RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-1904-6546
Vaginal Birth at Term – Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020)
Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: English | deutsch
- Abstract
- I Guideline Information
- II Guideline Application
- III Methodology
- IV Guideline
- 4 Pain management
- References/Literatur
Abstract
Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. This first part presents recommendations and statements about patient information and counselling, general patient care, monitoring of patients, pain management and quality control measures for vaginal birth.
Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG 190 guideline “Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies”. Other international guidelines were also consulted in specific cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions, if this was considered necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of the additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence.
Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.
#
I Guideline Information
Guidelines program of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG
For information on the guidelines program, please refer to the end of the guideline.
#
Citation format
Vaginal Birth at Term – Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020). Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2022; 82: 1143 – 1193
#
Guideline documents
The complete long version in German and a slide version of these guidelines as well as a list of the conflicts of interest of all of the authors is available on the homepage of the AWMF: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/015-083.html
#
Guideline authors
|
Author |
AWMF professional society |
|---|---|
|
Prof. Dr. Michael Abou-Dakn (from Feb. 2017, coordinator, DGGG) |
Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, St. Joseph Krankenhaus Berlin-Tempelhof, Wüsthoffstraße 15, 12101 Berlin, Germany |
|
Prof. Dr. Rainhild Schäfers (coordinator, DGHWi) |
Hochschule für Gesundheit, Department für Angewandte Gesundheitswissenschaften, Gesundheitscampus 6 – 8, 44801 Bochum, Germany |
|
Author Mandate holder |
DGGG working group (AG)/ |
|---|---|
|
Prof. Dr. Michael Abou-Dakn |
German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e. V.] |
|
Kirsten Asmushen, M.Sc. |
Society for Quality in Non-clinical Obstetrics [Gesellschaft für Qualität in der außerklinischen Geburtshilfe e. V.] |
|
Dr. Susanne Bässler-Weber |
Working Group on Womenʼs Health in Medicine, Psychotherapy and Society [Arbeitskreis Frauengesundheit in Medizin, Psychotherapie und Gesellschaft e. V.] |
|
Dr. Ulrike Boes |
Working Group on Womenʼs Health in Medicine, Psychotherapy and Society [Arbeitskreis Frauengesundheit in Medizin, Psychotherapie und Gesellschaft e. V.] |
|
Andrea Bosch |
German Midwifery Association [Deutscher Hebammenverband e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. David Ehm |
Swiss Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics [Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe] |
|
Univ. Prof. Dr. Thorsten Fischer |
Austrian Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics [Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe] |
|
Prof. Dr. Monika Greening |
German Society of Midwifery [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.] |
|
Dr. Katharina Hartmann |
Mother Hood e. V. |
|
PD Dr. Günther Heller |
Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare [Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen] |
|
Claudia Kapp |
German Society of Midwifery [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Constantin von Kaisenberg |
German Society of Ultrasound in Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin e. V.] |
|
Beate Kayer, Mag. (FH) |
Austrian Midwifery Committee [Österreichisches Hebammengremium] |
|
Prof. Dr. Sven Kehl |
German Society for Perinatal Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Perinatale Medizin e. V.] |
|
Univ. Prof. Dr. Peter Kranke, MBA |
German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e. V.] |
|
Dr. Burkhard Lawrenz |
Professional Association of Pediatricians [Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärzte e. V.] |
|
Dr. Christine Loytved |
German Society of Midwifery [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.] |
|
Dr. Wolf Lütje |
German Society for Psychosomatic Gynecology and Obstetrics [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychosomatische Frauenheilkunde e. V.] |
|
Elke Mattern, M. Sc. |
German Society of Midwifery [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.] |
|
Renate Nielsen |
German Midwifery Association [Deutscher Hebammenverband e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Frank Reister |
German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Rainhild Schäfers |
German Society of Midwifery [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Rolf Schlösser |
Society for Neonatology and Pediatric Intensive Care [Gesellschaft für Neonatologie und Pädiatrische Intensivmedizin e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Christiane Schwarz |
German Society of Midwifery [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Volker Stephan |
German Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin e. V.] |
|
Barbara Stocker Kalberer, midwife M. Sc. |
Swiss Midwifery Association [Schweizerischer Hebammenverband] |
|
Dr. Axel Valet |
Professional Association of Gynecologists [Berufsverband der Frauenärzte e. V.] |
|
Prof. Dr. Manuel Wenk |
German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e. V.] |
The guideline was moderated by Dr. med. Monika Nothacker (AWMF).
#
Abbreviations
#
#
II Guideline Application
Purpose and objectives
Uterotonic drugs are administered in one quarter of births in Germany and almost one third of infants in Germany are delivered by caesarean section. More than half of all caesarean deliveries were indicated due to failure to progress in labor or abnormalities detected during fetal monitoring but this had no significant impact on reducing perinatal morbidity or mortality. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence that both the rate of administered uterotonics and of caesarean deliveries correlate with maternal and neonatal morbidity rates.
This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge on vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on defining the physiological stages of labor and differentiating pathological stages as well as assessing the need for intervention or options to avoid an intervention. The information provided in this guideline should serve as an orientation for the actions carried out by all persons involved in the care of parturient women and should also allow women to have a self-determined birth based on their specific situation.
#
Targeted areas of care
The focus is principally on the birth process and covers all the stages of labor including the placental stage.
#
Target user groups/target audience
The guideline is especially aimed at midwives, gynecologists/obstetricians, pediatricians and specialists for adolescent medicine/neonatologists and anesthetists.
#
Adoption and period of validity
The validity of this guideline was confirmed by the executive boards/heads of the participating professional societies/working groups/organizations/associations as well as by the boards of the DGGG, SGGG, OEGGG and the DGGG/OEGGG/SGGG guidelines commission in [12/2020] and was thus approved in its entirety. This guideline is valid from 22 December 2020 through to 21 December 2025. Because of the contents of this guideline, this period of validity is only an estimate. The guideline can be reviewed and updated at an earlier point in time if necessary. If the guideline still reflects the current state of knowledge, its period of validity can be extended.
#
#
III Methodology
Basic principles
The method used to prepare this guideline was determined by the class to which this guideline was assigned. The AWMF Guidance Manual (version 1.0) has set out the respective rules and requirements for different classes of guidelines. Guidelines are differentiated into lowest (S1), intermediate (S2), and highest (S3) class. The lowest class is defined as consisting of a set of recommendations for action compiled by a non-representative group of experts. In 2004, the S2 class was divided into two subclasses: a systematic evidence-based subclass (S2e) and a structural consensus-based subclass (S2k). The highest S3 class combines both approaches.
This guideline has been classified as: S3
#
Grading of evidence according to SIGN
To evaluate the level of evidence (levels 1 – 4) of additionally selected primary studies, this guideline used the classification system of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) in its most recent version from 2011 ([Table 3]).
|
Level |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Source: http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf Source (contents, abbreviations, notes): http://www.cebm.net/?o=1025 |
|
|
1++ |
High-quality meta-analyses, systematic review of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias. |
|
1+ |
Well-conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a low risk of bias. |
|
1− |
Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a high risk of bias. |
|
2++ |
High-quality systematic reviews of case-control or cohort studies, or high-quality case-control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is causal. |
|
2+ |
Well-conducted case-control studies or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal. |
|
2− |
Case-control studies or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding or bias and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal. |
|
3 |
Non-analytical studies, e.g., case reports, case series. |
|
4 |
Expert opinion |
#
Grading of evidence
The grading of evidence in an S3-guideline using a level-of-evidence system allows the strength of the recommendations made in the guideline to be graded. The degree of recommendation is differentiated into three levels and the different strengths of recommendation are indicated by the respective choice of words. This commonly used grading of recommendations is not just used by the AWMF but also in the National Guidelines on Care (Nationale Versorgungsleitlinien, NVL) issued by the German Medical Association. The wording chosen to indicate the strength of the recommendations is explained in the background text.
