# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five X More Black Maternal Health App and Maternity Support for Black Mothers — FIVEXMORE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Five X More Learning Hub App provides Black mothers with culturally tailored pregnancy and parenting support. Join a community dedicated to improving Black maternal health and access expert resources. Available on Apple and Google Play.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blackmums App - The Community App for Black Mothers

# data[].attributes.headline
A parents' guide to recognising Jaundice in Black and Brown babies

# data[].attributes.subject
A parents' guide to recognising Jaundice in Black and Brown babies

# data[].attributes.body
A parent's guide to recognising Jaundice in Black and Brown babies

# data[].attributes.headline
Birthrights - Access Denied - Home Birth Restrictions

# data[].attributes.subject
Birthrights - Access Denied - Home Birth Restrictions

# data[].attributes.headline
The Black Maternal Experiences Report - 2022 - five x more

# data[].attributes.subject
The Black Maternal Experiences Report - 2022 - five x more

# data[].attributes.headline
Gypsy, Roma & Traveller community experiences of Infant Feeding Information and support services

# data[].attributes.subject
Gypsy, Roma & Traveller community experiences of Infant Feeding Information and support services

# data[].attributes.headline
Tackling Maternal Health Inequalities in Gypsy, Roma & Traveller Communities

# data[].attributes.subject
Tackling Maternal Health Inequalities in Gypsy, Roma & Traveller Communities

# data[].attributes.headline
Maternal Mental Health Services Progress Report - October 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Maternal Mental Health Services Progress Report - October 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
Invisible - Maternity Experiences of Muslim Woman - July 2022

# data[].attributes.subject
Invisible - Maternity Experiences of Muslim Woman - July 2022

# data[].attributes.headline
Birthrights - Systemic racism, not broken bodies

# data[].attributes.subject
Birthrights - Systemic racism, not broken bodies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are the LGBT Mummies organisation.

Our sole purpose is to support LGBT+ women & people globally on the path to motherhood or parenthood.
We provide guidance on the different family creation pathways through our website, social channels & support groups, whilst providing access to our global community to meet other like-minded families.

From providing guidance on fertility clinics & sperm banks, resources, connecting you to supporting organisations, brands, sharing studies, our private support groups, to celebrating & sharing your lived experiences & our annual events where families come together.

Whether you are thinking of starting a family or have children already
by home insemination, fertility treatment, surrogacy, adoption, fostering. Whether you're a single parent, couple,
co-parent, poly family or a stepparent, all families are welcome.

Our mission is to acquire true equity & equality for LGBT+ families to that of our heterosexual counterparts.

We passionately campaign for LGBT+ family equality & positive policy change. We do this through our ongoing recommendations, training & conversations with the Government, NHS, corporate & charitable organisations, to improve support for LGBT+ families across healthcare, law & society.

Through our educational arm, PROUD FOUNDATIONS, we provide education & training, consultancy services, speakers & project work to educate & enable organisations to better support our community by improving policies, guidelines & resources.

We work tirelessly to inspire people worldwide on their journey, whilst working to 'usualize' & celebrate our families in society, in turn creating a more inclusive future for our children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Support same sex families & LGBT women & people looking to start a family & providing a community space for lesbians, bisexuals, trans & non binary women & people

# data[].attributes.headline
Inclusive Maternity Patient Information download - colour

# data[].attributes.subject
Inclusive Maternity Patient Information download - colour

# data[].attributes.headline
Inclusive maternity Patient Information download - Black & White

# data[].attributes.subject
Inclusive maternity Patient Information download - Black & White

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is home birth safe?

According to the most recent and up-to-date research evidence, yes. On this page, I'll share some of that with you. I also link to a number of articles and blog posts that I've written about this.

In 2019, a large systematic review and meta-analysis was published in The Lancet. It looked at 14 studies including data from around 500,000 intended home births. The authors found that, "The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital." (Hutton et al 2019).

This is just one of many studies that show the same thing. The Hutton et al (2019) study was remarkable because of its size. But, as the studies on this page show, it's not a unique finding.

