Opinions of midwives and pregnant women on prelabour ultrasound examination
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
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.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2019 Hong Kong Journal of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Midwifery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Journal has a fully Open Access policy and publishes all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. For any use other than that permitted by this license, written permission must be obtained from the Journal.