In this context, the terms “grade”, “level” or “strength” indicate the degree of certainty about issuing the recommendation after weighing up the benefits and harms but are not an indication of whether the recommendation itself is binding. Guidelines are recommendatory in nature, i.e., they are not binding. Individual statements and recommendations are differentiated by symbols and syntax ([Table 4]).
|
Symbols |
Description of binding character |
Expression |
|---|---|---|
|
A |
Strong recommendation with highly binding character |
must/must not |
|
B |
Regular recommendation with moderately binding character |
should/ |
|
0 |
Open recommendation with limited binding character |
may/may not |
The above-described differentiation of recommendations reflects both the assessment of the evidence and the clinical relevance of the studies on which the evidence is based as well as factors which are not included in the grading of evidence such as the choice of patient cohort, intention-to-treat and outcome analyses, medical actions and ethical behavior towards the patient, country-specific applicability, etc. In contrast, strong, moderate or weak evidence may correspondingly result in a strong, simple or open recommendation. A recommendation can only be upgraded or downgraded to a grade A or a grade 0 recommendation if the strength of the evidence is moderate. In exceptional cases, the highest level of evidence is only accorded a limited/open recommendation or vice versa, and this needs to be explained in the background text.
-
Strong evidence → grade A or grade B recommendation
-
Moderate evidence → grade A or grade B or grade 0 recommendation
-
Weak evidence → grade B or grade 0 recommendation
#
Statements
Expositions or explanations of specific facts, circumstances or problems without any direct recommendations for action included in this guideline are referred to as “statements”. It is not possible to provide any information about the grading of evidence for these statements.
#
Achieving consensus and strength of consensus
At structured NIH-type consensus-based conferences (S2k/S3 level), authorized participants attending the session vote on draft statements and recommendations. The process is as follows. A recommendation is presented, its contents are discussed, proposed changes are put forward, and all proposed changes are voted on. If a consensus (> 75% of votes) is not achieved, there is another round of discussions, followed by a repeat vote. Finally, the extent of consensus is determined, based on the number of participants ([Table 5]).
|
Symbols |
Level of consensus |
Extent of agreement in percent |
|---|---|---|
|
+++ |
Strong consensus |
> 95% of participants agree |
|
++ |
Consensus |
> 75 – 95% of participants agree |
|
+ |
Majority agreement |
> 50 – 75% of participants agree |
|
– |
No consensus |
< 51% of participants agree |
#
Expert consensus
As the term already indicates, this refers to consensus decisions taken specifically with regard to recommendations/statements issued without a prior systematic search of the literature (S2k) or where evidence is lacking (S2e/S3). The term “expert consensus” (EC) used here is synonymous with terms used in other guidelines such as “good clinical practice” (GCP) or “clinical consensus point” (CCP). The strength of the recommendation is graded as previously described in the chapter Grading of recommendations but without the use of symbols; it is only expressed semantically (“must”/“must not” or “should”/“should not” or “may”/“may not”).
#
#
IV Guideline
1 Information and counselling
This chapter provides recommendations on the information and counselling given to healthy women during pregnancy to support them to make their individual decisions. In special situations, the recommendations given in the appropriate guidelines must be considered (e.g., caesarean section, breech presentation [BP], twins, preterm birth, gestational diabetes [GDM] etc.).
|
3.1 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Women must be informed about the different birth settings they can choose. |
|
LoE 4 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies, Recommendation 1.1.2 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] |
|
Level of consensus: 80% |
It was calculated that in 2017, 98.7% of all newborn infants in Germany were born in hospital, and just 1.28% were born in a non-clinical setting [34]; however, no complete statistics are available. In Austria, 1.3% of all births in the same period took place either at home or in a midwifery-led setting [35] while in Switzerland around 2.6% of all births took place at home or in a midwifery-led setting [36].
Recommendation 3.1. has adapted recommendation 1.1.2 of the NICE guideline CG190 (for a summary of the underlying studies, see below) and has considered steps 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the International Childbirth Initiative as well as the freedom of choice of every pregnant woman in Germany as formulated and regulated in Sec. 134a of SGB V and Sec. 24f sentence 2 of the SGB V to choose the birth setting. Recommendation 3.1. corresponds to the different birth settings possible (hospital, free-standing midwifery-led unit or home) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
|
3.2 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
In principle, women must be informed about the different options for obstetric settings which are available to them, e.g., access to one-to-one care from a midwife, access to medical care, access to different pain-relieving measures and pharmacological painkillers, the option to have a vaginal birth for women who have had a caesarean section, BP or twins, as well as other aspects. |
|
LoE 4 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies, Recommendation 1.1.7 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
3.3 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
When discussing the pregnant womanʼs choice of birth setting with her, all personal opinions and judgements about her choice must be avoided in favor of impartial advice. |
|
LoE 4 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies, Recommendation 1.1.9 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
3.4 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
All health professionals must ensure that women receive individualized and respectful care at all times, that they are treated with respect and esteem, and that they can make their own informed decisions. |
|
LoE 4 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies, Recommendation 1.14 [5], [17], [25], [29], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
Recommendation 3.4 is based on NICE recommendation 1.14 and raises the issue of the experiences women have in different hospital and non-hospital birth settings. “Individual care” does not mean that medical and support staff are obliged to comply with every wish expressed by the woman (or the person(s) accompanying her).
|
3.5 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Pregnant women must be offered evidence-based information and support early on which will allow them to make an informed choice about the birth. The viewpoints and concerns of women must be acknowledged as an integral part of the counselling and decision-making process. |
|
LoE 4 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG132 Caesarean section, Recommendation 1.1.1.1 [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] |
|
Level of consensus: 93.3% |
|
3.6 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Communications and information must be provided in a form which is comprehensible to persons without any medical knowledge; they must take account of the needs of women from ethnic minorities (differentiated by language, culture and religion) whose native language is not German or who cannot read, and the needs of women with disabilities or learning difficulties. |
|
LoE 4 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG132 Caesarean section, Recommendation 1.1.1.3 [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
For reasons of consistency, recommendations 3.5 and 3.6 and the following background information were taken from the chapter Information and Advice of the S3-guideline “Caesarean Section”, AWMF registry no. 015 – 084 [58] (cf. Recommendations 3.1.1 and 3.1.3 in that guideline), which in turn largely follow the recommendations given in the NICE guideline CG132 Caesarean section [59].
#
2 General care
Care during the birth includes all stages of the birth described in [Fig. 1]. The data on the duration of the dilation stage is based on the onset of labor, which in this context is associated with the start of regular, painful and progressive contractions.
2.1 Informed decision-making and self-determined birth
The need to enable women and their families to have a self-determined birth while also complying with legal requirements means that it is imperative for midwives and doctors to consider the issue of the extent to which the pregnant woman must be included in decision-making [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. In obstetrics, participatory decision-making processes may help to reduce decision-related conflicts and anxieties during pregnancy [62], can affect the womanʼs satisfaction with the birth process, and may have an impact on safety when choosing the type of birth [65].
#
2.2 Continuous care and support
In this guideline, one-to-one care by a midwife is defined as follows [66], [67]:
-
The provision of obstetric, non-medical supportive care and emotional support and the provision of information and advocacy to the woman during the active dilation and expulsion stages by same midwife while taking existing work-time arrangements into account. Care provided by the same midwife must be as continuous as possible in accordance with the womanʼs needs.
This definition largely corresponds to the definition by Bohren et al. from 2017 [68], [69].
|
4.1 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Once the active dilation stage has begun, parturient women should receive one-to-one care from a midwife throughout the birth. |
|
LoE 2+ |
|
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
4.2 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
During the active expulsion stage, obstetric staff must not leave the woman on her own. |
|
Expert consensus with consideration of [69] |
|
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
4.3 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
During the birth, women should be allowed to be supported by (a) birth companion(s) of their choice. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies, Recommendation 22 [73] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
|
[69] |
|
It is assumed that one-to-one care corresponds to the needs of women for continuous care and that one-to-one care will also reduce the potential for error which can arise from suboptimal management of interpersonal communication. The existing evidence should be classified as an initial indication for low-intervention births as a result of one-to-one care [73].