More on safety

If you're the kind of person that likes the detail, here are the results of the Hutton et al (2019) study:

"Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03)." (Hutton et al 2019).

Hutton et al (2019). Perinatal or neonatal mortality among women who intend at the onset of labour to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: A systematic review and meta-analyses. doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.07.005

This paper has also been discussed by Henci Goer and you can read her analysis here.

More evidence

The findings of Hutton et al (2019) also confirmed those of the meta-analysis conducted by Scarf et al (2018). And both of these reviews are simply the latest in a long series of studies confirming home birth safety.

Here's how I summarised the Scarf et al (2018) review:

"A systematic review and meta-analysis has further confirmed the safety of home birth for healthy women, even if they are having their first baby. After comparing data from births planned at home birth, in birth centres and in hospital, researchers found that high-quality studies found no statistically significant difference in infant mortality between the different settings, although women giving birth at home or in birth centres were more likely to have a normal vaginal birth. In fact, women planning home births were nearly three times more likely to have a normal (that is, non-instrumental) vaginal birth than women planning a hospital birth."

The Scarf et al (2018) review was an important one because, as the authors explain in the background to their paper, there have been many debates on this area and there exist methodological challenges which have to be taken into account. Some of the so-called evidence that is cited on this topic is not of good quality. The review authors include some world experts on this topic, and in order to produce high-quality research they "reviewed original research from high-income countries (World Bank, 2016) using a birthplace-specific quality appraisal instrument (Vedam et al 2017a), and undertook meta-analysis of outcome data where possible." (Scarf et al 2018).

In their summary of the findings and conclusions, the researchers noted that, "Meta-analysis indicated that women planning hospital births had statistically significantly lower odds of normal vaginal birth than in other planned settings. Women experienced severe perineal trauma or haemorrhage at a lower rate in planned home births than in obstetric units. There were no statistically significant differences in infant mortality by planned place of birth, although most studies had limited statistical power to detect differences for rare outcomes. Differences in location, context, quality and design of identified studies render results subject to variation. High-quality evidence about low-risk pregnancies indicates that place of birth had no statistically significant impact on infant mortality. The lower odds of maternal morbidity and obstetric intervention support the expansion of birth centre and home birth options for women with low-risk pregnancies." (Scarf et al 2018).

Turning it around: the harms of hospital

"A 2023 summary of the best available research published in the internationally recognized Cochrane Library shows that planned hospital births can do more harm than good. This applies if the pregnant woman is healthy, expects an uncomplicated birth, and the birth takes place in a well-organized health care system." ( Olsen and Clausen 2023).

The summary was written by senior researcher Ole Olsen, Research Unit for General Practice, in collaboration with midwife and PhD Jette Aaroe Clausen.

It highlights that, while there is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials, "Evidence from observational studies suggests that planned hospital birth does not reduce mortality but may lead to more interventions, more complications, and more neonatal problems." ( Olsen & Clausen 2023).

The World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. (Olsen & Clausen 2023).

Olsen O & Clausen JA (2023). Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications. doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub3

Read the researchers' summary at https://publichealth.ku.dk/news/hospital-births-can-do-more-harm-than-good/

Read the Cochrane review which highlights the lack of RCT evidence and the need for a different approach at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub3/full

Other benefits of homebirth

Studies also confirm other benefits of homebirth. For example, a study which looked at the experiences of more than 28,000 women in the UK and Ireland showed a significant association between home birth and breastfeeding (Quigley et al 2016).

And, when researchers asked fathers about their experiences of homebirth, they described it as magical.

A study in Ireland which collated the experiences of 141 participants who birthed both in hospital and at home between 2011 and 2021 found that, "Participants' overall experience scores were significantly higher for homebirth (9.7/10) than hospital birth (5.5/10)." "Homebirth was perceived far more positively than hospital birth experiences across all aspects of care surveyed." The authors concluded that, "This study provides evidence regarding the need for genuine choices for maternity care and reveals the importance of care which is respectful and responsive to divergent ideologies about birth." ( Gregory et al 2023).

Home birth and risk

Home birth isn't just for those who manage to stay in the 'low risk' box either!

