Fetal monitoring in neurosurgery: An essential paradigm?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 245
Author(s):  
Saurav Singh ◽  
AmiyaKumar Barik ◽  
Sanjay Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Monitoring

FDA Advisory Panel OKs Fetal Monitoring Device

Ob Gyn News ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
CHRISTINE KILGORE
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
Monitoring Device

Fetal Monitoring und Pulsoximetrie-Vergleich der Systeme

2006 ◽  
Vol 66 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Nonnenmacher ◽  
N Fuhr ◽  
H Hopp ◽  
J Dudenhausen
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Monitoring

Improved fetal monitoring through individualized growth charts for ultrasound measurements

2007 ◽  
Vol 211 (S 2) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Hörmansdörfer ◽  
A Scharf ◽  
I Staboulidou ◽  
P Hillemanns ◽  
P Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Growth Charts ◽  
Ultrasound Measurements

738 Sex-specific differences in electronic fetal monitoring patterns

2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. S462-S463
Author(s):  
Erin Bailey ◽  
Nandini Raghuraman ◽  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Jeny Ghartey ◽  
George A. Macones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Electronic Fetal Monitoring

scholarly journals Electronic intrapartum fetal monitoring. A systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines.

2021 ◽  
pp. 100008
Author(s):  
Manoj Mohan ◽  
Joohi Ramawat ◽  
Gene La Monica ◽  
Pradeep Jayaram ◽  
Sherif Abdel Fattah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring

Electronic fetal monitoring in the twenty-first century: Language, logic and Lewis Carroll

2020 ◽  
pp. 147775092097180
Author(s):  
Thomas P Sartwelle ◽  
James C Johnston ◽  
Berna Arda ◽  
Mehila Zebenigus
Keyword(s):  
Medical Literature ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Fetal Monitoring ◽  
First Century ◽  
Lewis Carroll ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Electronic Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Complete Failure ◽  
Twenty First Century

The Alice Books, full of illogical thoughts, words, and contradictions, were unrivaled entertainment until the publication of the medical literature promoting electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for every pregnancy. The modern-day EFM advocates acknowledge EFM’s decades long failure but simultaneously recommend EFM use for lawsuit protection and because the profession has used EFM for every pregnancy for fifty years, therefore, it must be efficacious. These self-indulgent, illogical rationalizations ignore the half century of evidence-based scientific research proving that EFM is a complete failure as well as ignoring the fact that continued EFM use violates the fundamental principles of modern bioethics. This blind advocacy perpetuates four pernicious EFM harms occurring to mothers, babies, and the medical profession itself. This article sets out these four EFM harms with the goal of abolishing the misguided, illogical, contradictory, arguments used by the twenty-first century EFM Lewis Carroll mimics.

Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Physician Liability and Informed Consent

1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-91
Author(s):  
Myra Gerson Gilfix
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Monitoring Technique ◽  
Electronic Fetal Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Procedure ◽  
Practice Standard ◽  
Physician Liability

AbstractElectronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has been criticized as ineffective, unsafe and costly. Despite existing controversy regarding the risks involved in using EFM, this monitoring procedure continues to be widely employed. In many jurisdictions, in fact, the use of EFM during labor may be considered the customary practice. This Article analyzes the medical and legal issues arising from a physician's use of or failure to use EFM. The Author argues that EFM subjects the mother and the fetus to risks which may be avoided if auscultation, a less intrusive monitoring technique, is employed. The ‘customary practice’ standard of care, the ordinary negligence standard of care, and the ‘best judgment’ and ‘duty to keep abreast’ standards of care are compared and applied to the physician's decision to use EFM. The Author contends that physicians who employ auscultation may not be liable for failing to use EFM; however, physicians who use EFM despite the evidence of its risks may be liable for failing to ‘keep abreast’ or to use their ‘best judgment’ or for negligence. Finally, the Author contends that both physicians and their patients are best protected when the physician elicits the mother's informed consent to employ a particular monitoring technique during labor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document