2.2.1 Availability of gynecologists/obstetricians, pediatricians and anesthetists over a period of 24 hours
It is indisputable that in risky situations women and infants will benefit from the rapid availability of specialists for gynecology and obstetrics, pediatrics or even analgesia. But corresponding studies on this point are lacking, so that even IQWiG evidence report no. 635 on the attendance and availability of specialized obstetric staff [69] does not permit any statements to be made which would correspond to a level of evidence. There can be no doubt that in high-risk cases the presence of medical staff is indispensable. According to the IQWiG evidence report (see guideline report), the evidence indicating that obstetricians, pediatricians and anesthetists must be available around the clock in the context of a vaginal birth at term and for predetermined endpoints is rudimentary, meaning that no recommendations based on external evidence can be made.
#
2.2.2 Experience and expertise of obstetricians (doctors, medical specialists, residents) and midwives
The evaluation included studies which compared the different levels of experience and expertise of obstetricians (doctors, medical specialists, residents) and midwives in hospitals with one another, based on test and comparator interventions [74], [75], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].
Although additional training of teams could be expected to have an impact, the identified evidence is insufficient. Moreover, training programs vary greatly and may be quite complex, which makes it more difficult to provide scientific proof of their efficacy. Because of this, it was not possible to make any recommendations regarding training programs and possible minimum case numbers [76] – [82].
#
#
2.3 Adaptation of the environment
The different intervention rates according to birth setting [3], [83] suggest that adapting the environment, specifically the birthing room, could be a possible influencing variable for interventions [84], [85].
Overall, the body of evidence is insufficient to answer the question whether modifying the birthing room in a clinical setting increases the rate of low-intervention births and contributes to positive maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes. The general rule is that all physiological processes during labor are supported better if the environment imparts a feeling of security and safety [86], [87].
#
2.4 Eating and drinking during the birth
|
4.4 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Women may drink during labor. Isotonic drinks should be preferred to water. Women in labor should be informed that drinking isotonic drinks during the birth can prevent acidification of the blood and will not result in increased gastric filling. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 27, Chapter 4.4.4 [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99] and NICE guideline CG132 Caesarean section [59], Recommendation 51, Chapter 6.5 [88], [94], [95], [96], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107] as well as inclusion of more recent literature obtained during the update search and comparison of the newly added literature [108], [109] |
|
Level of consensus: 79% |
|
|
4.5 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Women may eat a light diet during labor. They should not have received opioids and should not develop any risk factors for general anesthesia. Women in labor should be informed that a low-fiber diet, e.g., white bread, crispbread or low-fat cheese, increases gastric filling. It is unclear whether this will create a risk of aspiration (pieces of food entering the lungs) if a general anesthetic becomes necessary during the further course of labor. A light diet consumed during labor has no positive or negative impact on maternal or infant outcomes. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 28, Chapter 4.4.4 [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] and NICE guideline CG132 Caesarean section [59] Recommendation 50, Chapter 6.5 [88], [94], [95], [96], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107] as well as inclusion of more recent literature obtained during the update search and comparison of the newly added literature [108], [109] |
|
Level of consensus: 77% |
#
#
3 Monitoring
The Board of the OEGGG does not support all of chapter 5 “Monitoring” for Austria. For more information on this, please refer to the relevant statements in the guideline report.
Two aspects are important in this context. Firstly, the dictum “primum nil nocere” (“first do no harm”) applies: interventions must only be carried out in consultation with the woman and only under the condition that the intervention will, in all probability, be more beneficial than harmful. All possible advantages and disadvantages must be communicated appropriately to the patient. The second aspect is adherence to and compliance with all standards to ensure the best possible safety of the patient. This includes regular training of the team and interdisciplinary case discussions, but especially the allocation of sufficient staff to permit one-to-one care.
3.1 Auscultation of fetal heart sounds
The staffing ratio must ensure that best practice recommendations can be implemented. For example, it is known that when fetal health is assessed intrapartum, structured intermittent auscultation offers greater benefits in low-risk births than CTG monitoring.
For this, the following conditions must be met:
-
one-to-one care must be provided from the start of the active dilation stage (cervical dilation is approx. 4 – 6 cm or the woman has been admitted to the labor room),
-
the obstetric staff are appropriately qualified, and
-
fetal heart sounds are continuously documented in detail along with any other relevant obstetric findings.
If these conditions are not met, then CTG monitoring should be carried out.
|
5.1 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The fetal heart rate must be auscultated when the mother is admitted for the birth and during every further assessment of the condition of mother and baby. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.4.6 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.2 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The fetal heart rate must be auscultated immediately for at least 1 minute and recorded as a single rate. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.4.6 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.3 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The maternal pulse must be palpated when auscultating the fetal heart rate to be able to clearly differentiate between fetal and maternal heart rate. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.4.6 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.4 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Accelerations and decelerations must be recorded if heard. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.4.6 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.5 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate must be offered to low-risk pregnant women during the active dilation period. |
|
B |
Pinard stethoscope or doppler ultrasound should be used. Intermittent auscultation should be carried out every 15 to 30 minutes. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.2 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.6 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If there is a rising baseline fetal heart rate or a suspicion of decelerations, actions must include
If a rising baseline heart rate or decelerations are confirmed, further actions must include
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.3 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
Possible birth risks must be excluded if intermittent auscultation is used. There is no evidence showing when and for how long auscultation should be carried out. In the studies which were used as the basis for the recommendation in the NICE guideline CG190, auscultation was carried out as follows:
-
during and immediately after a contraction for at least 1 minute [171]
-
for at least 1 minute after a contraction every 15 minutes during the dilation stage and every 5 minutes during the expulsion stage [172]
-
during and immediately after at least one contraction for an unspecified period of time [173].
Relevant intrapartum events must be recorded using a standard system (see recommendation 5.8).
#
3.2 Cardiotocography (CTG)
|
5.7 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Precise recording of CTG findings requires the date and time on the CTG unit to be set correctly. In addition, the CTG trace must be labelled and include the data of the pregnant woman (name and date of birth) and the maternal heart rate at the beginning of monitoring. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.56 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.8 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Relevant intrapartum events (e.g., vaginal examinations or fetal blood analysis) must be recorded using a standard system. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.57 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
There are no generally accepted standards on how events during labor should be recorded. Hospitals should develop a specific system based on their in-house standards. The general principle must be that events are recorded in such a manner that the course of the birth is transparent and open to scrutiny.
3.2.1 Indications for CTG monitoring
|
5.9 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
CTG monitoring should not be initiated when onset of the birth process is suspected if the pregnant woman admitted to the labor room is low-risk. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.1 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
In contrast to previous recommendations which recommended carrying out an initial CTG monitoring for 30 minutes to exclude any risk to the fetus and confirm contractions, this is no longer recommended in the current NICE guideline CG190 because of a lack of evidence.
|
5.10 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
* This does not mean that no monitoring is required. Instead of CTG monitoring, fetal heart sounds must be monitored by auscultation (see section 5.1.). The conditions listed in section 3.1 apply. If they cannot be met (e.g., one-to-one care), then safe monitoring using auscultation is not possible and CTG monitoring is indicated. |
|
|
GR B |
CTG monitoring should be avoided in low-risk pregnant women during the active dilation stage.* |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.1 |
|
Level of consensus: 88% |
|
|
5.11 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
CTG monitoring must be recommended if abnormalities are detected during intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate. |
|
0 |
If the CTG trace shows no abnormalities, the CTG may be removed again after 20 minutes. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.3 and 1.10.8 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
3.2.2 Indications for continuous CTG monitoring
|
5.12 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Continuous CTG monitoring of low-risk pregnant women must be carried out if one of the following risk factors occurs/is present during the birth:
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.4 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.13 |
Statement |
|---|---|
|
CTG monitoring is not indicated if the amniotic fluid is pale green if no other risk factors are present. |
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.5 |
|
Level of consensus: 87% |
|
5.14 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
CTG monitoring with telemetry must be offered to all women who require continuous CTG. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.9 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
As described in 5.1, the use of intermittent auscultation is limited to low-risk pregnancies and low-risk births. The guideline authors agree with the authors of NICE guideline CG190 that, overall, the potential benefits of continuous CTG probably outweigh the risks and limitations and that the use of continuous CTG should be recommended in cases with higher birth risks, as no other effective alternatives exist.