Research shows that home birth is also safer for women who are labelled as 'high risk'. (Let's acknowledge that this labelling is often inaccurate, unhelpful and offensive though.)

Here's more evidence from The Netherlands and Australia.

We also have papers from the US. and New Zealand.

The research keeps coming

Many individual studies from around the world have evidenced the safety of homebirth, as well as the reviews. Here are a few of the most recent:

Finland

In Finland, researchers were concerned that, "compared to in-hospital births, the long-term outcome of children born out-of-hospital, planned or unplanned, is poorly studied."

Researchers often use hospital birth as the standard by which the safety of home birth is measured. This is curious, because hospital birth is a relatively new intervention and it was introduced without evidence of safety compared to home birth. But that's another post.

So they looked at the outcomes of 790,136 children born in Finland between 1996 and 2013. These included planned and unplanned out-of-hospital births. Usually, it's better to separate the two as there can be quite a difference in outcomes.

The fact that planned AND unplanned out-of-hospital births were included make the results even more interesting.

They actually found that, although on the whole there is no difference in children's health at the age of seven, "morbidity (illness) related to asthma or allergic diseases and infections by seven years of age appeared to be lower in children born out-of-hospital."

The paper is by Ovaskainen et al (2021) and it is freely available online.

Spain

In 2021, researchers published a descriptive study of planned homebirth in Catalonia (Spain).
"In Spain, official records show that 0.63% of births take place at home, but these records do not state the proportion of planned and unplanned home births. For this reason, official records do not enable the analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes according to the place of birth; thus, the rate of adverse advents with respect to planned place of birth remains to be determined." "Catalonia is the region with the largest number of home births, and thanks to the data collected by CAHBM midwives, we know that most home births in Catalonia were planned." "The rates of maternal and neonatal morbidity show a high degree of safety during birthing and reflect the work of independent midwives in Catalonia. The variety of positions during the birth and the low percentages of high-grade perineal tears and episiotomies, as well as the high percentage of women who used water during birth and of babies who started feeding within an hour of birth, demonstrate that the care provided by the midwives in these planned home births in Catalonia is based on the scientific evidence and on a respect for physiology."
The full study can be read at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613821000565

Norway

In 2020, a Norwegian study by Skrondal et al (2020) which is freely available here provided more evidence of homebirth safety.

"Planned home birth may be experienced as a very positive occurrence for nulliparous women, and the care those women in this study received contained several elements that can help to promote normal labour and birth at a time in which reducing interventions in maternity care is of importance. Their positive birth experiences gave the women confidence both in their transition to motherhood as well as in other aspects of life." (Skrondal et al 2020).

The Netherlands

One older but important study is de Jonge et al's (2013) study, Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study.

The authors of this research looked at the experiences of 146,752 low-risk women, of whom 92,333 (62.9%) had a planned home birth and 54,419 (37.1%) had a planned hospital birth. Upon analysing the outcomes, they discovered that, although the absolute risks were small in both groups, low risk women who planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. These differences were statistically significant for women who had had given birth before.

The take-home message, although worded in the negative as is often the case with such studies, is that: There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system (de Jonge et al 2013).

Australia

Another useful study is Publicly funded homebirth in Australia: a review of maternal and neonatal outcomes over 6 years.

This comprises the first national evaluation of 97% of the women who chose publicly funded homebirth between 2005 and 2010. While 97% is a significant proportion of the available sample, however, the rarity of poor outcomes means that the sample size isn't big enough to be conclusive about safety. What the evaluation shows is that 84% of the women who planned to give birth at home actually did so, and 90% of the women (which will include a few of those who transferred to hospital) had a normal vaginal birth.

Other positive outcomes included that intervention rates among these women were low. Women choosing homebirth had low rates of postpartum haemorrhage (which is particularly significant given that around three quarters of the women had physiological placental births) and third degree perineal tears and stillbirth and early neonatal death rates were also low. In other good news, 69% of the women were breastfeeding at 6 weeks postpartum. Transfer rates were high though and, although this is consistent with some other studies, it warrants further exploration.

