Search

Qualitative research about women and birthing people's experiences of fetal monitoring during labour and birth is scant. Labour and birth is often impacted by wearable or invasive monitoring devices, however, most published research about fetal monitoring is focused on the wellbeing of the fetus. This manuscript is derived from a larger mixed methods study, 'WOmen's Experiences of Monitoring Baby (The WOMB Study)', aiming to increase understanding of the experiences of women and birthing people in Australia, of being monitored; and about the information they received about fetal monitoring devices during pregnancy. We constructed a national cross-sectional survey that was distributed via social media in May and June, 2022. Responses were received from 861 participants. As far as we are aware, this is the first survey of the experiences of women and birthing people of intrapartum fetal monitoring conducted in Australia. This paper comprises the analysis of the free text survey responses, using qualitative and inductive content analysis. Two categories were constructed, Tending to the machine, which explores participants' perceptions of the way in which clinicians interacted with fetal monitoring technologies; and Impressions of the machine, which explores the direct impact of fetal monitoring devices upon the labour and birth experience of women and birthing people. The findings suggest that some clinicians need to reflect upon the information they provide to women and birthing people about monitoring. For example, freedom of movement is an important aspect of supporting the physiology of labour and managing pain. If freedom of movement is important, the physical restriction created by a wired cardiotocograph is inappropriate. Many participants noticed that clinicians focused their attention primarily on the technology. Prioritising the individual needs of the woman or birthing person is key to providing high quality woman-centred intrapartum care. Women should be provided with adequate information regarding the risks and benefits of different forms of fetal monitoring including how the form of monitoring might impact her labour experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A new wireless and beltless monitoring device utilising fetal and maternal electrocardiography (ECG) and uterine electromyography, known as 'non-invasive fetal ECG' (NIFECG) was registered for clinical use in Australia in 2018. The safety and reliability of NIFECG has been demonstrated in controlled settings for short periods during labour. As far as we are aware, at the time our study commenced, this was globally the first trial of such a device in an authentic clinical setting for the entire duration of a woman's labour. Methods: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using NIFECG fetal monitoring for women undergoing continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour and birth. Women were eligible to participate in the study if they were at 36 weeks gestation or greater with a singleton pregnancy, planning to give birth vaginally and with obstetric indications as per local protocol (NSW Health Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guideline GL2018_025. 2018) for continuous intrapartum fetal monitoring. Written informed consent was received from participating women in antenatal clinic prior to the onset of labour. This single site clinical feasibility study took place between January and July 2020 at the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to inform the analysis of results using the NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale up, Spread and Sustainability) framework, a validated tool for analysing the implementation of new health technologies into clinical settings. Results: Women responded positively about the comfort and freedom of movement afforded by the NIFECG. Midwives reported that when no loss of contact occurred, the device enabled them to focus less on the technology and more on supporting women's physical and emotional needs during labour. Midwives and obstetricians noticed the benefits for women but expressed a need for greater certainty about the reliability of the signal. Conclusion: The NIFECG device enables freedom of movement and positioning for labouring women and was well received by women and the majority of clinicians. Whilst measurement of the uterine activity was reliable, there was uncertainty for clinicians in relation to loss of contact of the fetal heart rate. If this can be ameliorated the device shows potential to be used as routinely as cardiotocography (CTG) for fetal monitoring. This is the first time the NASSS framework has been used to synthesise the implementation needs of a health technology in the care of women during labour and birth. Our findings contribute new knowledge about the determinants for implementation of a complex technology in a maternity care setting. Trial registration: The Universal Trial Number is reU1111-1228-9845 and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration Number is 12619000293167p. Trial registration occurred on the 20 February, 2019. The trial protocol may be viewed at http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377027 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]