#
3.2.3 Indications for additional monitoring methods
|
5.15 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Additional measures such as ultrasound assessment must be carried out if the CTG of the fetal heart rate is not clear. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.4.11 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
Ultrasound assessment of out-of-hospital births must be initiated as quickly as possible.
#
3.2.4 General measures during CTG monitoring
|
5.16 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If CTG monitoring is continuous, maternal and fetal heart rates must be clearly differentiated and recorded at least once every hour. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.11 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
3.2.5 CTG assessment
|
5.17 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
CTGs must be interpreted and recorded according to standard practice. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.10 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.18 |
Statement |
|---|---|
|
Standard interpretation of CTG patterns includes assessment and recording of the baseline fetal heart rate, baseline variability, and the presence or absence of accelerations and decelerations. |
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.12 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.19 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
The FIGO classification system ([Table 6]) must be used to interpret CTG patterns. |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
Normal |
Suspicious |
Pathological |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
* Decelerations are repetitive if they occur in > 50% of contractions. It is not clear what a lack of accelerations during the birth means. |
|||
|
Baseline |
110 – 160 bpm |
Lacking at least one of the normal characteristics but without pathological characteristics. |
< 100 bpm |
|
Variability |
5 – 25 bpm |
Limited or increased variability, sinusoidal pattern |
|
|
Decelerations |
No repetitive* decelerations |
Repetitive late or prolonged decelerations for > 30 minutes (or > 20 minutes if variability is reduced), prolonged deceleration > 5 minutes |
|
|
Interpretation |
No hypoxia/acidosis |
Low probability of hypoxia/acidosis |
High risk of hypoxia/acidosis |
|
Clinical management |
No intervention required |
Conservative measures: correction of reversible causes, close monitoring, further diagnostics |
Conservative and/or invasive measures: immediate correction of reversible causes, further diagnostics or (if this is not possible) rapid delivery of the infant |
|
5.20 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Assessment of fetal heart rate baseline variability must take account of the following:
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.17 and 1.10.18 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.21 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Fetal heart rate decelerations must be described and include the following information
|
|
A |
Decelerations must be described as “early”, “variable” or “late”. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendations 1.10.19, 10.10.20 and 1.10.21 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
CTG patterns must be interpreted and recorded according to standard practice. Many published CTG scoring systems have limitations and some have only been evaluated for antenatal settings. The standard international FIGO scoring system ([Table 6]) must be used to interpret CTG patterns. In contrast to other scoring systems also commonly used in Germany, accelerations are no longer used much (NICE guideline CG190 [67]).
|
5.22 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The condition of mother and baby (including recording CTG patterns) must be monitored every hour, or more often if there are any concerns. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.10 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.23 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
No decisions on care must be made during the birth on the basis of CTGs alone. Any consequences arising from the interpretation of a CTG must take account of different factors. These factors include, inter alia
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.13 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.24 |
Statement |
|---|---|
|
The likelihood of fetal acidemia is low if the baseline fetal heart rate and baseline variability are normal. |
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.10 |
|
Level of consensus: 93% |
CTG patterns may be categorized as normal, suspicious or pathological ([Table 6]). The general rule is that no decisions must be made during the birth on the basis of the CTG alone. Influencing factors (maternal and/or fetal) must be taken into account during the assessment (NICE guideline CG190 [67]).
When CTG patterns are normal, it can be assumed that there is no risk of hypoxia and/or acidosis and therefore no intervention is required.
If the CTG pattern is suspicious, hypoxia/acidosis are unlikely, and conservative measures (i.e., correction of reversible causes, close monitoring and further diagnostic investigations) are indicated. These can include, for example, providing fluids, checking maternal vital signs and, if necessary, informing another midwife and/or the attending obstetrician (see 3.2.11).
If the CTG pattern is pathological, there is a high risk of hypoxia/acidosis, and conservative and/or invasive measures are indicated. Irreversible causes (e.g., umbilical cord prolapse, placental abruption, uterine rupture) must excluded without delay. Reversible causes must be immediately corrected and/or further diagnostic tests (e.g., fetal blood analysis) must be carried out. If an invasive investigation using fetal blood analysis cannot be carried out, operative expediting of the birth may be necessary.
All measures must take account of the womanʼs preferences.
#
3.2.6 Recommendations for action for fetal tachycardia
|
5.25 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the baseline fetal heart rate is between 161 – 180 bpm and there are no abnormalities on the CTG, then
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.16 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.26 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the baseline fetal heart rate is between 161 – 180 bpm, there are no other CTG abnormalities and maternal temperature and heart rate are normal, CTG monitoring and normal care must be continued as the risk of fetal acidosis is low. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.15 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.27 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the baseline fetal heart rate is over 180 bpm and the CTG is not pathological,
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.15 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
Fetal heart rate is not a good surrogate marker for hypoxia and acidosis, as they are affected by a number of factors but may not be affected by certain types of hypoxia (NICE guideline CG190 [67]).
Studies found an association between poor neonatal/infant outcomes and a fetal heart rate of > 160 bpm. Even though the level of evidence is quite low, a fetal heart rate of 160 bpm was set as the upper limit (NICE guideline CG190). Based on empirical observations, the authors of the NICE guideline consider a fetal heart rate of > 180 bpm to be associated with a great risk of fetal hypoxia/acidosis, which is why this rate is considered to be another upper limit. This has led to there being two categories of fetal tachycardia: 161 – 180 bpm and > 180 bpm.
Irrespective of the above, studies analyzed for neonatal morbidity and mortality rates found only a limited association between fetal tachycardia and poor neonatal outcome (NICE guideline CG190 [67]).
#
3.2.7 Recommendations for action for fetal bradycardia
|
5.28 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
A baseline fetal heart rate of 100 – 109 bpm is considered suspicious, but if the baseline variability is normal and there are no variable or late decelerations, this should not lead to a direct intervention. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.15 and 1.10.16 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.29 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the baseline fetal heart rate is between 100 – 109 bpm or over 160 bpm and the CTG shows additional suspicious characteristics, then measures must be taken to normalize the CTG pattern. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendations 1.4.4, 1.10.15 and 1.10.16 with diverging opinions based on EC |
|
Level of consensus: 88% |
|
5.30 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
A baseline fetal heart rate of between 90 – 99 bpm is considered pathological, but this could be a normal variation if the baseline variability is normal (the fetal heart rate has not been confused with maternal heart rate). An experienced doctor must be called in. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.15 and 1.10.16 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.31 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If there is a prolonged deceleration and a fetal heart rate of less than 100 bpm for at least 3 minutes,
|
|
LoE |
Guideline modification: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.29 with diverging opinions based on EC |
|
Level of consensus: 94% |
There is some limited evidence that a fetal heart rate of less than 110 bpm is associated with adverse fetal/neonatal outcomes. The data is better for a fetal heart rate of < 100 bpm, although the majority of studies investigated a heart rate of less than 90 bpm. This was the basis for determining these current threshold values (NICE guideline CG190 [67]). Empirically, a fetal heart rate of 90 – 99 bpm with a normal baseline variability and no decelerations may be normal in some pregnancies.
The negative and positive predictive value of fetal bradycardia for a poor neonatal outcome is only moderately useful (moderate/high specificity, low sensitivity) (NICE guideline CG190). Only cases of moderate to severe bradycardia during the birth have been found to be associated to some extent with a poor neonatal outcome.