In a related editorial, Professor Marc Kierse addresses those who may question the need for publicly funded homebirth programs, especially as only around half a per cent of Australian women currently choose homebirth, noting that, " It is a woman's prerogative and her fundamental human right to determine her reproductive behaviour, and this includes how and where to give birth. " (Kierse 2013: 575).

Women's experiences of planning home birth

I have had the privilege of working with Nadine Edwards for many years now, and Nadine's PhD research turned into a book: Birthing Autonomy: Women's Experiences of Planning Home Births: Women's Experiences of Home Births.

Nadine undertook research in which she talked to thirty Scottish women about their experiences of planning a home birth and her book explores the themes that arose within these woman's stories alongside some of the key issues, debates and tensions that exist in relation to modern maternity care.

I am especially fond of citing her work on how the women she talked to perceived notions such as risk and safety, which explores these concepts into a very different light from the way they are viewed by many birth attendants in the modern culture of the maternity services.

In fact, I wish that everybody involved in maternity care was made to read this book before they were allowed to practice, because in its entirety it provides one of the most compelling arguments for listening to women and ensuring that their care is woman-centred that I have ever read.

*****

In 2023, a systematic review of women's experiences of planning home birth in consultation with maternity care providers in middle to high-income countries (Gillen et al 2023) also highlighted a number of key issues in this area, including that:

All women need accessible evidence-based information about planned home birth;

Women need to feel supported in their plans for home birth;

Women value the care of midwives when planning home birth;

Fully resourced home birth services should be a prioritised service. (Gillen et al 2023)

This is an important topic. We know that there is a significant discrepancy between what women want/are asking for, and the services they are told they can access.

This is particularly the case when it comes to midwifery care, out-of-hospital settings, and interventions that are low-tech, physiology-focused, and requested by the women themselves, such as water immersion.

We know that some women's desire to birth at home is rooted in previous poor experiences, and these researchers also found that, "Women's prior traumatic experience of hospital birth and a preference for physiological birth motivated their assertive decision to have a planned home birth despite criticisms and stigmatisation from their social circle and some maternity care providers."

The study also showed that, "Midwives' competence and support enhanced women's confidence and positive experiences of planning a home birth."

What about freebirth?

Several studies also look at how, when home birth isn't made available by the maternity services, some women will decide to freebirth instead. This highlights how important it is that homebirth is offered. It's important to know that the studies cited on this page showing that homebirth is safe are looking at planned home births attended by midwives.

But I know that people are also interested in freebirth, so here are some recent papers.

An Australian study is beautifully described by its title. Birthing outside the system: the motivation behind the choice to freebirth or have a homebirth with risk factors in Australia (Jackson et al 2020, also freely available).

"The core category was 'wanting the best and safest,' which describes what motivated the women to birth outside the system. The basic social process, which explains the journey women took as they pursued the best and safest, was 'finding a better way'. Women who gave birth outside the system in Australia had the countercultural belief that their knowledge about what was best and safest had greater authority than the socially accepted experts in maternity care. The women did not believe the rhetoric about the safety of hospitals and considered a biomedical approach towards birth to be the riskier birth option compared to giving birth outside the system. Previous birth experiences taught the women that hospital care was emotionally unsafe and that there was a possibility of further trauma if they returned to hospital. Giving birth outside the system presented the women with what they believed to be the opportunity to experience the best and safest circumstances for themselves and their babies." (Jackson et al 2020)

Another Australian survey of why women choose homebirth showed that, "if a midwife was not available, half of the respondents indicated they would give birth without a registered midwife (freebirth) or find an unregistered birthworker." (Sassine et al 2020). Unfortunately, this paper isn't freely available, but you can see the abstract here.

Homebirth and cost

There are lots of reasons to opt for a home birth. We know from research studies that home birth is both safe and satisfying, that it leads to fewer interventions, a higher chance of breastfeeding success, and helps to make confident parents.

A 2021 study from the USA also showed that it is also far more cost effective than hospital birth.

