Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-8l2sj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:20:48.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 29 - Risk Management in Intrapartum Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

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

References

The National Audit Office. Maternity Services in England: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London; The Stationery Office; 2013.Google Scholar
Edozien, LC. Mapping the patient safety footprint: the RADICAL framework. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27: 481–8 doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.05.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edozien, LC. The RADICAL framework for implementing and monitoring healthcare risk management. CGIJ. 2013;18: 165–75. doi: 10.1108/14777271311317945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE). Saving Mothers’ Lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–08. The Eighth Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. BJOG. 2011;118(suppl. 1): 1203.Google Scholar
Knight, M, Kenyon, S, Brocklehurst, P, et al. (eds). Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care – Lessons Learned to Inform Future Maternity Care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2009–12. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2014.Google Scholar
Department of Health. On the State of Public Health: Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2006. London: Department of Health; 2007.Google Scholar
West Midlands Perinatal Institute. Confidential Enquiry into Intrapartum Related Deaths. NHS West Midlands; October 2010.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, RL, McClure, EM, Bann, CM. The relationship of intrapartum and antepartum stillbirth rates to measures of obstetric care in developed and developing countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86: 1303–9. doi: 10.1080/00016340701644876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonsson, M, Nordén-Lindeberg, S, Ostlund, I, Hanson, U. Metabolic acidosis at birth and suboptimal care: illustration of the gap between knowledge and clinical practice. BJOG. 2009;116: 1453–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1471–0528.2009.02269.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, S. Hospital fined £100,000 after wrong drug killed new mother. Guardian. 17 May 2010. www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/17/mother-killed-myra-cabrera-bupivacaine (accessed 9 February 2016).Google Scholar
King's Fund. Safe Births, Everybody's Business: An Independent Inquiry into the Safety of Maternity Services in England. London: King's Fund; 2008.Google Scholar
Edozien, LC. Structured multidisciplinary intershift handover (SMITH): a tool for promoting safer intrapartum care. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31: 683–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edozien, LC. Situational awareness and its application in the delivery suite. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125: 65–9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, T, Holt, L. A ‘buddy’ approach to CTG. Midwives. 2008;11: 40–1.Google ScholarPubMed
Fausett, MB, Propst, A, Van Doren, K, Clark, BT. How to develop an effective obstetric checklist. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205: 165–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kearns, RJ, Uppal, V, Bonner, J, et al. The introduction of a surgical safety checklist in a tertiary referral obstetric centre. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20: 818–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, B, Mascie-Taylor, H. Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care. Health Serv Manage Res. 2005;18: 211–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacEachin, SR, Lopez, CM, Powell, KJ, Corbett, NL. The fetal heart rate collaborative practice project: situational awareness in electronic fetal monitoring – a Kaiser Permanente perinatal patient safety program initiative. J Perinatal Neonatal Nurs. 2009;23: 314–23.Google Scholar
Lewis, LS, Pan, HY, Heine, RP, et al. Labor and pregnancy outcomes after adoption of a more conservative oxytocin labor protocol. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(suppl. 1): 66S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000447374.37308.4c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohn, AE, Bastek, JA, Sammel, MD, Wang, E, Srinivas, SK. Unintended clinical consequences of the implementation of a checklist-based, low-dose oxytocin protocol. Am J Perinatol. 2014;32: 371–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1387932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budden, A, Chen, LJ, Henry, A. High-dose versus low-dose oxytocin infusion regimens for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10: CD009701. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009701.pub2.Google Scholar
Mahlmeister, L. Best practices in perinatal care: evidence-based management of oxytocin induction and augmentation of labor. J Perinat Neonat Nurs. 2008;22(4): 259–63. doi: 10.1097/01.JPN.0000341354.99703.b2.Google ScholarPubMed
Scottish Health Council. Good Practice in Service User Involvement in Maternity Services: Involving Women to Improve their Care. Glasgow Scottish Health Council; 2011.Google Scholar
Magee, H, Askham, J. Women's Views About Safety in Maternity Care: A Qualitative Study. London: King's Fund and Picker Institute; 2008.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Maternity Dashboard: Clinical Performance and Governance Score Card. London: RCOG Press; 2008.Google Scholar
www.safetythermometer.nhs.uk (accessed 9 February 2016).Google Scholar
www.health.org.uk (accessed 15 May 2016).Google Scholar
National Health Service Litigation Authority. Ten Years of Maternity Claims: An Analysis of NHS Litigation Authority Data. London: NHSLA; 2012.Google Scholar
Cornthwaite, K, Edwards, S, Siassakos, D. Reducing risk in maternity by optimising teamwork and leadership: an evidence-based approach to save mothers and babies. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27: 571–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×