#
3.2.8 Recommendations for action for abnormal variability
|
5.32 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If variability is limited (< 5 bpm) and the baseline fetal heart rate is normal with no variable or late decelerations, then
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.17 and 1.10.18 |
|
Level of consensus: 94% |
|
5.33 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If variability is limited (< 5 bpm) for 40 minutes and there are one or more suspicious signs such as tachycardia (a baseline heart rate of > 160 bpm) or a baseline heart rate of < 100 bpm or variable or late decelerations are present, then:
If the findings continue to give reason for concern, then the birth must be expedited promptly. |
|
LoE |
Guideline modification: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendations 1.10.17, 1.10.18 and 1.10.19 with diverging opinions based on EC |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
3.2.9 Recommendations for action for decelerations [110]
|
5.34 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The following points must be considered when assessing decelerations of the fetal heart:
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendations 1.10.19, 1.10.20 and 1.10.24 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.35 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Variable decelerations which occur together with a contraction
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.23 |
|
Level of consensus: 92% |
|
5.36 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Conservative measures must be carried out if there are variable decelerations with a normal heart rate and normal baseline variability, and
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.32 and 1.10.34 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.37 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Fetal blood analysis to measure pH or lactate must be offered if variable decelerations
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.42 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.38 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If late decelerations are present, then
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendations 1.10.21, 1.10.30, 1.10.31, 1.10.40 – 55 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.39 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
It is important to take into account that the likelihood of fetal acidosis increases, the longer, later and deeper individual decelerations occur, particularly if they are present together with tachycardia and/or limited and/or increased variability. Measures must already be initiated before 30 minutes if there are concerns about the babyʼs well-being. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.32 and 1.10.34 |
|
Level of consensus: 92% |
#
3.2.10 Recommendations for action for (absent) accelerations
|
5.40 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
When evaluating accelerations of the fetal heart rate, it is important to take account of the fact that
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.26 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
3.2.11 Conservative measures for suspicious/
pathological CTG patterns
|
5.41 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the CTG pattern appears suspicious, then possible causes must be evaluated and one or more of the following measures must be taken:
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.34 and 1.10.35 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.42 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Maternal facial oxygen therapy must not be used for intrauterine reanimation as it could harm the baby. However, oxygen therapy may be used for maternal indications such as hypoxia or for preoxygenation prior to an analgesic intervention. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.36 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
#
3.3 Fetal blood analysis (FBA)
|
5.43 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If stimulation of the fetal scalp results in an increased fetal heart rate, this can be taken as a favorable sign; it must be taken into account in the overall assessment. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.38 |
|
Level of consensus: 92% |
|
5.44 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The reaction/changes in the fetal heart rate following digital fetal scalp stimulation during a vaginal examination must be taken into account when assessing the babyʼs condition if fetal blood analysis was not successful or was contraindicated. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.39 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.45 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If fetal blood analysis is offered, an explanation must be given to the woman
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.44 |
|
Level of consensus: 94% |
|
5.46 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Fetal blood analysis must not be carried out if there are contraindications (e.g., a risk of maternal-to-fetal transmission of infection or of fetal bleeding disorders). |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.40 |
|
Level of consensus: 93% |
|
5.47 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
If fetal blood analysis is indicated and it is not possible to obtain a fetal blood sample but digital fetal scalp stimulation results in an improvement of the fetal heart rate pattern, a decision must be taken, after discussion with the woman, whether to continue labor or to expedite the birth in view of the clinical circumstances. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.54 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
5.48 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
If fetal blood analysis is indicated but it is not possible to obtain a fetal blood sample and the CTG pattern does not improve, the recommendation should be given to the woman that the birth should be expedited. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.55 |
|
Level of consensus: 93% |
3.3.1 Assessment of fetal blood samples and recommendations for action
|
5.49 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Either lactate or pH must be measured for fetal blood analysis. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.47 |
|
Level of consensus: 94% |
|
5.50 |
Recommendation |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
GR A |
The fetal blood sample must be assessed using the following classification: |
||
|
Lactate (mmol/l) |
pH |
Assessment |
|
|
≤ 4.1 |
≥ 7.25 |
normal |
|
|
4.2 – 4.8 |
7.21 – 7.24 |
borderline |
|
|
≥ 4.9 |
≤ 7.20 |
pathological |
|
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.48 |
||
|
Level of consensus: 88% |
|||
|
5.51 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Previous pH/lactate values, the rate of progress in labor, and any clinical maternal and fetal findings must be taken into account when evaluating the fetal blood sample. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.49 |
|
Level of consensus: 93% |
|
5.52 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the fetal blood sample is normal and the CTG continues to be suspicious, another fetal blood analysis should be carried out not more than 1 hour later or even earlier if additional pathologies are present. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.52 |
|
Level of consensus: 88% |
|
5.53 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the fetal blood sample is classified as borderline and the CTG continues to be suspicious, another fetal blood analysis must be carried out no more than 30 minutes later or even earlier if additional pathologies are present. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 1.10.51 |
|
Level of consensus: 94% |
|
5.54 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The time required to carry out the fetal blood analysis must be taken into account when planning a repeat of fetal blood sampling. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [1] |
|
Level of consensus: 92% |
|
5.55 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If the CTG remains unchanged after fetal blood analysis has been repeated and the results of fetal blood analysis (lactate/pH value) remain unchanged, further fetal blood analyses should be postponed until additional pathological features develop. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [1] |
|
Level of consensus: 88% |
#
#
3.4 Additional procedures
3.4.1 Computerized assessment of CTGs
|
5.56 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Computer-based systems should not currently be used to interpret CTGs in routine practice. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [1] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
3.4.2 ST segment analysis (STAN)
|
5.57 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
A fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) obtained using fetal scalp electrodes or by extraction of the fetal signal from an abdominal ECG should not be currently used in routine practice. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [1] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
3.4.3 Pulse oximetry
|
5.58 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Fetal oxygenation should currently not be done intrapartum in routine practice. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [1] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
#
3.5 Ultrasound in the labor room
3.5.1 Intrapartum ultrasound to detect SGA
|
5.59 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Ultrasound examination for the early detection of SGA babies should not be carried out intrapartum. |
|
LoE |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
In contrast to ultrasound examinations performed during pregnancy which can be useful when planning the mode of birth, the use of ultrasound examinations to evaluate the birthweight and detect SGA is not recommended intrapartum as it does not affect the mode of birth, the Apgar score or the acidosis rate.
#
3.5.2 Intrapartum ultrasound for the early detection of LGA
|
5.60 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
If there is a suspicion of macrosomia, an ultrasound examination should not be carried out intrapartum to confirm this. |
|
LoE |
[111] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
An ultrasound examination carried out intrapartum for a suspicion of fetal macrosomia will not affect the mode of birth, the rate of perineal tears or maternal blood loss. The use and validity of ultrasound to estimate fetal weight and/or identify growth disorders or placental pathologies could not be evaluated as no systematic reviews on this issue were included.
#
3.5.3 Intrapartum ultrasound: failure to progress in labor, vaginal-operative birth
|
5.61 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR 0 |
Transperineal measurement of the angle of progression (AoP) or the head-perineum distance (HPD) and transabdominal assessment of the occiput position may be carried out. AoP and HPD are the most reliable ultrasound parameters for the prediction of a successful vaginal-operative birth. Transabdominal assessment of the occiput position and transperineal determination of the level of the head may be carried out. Rotation of the fetal head, measured using the midline angle, and/or the direction of the head may be determined to predict the probability of success for a vaginal-operative birth. |
|
LoE |
[112] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
#
#
4 Pain management
Women experience the labor pains very differently. Important variables affecting maternal satisfaction with the experience of childbirth include labor pains, the feeling of being in control, perceived self-efficacy, social support, and the womanʼs own expectations of the birth [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. Effective forms of pain relief do not necessarily result in a higher level of satisfaction with the birth experience [118], [119].