Anderson and Gilkison (2021) set out to estimate the cost of home birth in the USA and found that: "On the basis of a nationwide study, we estimate that the average cost of a home birth in the United States is USD 4650, which is significantly below existing cost estimates for an uncomplicated birth center or hospital birth." "Further, we find that each shift of one percent of births from hospitals to homes would represent an annual cost savings to society of at least USD 321 million."

No, it's not just about money.

But it makes you think.

Anderson, D.A.; Gilkison, G.M. The Cost of Home Birth in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10361. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910361 The paper is freely available at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10361

How to find out more

I helped a colleague with putting the evidence on safety together for a book. Homebirth: Safe & Sacred.

It was written by American homebirth midwife Kim Osterholzer. The book's aim is to get information out to those who have questions in an affordable, readable format. It is written for a US audience, so some of the information about midwifery care is US-specific. But the stories and the evidence transcend national borders. You can find out more about the book here.

Articles

This site also contains other articles that might interest you if you're looking for information on home birth.

Home birth after caesarean

Home births - where are we heading?

Unexpected home birth: let's keep our shoelaces on...

Homebirth: Safe & Sacred

Further confirmation of home birth safety

How midwives make a difference when there's an emergency at home...

Home birth also safer for 'higher risk' women

If you'd like to know more about your options, or explore tools for decision making, I can help!

My book What's Right For Me? has been written to help women and families make the decisions that are right for them.

What's Right For Me?

Books to help you become informed and make the decisions that are right for you...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our home birth information hub - the latest research on the safety of home birth and links to Dr Sara Wickham's articles on this.

# data[].attributes.headline
Myth Busting - There is no alternative to the CTG

# data[].attributes.subject
Myth Busting - There is no alternative to the CTG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From time to time, I read a paper and encounter something about fetal heart rate monitoring that makes my eyes roll. Over the next few weeks I'm going to share some of these with you, and explain what the writers got wrong, why, and what I wish they would write instead. I'm not going to provide you with details about the source of these quotes - other than to say they come from recently published peer-reviewed literature. I'm not setting out to shame the authors - but to make an educational point. These sorts of statements pop up repeatedly - so this isn't about any particular person's use of the particular string of words.
Join me on this myth busting adventure!
This is the piece of text that started me thinking I really need to explain what is wrong here:

Currently, medical practitioners primarily rely on cardiotocography (CTG), a tool that monitors uterine contractions and fetal heartbeat, to make risk assessments and decide whether interventions are recommended for the safety of the labouring person and / or baby (e.g. caesarean section, inducing labour, assistive tools). CTG as an evaluation tool has significant limitations, but no better tools exist for continuous fetal monitoring in labour.

Before you read on - take a moment to reflect on this, and see if you can spot anything that might not be quite right about it. I can find four. Can you see any? Maybe you'll notice something I haven't - if that is the case, drop it in the comments box!

Myth 1: The CTG is a tool that monitors

The CTG machine generates a graph, showing the fetal heart rate and the activity of the woman's uterus. This is literally where the name cardio- (heart), toco- (uterine contractions), -graph comes from. But CTG machines don't DO monitoring. Humans do.

The term monitoring means to judge the quality of something. I define CTG monitoring as the interpretation of the fetal heart rate and maternal uterine activity patterns over time in order to determine the quality of the recording and the clinical significance of the patterns. Monitoring only occurs when a person has the knowledge required to interpret the CTG, the authority to act on their interpretation, and the knowledge and skill required to perform appropriate interventions in response to their interpretation.

If a woman is attached to CTG equipment and a CTG recording is being generated - but no one looks at it, is there any monitoring going on? Well that would clearly be a great big no. So CTGs are not a tool that monitors anything. They generate a recording, that can be interpreted by a person with the required knowledge, skill, and authority, in order to achieve monitoring.

What would I have written here? "CTG is a tool that generates a recording of the fetal heart rate and uterine contractions. Maternity professionals can interpret the recording, and use this to inform decisions about when to recommend other interventions."

Myth 2: The CTG is a tool to improve the safety of women in labour

CTGs cannot, and never will, improve health outcomes for women. It is not what they were designed to do. In theory, the only outcome for women that might be avoided by CTG use is the emotional distress associated with having an undesired outcome for their baby. There is, of course, no robust evidence that CTG use prevents deaths or long term brain injury, so the point remains theoretical.

