Opinions of midwives and pregnant women on prelabour ultrasound examination

Ka Wing LAU; Sin Ming TAI; Pik Yu LO; Ying Tze Viola CHAN; Wing Cheong LEUNG; Wai Lam LAU

doi:10.12809/hkjgom.19.2.01

Authors

Ka Wing LAU
Sin Ming TAI
Pik Yu LO
Ying Tze Viola CHAN
Wing Cheong LEUNG
Wai Lam LAU

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12809/hkjgom.19.2.01

Keywords:

Midwifery, Patient satisfaction, Surveys and questionnaires

Abstract

Objectives: To survey the opinions of midwives and pregnant women on prelabour ultrasound examination.
Methods: Questionnaires on prelabour ultrasound examination were distributed to 40 midwives and 125 pregnant women in a regional hospital.
Results: 34 (85%) midwives and 125 (100%) pregnant women responded. Most midwives agreed or strongly agreed that prelabour ultrasound examination is acceptable with respect to workload (73.5%), enables labour ward beds to be utilised more efficiently (61.8%), should be encouraged for women not in labour (55.8%), and improves patient care (70.6%), and that most midwives are willing to learn and perform pre-labour ultrasound examination in future (85.3%). Subgroup analysis showed that the agree and non-agree groups did not differ significantly in terms of the
number of prelabour ultrasound examination performed or years of labour ward experience. For pregnant women, 90.4% reported that it was their first ultrasound examination after admission for show or irregular contractions; 99.2% considered the study purpose clearly explained; 84.8% felt reassured that they were not yet in active labour after vaginal examination alone and 92.8% felt reassured with additional ultrasound examinations; 97.6% were satisfied with ultrasound examination and 95.2% would recommend it to others; and 72.8% reported no pain during
ultrasound examination.
Conclusion: Most midwives support prelabour ultrasound examination and are willing to learn the technique. Prelabour ultrasound examination is well-tolerated by pregnant women. It should be introduced to midwives and pregnant women to improve intrapartum care.

References

Lauzon L, Hodnett E. Antenatal education for self-diagnosis of the onset of active labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2:CD000935.

Hanley GE, Munro S, Greyson D, et al. Diagnosing onset of labor: a systematic review of definitions in the research literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:71.

Loughney A, Collis R, Dastgir S. Birth before arrival at delivery suite: associations and consequences. Br J Midwifery 2006;14:204-8.

Hemminki E, Simukka R. The timing of hospital admission and progress of labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986;22:85-94.

Holmes P, Oppenheimer LW, Wen SW. The relationship between cervical dilatation at initial presentation in labour and subsequent intervention. BJOG 2001;108:1120-4.

Jackson DJ, 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;32:147-60.

Klein MC, Kelly A, Kaczorowski J, Grzybowski S. The effect of family physician timing of maternal admission on procedures in labour and maternal and infant morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004;26:641-5.

Indraccolo U, Di Filippo D, Di Iorio R, Marinoni E, Roselli D, Indraccolo SR. Effect of epidural analgesia on operative vaginal birth rate. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:221-4.

Spiby H, Green JM, Hucknall C, Richardson Foster H, Andrews A. Labouring to Better Effect: Studies of Services for Women in Early Labour. The OPAL Study (OPtions for Assessment in Early Labour). Report for National Coordinating Centre for NHS Service Delveryand Oragnisation R & D (NCCSDO). London; 2007.

Beake S, Chang YS, Cheyne H, Spiby H, Sandall J, Bick D. Experiences of early labour management from perspectives of women, labour companions and health professionals: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Midwifery 2018;57:69-84.

Kawabata I, Nagase A, Oya A, et al. Factors influencing the accuracy of digital examination for determining fetal head position during the first stage of labor. J Nippon Med Sch 2010;77:290-5.

Ying Lai C, Levy V. Hong Kong Chinese women’s experiences of vaginal examinations in labour. Midwifery 2002;18:296-303.

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

Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19:258-63. 15. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19:264-8.

Tutschek B, Torkildsen EA, Eggebø TM. Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:425-9.

Akmal S, Tsoi E, Nicolaides KH. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal occipital position: interobserver agreement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:421-4.

Ghi T, Eggebø T, Lees C, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:128-39.

Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, et al. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:387-91.

Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, et al. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:199-204.

Eggebø TM, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Hassan WA, Usman S, Salvesen KA, Lees CC. A model to predict vaginal delivery in nulliparous women based on maternal characteristics and intrapartum ultrasound. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 2015;213:362.e1-6.

Lau WL, Leung WC, Chin R. What is the best transperineal ultrasound parameter for predicting success of vacuum extraction? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:735.

Chan YT, Ng VK, Yung WK, Lo TK, Leung WC, Lau WL. Relationship between intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measurement of angle of progression and head-perineum distance with correlation to conventional clinical parameters of labor progress and time to delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015;28:1476-81.

Chan VYT, Lau WL, So MKP, Leung WC. Measuring angle of progression by transperineal ultrasonography to predict successful instrumental and cesarean deliveries during prolonged second stage of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019;144:192-8.

Chan VYT, Lau WL, Lo TK, Leung WC. Comparison of digital vaginal examination with intrapartum transabdominal ultrasound to determine fetal head position: a local experience. Hong Kong J Gynaecol Obstet Midwifery 2015;15:23-8.

Tang GPY, Chan VYT, Ng VKS, Lau WL, Leung WC. Can intrapartum ultrasound assessment of fetal spine and head position predict persistent occiput posterior position at delivery? Hong Kong J Gynaecol Obstet Midwifery 2016;16:102-7.

Chan YV, Hui W, Lau WL, Leung W. Association between cervical length measured by transperineal ultrasound before labour and time of delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52(Suppl 1):156.P06.04.

Chan YV, Hui W, Leung WC, Lau WL. Association between head perineum distance measured by transperineal ultrasound before labour and time of delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52(Suppl 1):156.P06.05.

Lau K, Lau WL, Chan YV. Attitude of midwives on prelabour translabial ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(Suppl 1):115.OP17.02.

Donnison J. Midwives and Medical Men: a History of the Struggle for the Control of Childbirth. London: Historical Publications; 1988.

Van Adrichem A, Faes E, Kinget K, Jacquemyn Y. Intrapartum ultrasound: viewpoint of midwives and parturient women and reproducibility. Int J Womens Health 2018;10:251-6.

Iruretagoyena JI, Trampe B, Stewart K, Droste S. A transcervical chorionic villus sampling model for teaching. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:1489-92.

Bueno-Lopez V, Fuentelsaz-Gallego C, Casellas-Caro M, et al. Efficiency of the modified Sims maternal position in the rotation of persistent occiput posterior position during labor: a randomized clinical trial. Birth 2018;45:385-92.

Chan YT, Ng KS, Yung WK, Lo TK, Lau WL, Leung WC. Is intrapartum translabial ultrasound examination painless? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:3276-80.