4.1 Approach to pain during birth
4.1.1 Attitudes to pain and pain management during birth
|
6.1 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Healthcare professionals should think about and be aware of their own attitudes to pain during labor and ensure that their care supports the womanʼs choices. |
|
LoE 1 |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 65 [120], [121], [122], [123] |
|
Level of consensus: 94.4% |
#
4.1.2 Strategies to cope with pain during labor (relaxation techniques, massage and relaxation bath)
|
6.2 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If a woman wishes to use breathing and relaxation technique to cope with labor pains, then she must be supported in her decisions. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 66 [124] |
|
Level of consensus: 94.4% |
|
6.3 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
If a woman requests massage techniques which have been taught to her birth companions, then she must be supported in her decision. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 67 [125], [126] |
|
Level of consensus: 88.2% |
|
6.4 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The woman must be offered the option to labor in water for pain relief. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 68 [127] |
|
Level of consensus: 88.2% |
|
6.5 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
If the woman is laboring in water, then her body temperature and the temperature of the water should be monitored every hour to ensure that she feels comfortable and does not overheat. The water temperature should not exceed 37.5 °C. |
|
LoE IV |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 69 [127] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
6.6 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
Baths and birthing pools must be kept clean in accordance with the standards agreed upon with the local hygiene department. Birthing pools must additionally be cleaned in accordance with manufacturerʼs guidelines. |
|
LoE IV |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 70 [127] |
|
Level of consensus: 93.7% |
|
6.7 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
The woman must be supported to play the music of her choice during labor. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 73 [124] |
|
Level of consensus: 81.3% |
#
#
4.2 Non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief and relaxation during labor [124], [125], [127], [128], [129], [130]
In addition to providing support during labor in the form of words of encouragement or helping her to move, women are offered a range of physical and complementary medicine pain therapies. The aim is not to eliminate the pain but to provide pain relief.
|
6.8 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR 0 |
No negative effects have been reported for acupuncture, acupressure, hypnosis, aromatherapy or yoga. If a woman wishes to use these methods, she can do so. The person(s) providing these forms of pain relief must be appropriately trained. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67], Recommendation 72 [124], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137] |
|
Level of consensus: 87.5% |
|
6.9 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR 0 |
Because of the lack of evidence, it is not possible to make any recommendation regarding the use of homeopathic substances for pain relief during birth. |
|
LoE 2 |
|
|
Level of consensus: 86.6% |
4.2.1 Further research required
The two Cochrane reviews ([140] on TENS and [141] the use of sterile water injections) focused on different methods for pain relief but defined different endpoints. If the endpoints formulated by Derry and colleagues in 2012 [141] with regard to pain relief are followed, then there should be more RCTs on methods of coping with pain which use these endpoints.
To obtain clear evidence for or against homeopathy, RCTs using a limited number of homeopathic substances and with comparable designs and endpoints should be carried out.
It is worth discussing whether the endpoint “pain relief” should be analyzed without the endpoint “satisfaction with the birth experience”.
#
#
4.3 Pharmacological measures
The following chapter references chapter 1.9 (“Pain relief in labour: regional analgesia”) of NICE guideline CG190. This chapter of the NICE guideline is mainly geared to the situation in Great Britain and focuses in detail on substances and means of application which, for historical reasons, are important in Great Britain. The transferability of those recommendations to the German healthcare system is limited, because some of the substances are not available (e.g., diamorphine = heroin) or in some places they have been replaced by other substances not explicitly recommended in the NICE guideline CG190 (e.g., meperidine instead of pethidine) or historically do not have the same perceived value in German obstetric practice due to the widespread availability of neuraxial anesthesia (EA, CSE) compared to Great Britain (e.g., nitrous oxide).
4.3.1 Epidural anesthesia
|
6.10 |
Statement |
|---|---|
|
Epidural analgesia is an effective method of pain relief during labor and is more efficacious than intramuscular or intravenous administration of opioids. |
|
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] Recommendation 1.9.2 |
|
Level of consensus: 88.9% |
|
6.11 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
Women in labor who need or request analgesia should be offered epidural analgesia. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] Recommendation 1.9.3 |
|
Level of consensus: 94.4% |
|
6.12 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
An effective neuraxial analgesia procedure does not always require the woman to be immobilized. Women in labor should therefore be encouraged to move and adopt a position which feels comfortable. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] Recommendation 1.9.7 |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
6.13 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
The woman should be continuously monitored by CTG until no further changes in the womanʼs hemodynamics are expected (usually for a period at least 30 minutes). Routine CTG monitoring is not absolutely necessary once epidural analgesia has been established. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] Recommendation 1.9.12 |
|
Level of consensus: 94.1% |
|
6.14 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR B |
The timing of regional analgesia should be determined by the parturient woman and be administered at any time. Waiting for a defined stage of labor before administering regional analgesia is not recommended as, based on the current state of knowledge, there is no objective advantage or disadvantage in terms of the progression of labor associated with the time when the epidural catheter is placed. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] Recommendation 1.9.2 |
|
Level of consensus: 94.1% |
|
6.15 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC taking account of [142] |
The womanʼs vital signs should be monitored and recorded from the initiation of neuraxial analgesia until the initial dose becomes fully effective and the womanʼs vital signs have stabilized. |
|
Level of consensus: 94.1% |
#
4.3.2 Nitrous oxide-oxygen mixtures [143], [144], [145]
|
6.16 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
A mixture of nitrous oxide and oxygen (50%/50%) may be used for pain relief during labor as long as technical requirements are complied with. |
|
Expert consensus |
|
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
|
[146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155] |
|
#
4.3.3 Systemic opioids
|
6.17 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
Even though neuraxial analgesia is considered the most effective method for obstetric analgesia, it may be contraindicated or impossible to establish in individual cases or the woman may not wish for or want neuraxial analgesia. Effective alternatives to neuraxial analgesia with similar potency should therefore be available for obstetric analgesia. |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
6.18 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
GR A |
As the overall analgesic effect of long-acting systemic opioids can only be described as unsatisfactory, particularly given the fact that dosages are limited because of the potential to induce respiratory depression in both the mother and the baby, non-neuraxial analgesics must at best be used as a bridging analgesic or if the woman is aware of their limited efficacy. |
|
LoE 1+ |
Guideline adaptation: NICE guideline CG190 Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies [67] Recommendation 1.8.12 |
|
Level of consensus: 87.5% |
|
6.19 |
Statement |
|---|---|
|
The most effective analgesic alternative to neuraxial procedures is remifentanil PCIA. However, it must only be used if defined staffing and technical requirements are met. |
|
|
LoE 1+ |
[156] |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
#
#
5 Quality assurance for vaginal births
5.1 History
Quality assurance in obstetrics is considered the nucleus of quality control in the hospital-based sector in Germany. After the publication of the Munich perinatal study in 1975 [157], the use of perinatal surveys expanded rapidly in the old German federal states and the new federal states after reunification. The founding of the German National Institute for Quality in Healthcare in 2001 together with the introduction of the DRG billing system in hospitals created a national survey frame for quality assurance in obstetrics, and it has been centrally maintained and expanded ever since. Quality assurance of vaginal births accounts for a large part of the data, and 5 of 8 quality indicators for hospital-based statutory quality assurance currently refer to vaginal births [158].
After some preparations [159], the Society for Quality in Out-of-Hospital Births (QUAG e. V.) was set up in 1999 to cover the outpatient sector. It records the quality of out-of-hospital births in all of Germany. In the main, the recorded items resemble those used in the clinical perinatal surveys with the addition of the special features of out-of-hospital obstetrics and a consideration of the transition from the outpatient to the inpatient sector. In principle, the outcomes of births delivered in hospitals and births which occurred in out-of-hospital settings could be compared. Since 2015, QUAG e. V. which was specifically referenced in the German law regulating the remuneration paid to midwives (Hebammenhilfevertrag) [160], has been responsible for the external supervision of quality assurance in out-of-hospital obstetrics. The annual federal evaluations of the data collected for the out-of-hospital sector are freely available on the website of QUAG e. V. (www.quag.de).
#
5.2 Changes in the percentages of modes of birth over time
A cursory inspection of changes in the percentages of hospital births over the past decade shows that the percentage of caesarean sections increased until the year 2011 but has slightly decreased again after the introduction of a risk-adjusted indicator for caesarean sections in 2014. At the same time, the percentage of spontaneous deliveries increased very slightly from 2014 onwards (from 60.3% to 61.0%). But during the same period the percentage of vaginal-operative births rose steadily from 6.0% in 2008 to 6.9% in 2017 [158], [161], [162], [163].
#
5.3 Indicator-based quality assurance
5.3.1 Indicator-based quality assurance for the inpatient sector
Quality is typically measured using quality indicators. In statutory quality assurance in Germany, the following indicators are currently used to evaluate vaginal births and as starting points for quality improvement processes [158]:
-
antenatal corticosteroid therapy for premature births with a prepartum in-hospital stay of at least two full days
-
the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) rate of acidosis for mature singletons with determination of umbilical artery pH
-
the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) rates of acidosis for premature singletons with determination of umbilical artery pH
-
the presence of a pediatrician during premature births
-
a critical-outcomes quality index for term-born newborns
-
the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) rates of grade 3 or 4 perineal tears in spontaneous singleton births
-
maternal mortality as part of the perinatal survey.