The very best that can be hoped for with CTG use is to have no impact on a woman's health outcomes. The evidence is clear that CTG use increases the use of caesarean section and instrumental birth, and decreases non-instrumental vaginal birth. Depending on how you think of these ways of giving birth, caesarean section and instrumental birth can be considered a form of harm. If the woman didn't want these to happen, and they were done because of the interpretation of the CTG, and never had the potential to improve outcomes for the baby, then this in an unintended consequence of CTG use. The additional pain, higher rates of heavy bleeding and blood transfusion, blood clots, wound infections, and the longer term consequences of caesarean section are all harms arising from CTG use.

What would I have written here? I would remove mention of the woman (or labouring person to use the language of the original authors) from the sentence. Because I'm fussy about these things, I would also change baby to fetus. The final part of the sentence would read "... for fetal safety."

Myth 3: The CTG achieves continuous fetal monitoring in labour

At best, the CTG achieves a continuous recording of the fetal heart rate in labour. Of course - it can only ever capture the part of the labour that occurs in a facility where CTGs are available, not what happens before then. And most CTG recordings have short periods where the fetal heart rate is not being recorded, either at all, or because the woman's heart rate is being recorded instead, or the computer inside the CTG machine is generating nonsense while it tries to guess what the heart rate is. This is usually called loss of contact. It happens more often with an external Doppler sensor than with a fetal spiral electrode, or the new externally worn fetal ECG sensors. But even with these, not every single beat is always reliably recorded.

Even if an entirely continuous CTG recording were able to be achieved, the monitoring part of this equation will always remain intermittent. It simply impossible for a maternity professional to sit and look at the CTG continuously and interpret it. Guideline writers have increasingly recognised this in recent years, and most now require that a formal process of risk assessment, CTG interpretation, care planning, communication, and documentation occur at set intervals. Here in Australia, the RANZCOG guidelines (2019) require that "the trace should be reviewed at least every 15-30 minutes". This is the same frequency as the recommendation for when intermittent auscultation should be done. The difference in how often the monitoring is happening with each of the two options is far less than people imagine it to be.

While the person in the room might glance at, or hear the sounds from, the CTG more often than every 15-30 minutes, if they aren't actually focussing on them, then this isn't monitoring. If they are busy engaged in another task, and therefore can't act on their interpretation of CTG recording, then this isn't monitoring. If there is a person sitting in front of a bank of screens at the central monitoring station, then they might be continuously looking at the screens, but only at one CTG at a time. And if they make a phone call or walk up to a room to raise their concerns about the CTG, then they can't still be looking at the monitors continuously. There really is no such thing as continuous fetal heart rate monitoring.

What would I write instead? I would either drop the word continuous from the front of CTG monitoring, or I would call it continuous CTG recording (while recognising that even that is not technically possible).

Myth 4: There is no better tool for fetal monitoring in labour

The phrase "no better tools exist for continuous fetal monitoring in labour" has two issues and I have covered the continuous bit above. It is strictly speaking true that there are no tools (including the CTG) that achieve continuous fetal monitoring. If we rephrase and say "no better tools exist for fetal monitoring in labour", then this statement writes both intermittent auscultation, and the work that the midwife (or nurse or other person attending the woman in labour) is doing, out of existence. And that's not ok.

First, intermittent auscultation is a realistic choice of fetal monitoring method in most situations. ( I can only come up with one and a half reasons to recommend CTGs instead). The evidence base confirms that intermittent auscultation is not worse for the fetus / baby in almost all situations, and might, maybe, be the safer option in preterm labour. ( Based on some really old and possibly no longer relevant research.) Intermittent auscultation avoids the higher rate of unnecessary interventions for women seen with CTG use, and I would argue this makes it the better tool for fetal monitoring in labour.

