbirt.12222","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/birt.12222","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,23]],"date-time":"2023-09-23T13:00:01Z","timestamp":1695474001000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/birt.12222"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,11]]},"references-count":18,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/birt.12222"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/birt.12222","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0730-7659","1523-536X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0730-7659","type":"print"},{"value":"1523-536X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,11]]}}}