In addition,
-
the ratio of observed-to-expected rates (O/E) of caesarean sections,
i.e., the risk-adjusted rate of caesarean sections, may also be considered as an indicator of whether there are too few vaginal births.
As part of the implementation of quality indicators relevant for planning purposes [164], the indicators
-
antenatal corticosteroid therapy in premature infants with a prepartum in-hospital stay of at least two full days,
-
the presence of a pediatrician during premature births, and
-
a critical-outcomes quality index for term-born infants,
were selected as quality indicators which are important when planning a vaginal birth and, in accordance with the directive on quality indicators, they were first applied in practice using data from 2017.
#
5.3.2 Indicator-based quality assurance for the out-of-hospital sector
The current indicator for quality assurance in out-of-hospital obstetrics is the ratio of observed-to-expected rates of transfers during the birth from the planned out-of-hospital birth place [160]. Peer reviews and structured dialogs may be initiated to provide support with quality assurance to service providers working in the outpatient sector.
#
#
5.4 First attempts to create a form of inter-institutional indicator-based quality assurance
The Scientific Institute of the AOK (WIdO) developed further quality indicators for in-hospital vaginal births based on standard data for in-hospital births as part of its quality assurance project “Quality Assurance with Routine Data (QSR)”. These additional indicators also take account of follow-up events which occur following the initial stay in hospital for the birth [165].
#
5.5 Quality assurance of structural requirements with a special focus on staffing requirements
The German Quality Assurance Directive for Premature and Term-born Infants (QFR-RL) has developed statutory rules for the minimum standards of care which must be provided to certain pregnant women and to premature and term-born infants in Germany by hospitals registered under Sec.108 of the SGB V. The aim is ensure the quality of structures, processes and outcomes of care for premature and term-born neonates while also taking the accessibility of birth facilities across the country into account [166], [167], [168], [169], [170].
|
10.1 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
Irrespective of the annual birth rate, a sufficient number of midwives must be present or on call in every obstetric department to ensure the parturient woman will receive one-to-one care for more than 95% of the time. |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
10.2 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
Depending on their previously recorded field of work, senior midwives should be entirely or partially released from carrying out mundane practical tasks in the obstetrics department. The extent of their release must be taken into account when planning staff allocations. |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
10.3 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
Midwives who have fulfilled the necessary statutory requirements to work as practical instructors must be partially released from carrying out mundane practical tasks in the obstetrics department in the context of their work as a midwifery instructor. The extent of their release must be taken into account when allocating staff. |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
|
10.4 |
Recommendation |
|---|---|
|
EC |
Student midwives should not be included in the allocation of staff. |
|
Level of consensus: 100% |
#
#
6 Appendix
6.1 Statements from the consultation process
6.1.1 Statement of the DGGG, ÖGGG, DEGUM
The professional societies of obstetricians (DGGG, ÖGGG, DEGUM) are of the opinion that the multidisciplinary care of pregnant women provided by midwives, obstetricians, pediatricians and anesthetists in the labor room is superior to the model of midwife-led out-of-hospital obstetric care, irrespective of classifications of risk, particularly as the available professional expertise and technical equipment can be provided within a very short space of time. It is not possible to predict all complications which may occur during birth and in the early puerperium with sufficient certainty, nor can their occurrence be prevented by cataloguing the risks. A transfer during the birth may considerably delay prompt intervention in an emergency. Comparable data such as those available in the UK from the Birthplace study are lacking for German-speaking countries. The issue of the safety of out-of-hospital obstetric care in German-speaking countries must therefore first be examined and evaluated in studies which involve both midwives and physicians and which are carried out based on a complete reporting of all births and their outcomes (including those which may start in an out-of-hospital setting and end in hospital).
#
6.1.2 Statement of the ÖGGG
Special vote by the OEGGG regarding the preamble to the AWMF S3 guideline “Vaginal Birth”
The representatives of the Austrian Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics agree with the statement by the German professional societies of obstetricians (DGGG, DEGUM, DGPM) about the information given to pregnant women if it is published in a prominent position in the guideline as a preamble:
Preamble:
The professional societies of obstetricians are of the opinion that the interdisciplinary care of pregnant women provided by midwives, obstetricians, pediatricians and anesthetists in hospital-based labor rooms is superior to the model of midwife-led out-of-hospital obstetric care, as all forms of expertise required to deal safely with any complications of the birth are available within a very short space of time.
Despite using a catalog of risks, many complications can still not be predicted with sufficient certainty.
A transfer, which is expected to occur for around one third of primipara, may delay prompt intervention in emergencies, endangering the pregnant woman and the unborn or newborn child.
Reasons to transfer a woman in labor include, in particular, failure to progress in labor, the need for effective analgesia for unmanageable labor pains, placental retention or placental remnants, a high loss of blood peripartum, complex childbirth injuries, and neonatal adaptation disorders.
The issue of the safety of out-of-hospital obstetrics in German-speaking countries should be prospectively investigated in studies involving both midwives and physicians and should include the complete recording of all births as well as the recording of perinatal and peripartum outcomes. As long as the results of an extensive examination of out-of-hospital obstetric outcomes are not available, the safety of this approach must remain in doubt.
Comparable data such as those available in the UK from the Birthplace study are lacking for German-speaking countries. Such data need to be recorded and should include births which began in an out-of-hospital setting and were concluded in hospital, irrespective of the out-of-hospital place of birth.
#
#
#
#
#
Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt
The conflicts of interest of all of the authors are listed in the long version of the guideline./Die Interessenkonflikte der Autor*innen sind in der Langfassung der Leitlinie aufgelistet.
-
References/Literatur
- 1 Ackermann-Liebrich U, Voegeli T, Gunter-Witt K. et al. Home versus hospital deliveries: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures and outcome. Zurich Study Team. BMJ 1996; 313: 1313-1318 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1313.
- 2 Begley C, Devane D, Clarke M. et al. Comparison of midwife-led and consultant-led care of healthy women at low risk of childbirth complications in the Republic of Ireland: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11: 85 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-85.
- 3 Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. Brocklehurst P, Hardy P. et al. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011; 343: d7400 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d7400.
- 4 Blix E, Huitfeldt AS, Oian P. et al. Outcomes of planned home births and planned hospital births in low-risk women in Norway between 1990 and 2007: a retrospective cohort study. Sex Reprod Healthc 2012; 3: 147-153 DOI: 10.1016/j.srhc.2012.10.001.
- 5 Byrne JP, Crowther CA, Moss JR. A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide, Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40: 268-274 DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.2000.tb03333.x.
- 6 Campbell R, Macfarlane A, Hempsall V. et al. Evaluation of midwife-led care provided at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. Midwifery 1999; 15: 183-193 DOI: 10.1016/s0266-6138(99)90063-3.
- 7 Chapman MG, Jones M, Spring JE. et al. The use of a birthroom: a randomized controlled trial comparing delivery with that in the labour ward. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 182-187 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07884.x.
- 8 Coxon K, Sandall J, Fulop N. Do Birth Place Decisions Change Over a Womanʼs Childbearing Career?. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2013; 87 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-303966.2081K.
- 9 Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S. et al. Planned place of birth in New Zealand: does it affect mode of birth and intervention rates among low-risk women?. Birth 2011; 38: 111-119 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00458.x.
- 10 Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S. et al. Risk of severe postpartum hemorrhage in low-risk childbearing women in new zealand: exploring the effect of place of birth and comparing third stage management of labor. Birth 2012; 39: 98-105 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00531.x.
- 11 de Jonge A, van der Goes BY, Ravelli AC. et al. Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG 2009; 116: 1177-1184 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x.
- 12 de Jonge A, Mesman JA, Mannien J. et al. Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2013; 346: f3263 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3263.
- 13 Dowswell T, Thornton JG, Hewison J. et al. Should there be a trial of home versus hospital delivery in the United Kingdom?. BMJ 1996; 312: 753-757 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.753.