The other thing that becomes invisible with this statement is the work the person attending the birth is doing - though I certainly wouldn't call them a tool! Hands down, the most effective form of fetal monitoring is to have a knowledgeable and experienced care provider, who is present all the time (allowing for toilet breaks), and who has timely access to any interventions that might become appropriate at some point. There's plenty of research showing the HUGE impact that midwives have on outcomes for babies, and as a bonus, they also dramatically improve outcomes for women (WHO, 2024). Midwives bring all their senses to the work they do, and really are continuously monitoring the big picture, even if they can't possibly notice all the things all at the same time.

What would I have written here? "CTG as an evaluation tool has significant limitations, and has not been proven to be better than the use of intermittent auscultation."

My request of you

No matter who you are and whether you are writing or speaking, please think about the language you are using when you talk about fetal heart rate monitoring. Make sure you aren't perpetuating the same myths that I have drawn attention to today. Intermittent auscultation exists and is a good option, midwives (and others) do monitoring - not machines, and fetal heart rate monitoring is always intermittent. CTGs can never benefit women, but can harm them.

Join me again next week as I bust some more myths. Have you seen any in peer-reviewed literature or guidelines that you would love me to blog about? Get in touch!
Sign Up for the BirthSmallTalk Newsletter and Stay Informed!
Want to stay up-to-date with the latest research and course offers? The monthly newsletter is here to keep you in the loop.

By subscribing to the newsletter, you'll gain exclusive access to:

Exciting Announcements: Be the first to know about upcoming courses. Stay ahead of the curve and grab your spot before anyone else!

Exclusive Offers and Discounts: As a valued subscriber, you'll receive special discounts and offers on courses. Don't miss the chance to save money while investing in your knowledge development.

Join the growing community of BirthSmallTalk folks by signing up for the newsletter today!

References

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2019). Intrapartum fetal surveillance clinical guideline. 4th Edn. https://ranzcog.edu.au/statements-guidelines

Work Health Organization. (2024). Transitioning to midwifery models of care: global position paper. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240098268

Categories: CTG, EFM, IA, Language, Perinatal brain injury, Perinatal mortality, Reflections

Tags: caesarean section, guidelines, instrumental birth, midwife, safety

Trackbacks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Myth busting #1: There is no alternative to the CTG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There really is an alternative to CTG use...

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding the review process after an infant death

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding the review process after an infant death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Sands - Saving babies' lives. Supporting bereaved families.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding why your baby died | Sands - Saving babies’ lives. Supporting bereaved families.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When a baby dies before, during or shortly after birth, amid the devastation and grief, many parents are left with one question. Why did my baby die?

# data[].attributes.headline
Local support groups and 1-2-1 counselling offer from Her-Place Charitable Trust

# data[].attributes.subject
Local support groups and 1-2-1 counselling offer from Her-Place Charitable Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cherry Blossom – Birth Trauma & Infant Loss Support The loss of an infant is devastating for anyone affected. There can be many reasons why infant loss occurs, during or after birth, from a sudden miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, termination or the neo-natal death of a young baby in the days, weeks or months after birth.… Read More »Cherry Blossom

# data[].attributes.headline
Janam App for South Asian Heritage families

# data[].attributes.subject
Janam App for South Asian Heritage families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download our app for free, by clicking the links below. One stop pregnancy information guide for South Asian mums The JanamApp is trustworthy information at your fingertips for all your needs in pregnancy, labour and postnatal care including looking after your baby in the first few weeks of birth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nie śpię, bo karmię! Darmowa grupa wsparcia dla polskich rodzin, które planują, karmią lub zamierzają karmić piersią. Grupę prowadzą doule, breastfeeding supporters, psychologowie. Grupa co tydzień…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I was a bit scared when we found out we were having a baby, obviously happy, but a bit scared and in the beginning I was a bit clueless. The child development part is my favourite bit, but there's things in there, like things about mental health, that I didn't know about and that I didn't know you needed to know about.

Ross, 22

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DadPad | The Essential Guide for New Dads | Support Guide for New Dads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developed with the NHS, DadPad gives new dads and dads-to-be the knowledge and skills needed to gain confidence and give their baby the best start in life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Co-ParentPad Launch | Support for new parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our new Co-ParentPad offers support and info to LGBTQI+ non-gestational parents-to-be and new parents - find out more here!