- 14 Eide BI, Nilsen AB, Rasmussen S. Births in two different delivery units in the same clinic–a prospective study of healthy primiparous women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9: 25 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-25.
- 15 Feldman E, Hurst M. Outcomes and procedures in low risk birth: a comparison of hospital and birth center settings. Birth 1987; 14: 18-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1987.tb01444.x.
- 16 Gaudineau A, Sauleau EA, Nisand I. et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in a home-like birth centre: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287: 211-216 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2553-6.
- 17 Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Lang GD. et al. Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ 1994; 309: 1400-1404 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.309.6966.1400.
- 18 Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2009; 36: 180-189 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00322.x.
- 19 Jackson DJ, Lang JM, Swartz WH. et al. Outcomes, safety, and resource utilization in a collaborative care birth center program compared with traditional physician-based perinatal care. Am J Public Health 2003; 93: 999-1006 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.6.999.
- 20 Janssen PA, Lee SK, Ryan EM. et al. Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia. CMAJ 2002; 166: 315-323
- 21 Klein M, Papageorgiou A, Westreich R. et al. Care in a birth room versus a conventional setting: a controlled trial. Can Med Assoc J 1984; 131: 1461-1466
- 22 Lindgren HE, Radestad IJ, Christensson K. et al. Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 751-759 DOI: 10.1080/00016340802199903.
- 23 MacVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen-Johnstone L. et al. Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 316-323 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12972.x.
- 24 Nove A, Berrington A, Matthews Z. Comparing the odds of postpartum haemorrhage in planned home birth against planned hospital birth: results of an observational study of over 500,000 maternities in the UK. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12: 130 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-130.
- 25 Overgaard C, Fenger-Gron M, Sandall J. The impact of birthplace on womenʼs birth experiences and perceptions of care. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74: 973-981 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.023.
- 26 Pang JW, Heffelfinger JD, Huang GJ. et al. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989–1996. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 253-259 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02074-4.
- 27 Schroeder E, Petrou S, Patel N. et al. Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e2292 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e2292.
- 28 Scupholme A, McLeod AG, Robertson EG. A birth center affiliated with the tertiary care center: comparison of outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 598-603
- 29 Stone PW. Maternity care outcomes: assessing a nursing model of care for low-risk pregnancy. Outcomes Manag Nurs Pract 1998; 2: 71-75
- 30 van der Kooy J, Poeran J, de Graaf JP. et al. Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 1037-1046 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182319737.
- 31 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. A randomized controlled study of birth center care versus standard maternity care: effects on womenʼs health. Birth 1997; 24: 17-26 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1997.tb00332.x.
- 32 Woodcock HC, Read AW, Bower C. et al. A matched cohort study of planned home and hospital births in Western Australia 1981–1987. Midwifery 1994; 10: 125-135 DOI: 10.1016/0266-6138(94)90042-6.
- 33 Bauer S, Kotter C. Versorgungsalternative zur Klinikentbindung?. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 2013; 217: 14-23
- 34 Gesellschaft für Qualität in der außerklinischen Geburtshilfe e.V. (QUAG). Geburtenzahlen in Deutschland. 2019. Zugriff am 20. September 2022 unter: https://www.quag.de/quag/geburtenzahlen.htm
- 35 Institut für klinische Epidemiologie, Teil des Instituts für Integrierte Versorgung der Tirol Kliniken GmbH. Geburtenregister Österreich. Bericht über die Geburtshilfe in Österreich 2017. 2018. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iet.at/data.cfm?vpath=publikationen210/groe/groe-jahresbericht-2018
- 36 Schweizerischer Hebammenverband (SHV). Statistikbericht der frei praktizierenden Hebammen der Schweiz 2017. 2018. Zugriff am 22. September 2022 unter: https://www.hebamme.ch/qualitaet/statistikberichte-fph/
- 37 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. Womenʼs satisfaction with birth center care: a randomized, controlled study. Birth 1993; 20: 3-13
- 38 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. Experience of childbirth in birth center care. A randomized controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994; 73: 547-554 DOI: 10.3109/00016349409006271.
- 39 Littlefield VM, Adams BN. Patient participation in alternative perinatal care: impact on satisfaction and health locus of control. Res Nurs Health 1987; 10: 139-148 DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770100305.
- 40 Janssen PA, Still DK, Klein MC. et al. Early labor assessment and support at home versus telephone triage: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1463-1469 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000247644.64154.bb.
- 41 Geerts CC, Klomp T, Lagro-Janssen AL. et al. Birth setting, transfer and maternal sense of control: results from the DELIVER study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 27 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-27.
- 42 Shaw I. Reactions to transfer out of a hospital birth center: a pilot study. Birth 1985; 12: 147-150 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1985.tb00953.x.
- 43 Tingstig C, Gottvall K, Grunewald C. et al. Satisfaction with a modified form of in-hospital birth center care compared with standard maternity care. Birth 2012; 39: 106-114 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00533.x.
- 44 Esposito NW. Marginalized womenʼs comparisons of their hospital and freestanding birth center experiences: a contrast of inner-city birthing systems. Health Care Women Int 1999; 20: 111-126 DOI: 10.1080/073993399245827.
- 45 Christiaens W, Verhaeghe M, Bracke P. Childbirth expectations and experiences in Belgian and Dutch models of maternity care. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 2008; 26: 309-322
- 46 Christiaens W, Gouwy A, Bracke P. Does a referral from home to hospital affect satisfaction with childbirth? A cross-national comparison. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 109 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-109.
- 47 Dahlen HG, Barclay LM, Homer CS. The novice birthing: theorising first-time mothersʼ experiences of birth at home and in hospital in Australia. Midwifery 2010; 26: 53-63 DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.01.012.
- 48 Coyle KL, Hauck Y, Percival P. et al. Normality and collaboration: mothersʼ perceptions of birth centre versus hospital care. Midwifery 2001; 17: 182-193 DOI: 10.1054/midw.2001.0256.
- 49 Coyle KL, Hauck Y, Percival P. et al. Ongoing relationships with a personal focus: mothersʼ perceptions of birth centre versus hospital care. Midwifery 2001; 17: 171-181 DOI: 10.1054/midw.2001.0258.
- 50 Gagnon AJ, Sandall J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 2007 (03) CD002869 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002869.pub2.
- 51 Johnson R, Slade P. Does fear of childbirth during pregnancy predict emergency caesarean section?. BJOG 2002; 109: 1213-1221 DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.01351.x.
- 52 Bt Maznin NL, Creedy DK. A comprehensive systematic review of factors influencing womenʼs birthing preferences. JBI Libr Syst Rev 2012; 10: 232-306 DOI: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-46.
- 53 OʼCathain A, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP. et al. Use of evidence based leaflets to promote informed choice in maternity care: randomised controlled trial in everyday practice. BMJ 2002; 324: 643 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7338.643.
- 54 Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R. et al. Life satisfaction, general well-being and costs of treatment for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women by psychoeducative group or conventional care attendance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 527-533 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12594.
- 55 Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R. et al. Obstetric outcome after intervention for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women – randomised trial. BJOG 2013; 120: 75-84 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12011.
- 56 Stapleton H, Kirkham M, Thomas G. Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care. BMJ 2002; 324: 639 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7338.639.
- 57 Thomas J, Callwood A, Brocklehurst P. et al. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit. BJOG 2000; 107: 579-580 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13296.x.
- 58 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. (DGGG). S3-Leitlinie Sectio Caesarea. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 896-921 DOI: 10.1055/a-1529-6141.
- 59 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean section. Clinical guideline [CG132]. National Collaborating Centre for Womenʼs and Childrenʼs Health (UK). Caesarean Section. London: RCOG Press; 2011
- 60 Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C. et al. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth 2004; 31: 17-27 DOI: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.0270.x.
- 61 Loh A, Simon D, Levente K. et al. Patientenbeteiligung bei medizinischen Entscheidungen. Effekte der Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung aus systematischen Reviews. Dtsch Arztebl 2007; 104: A1483-A1488
- 62 Vlemmix F, Warendorf JK, Rosman AN. et al. Decision aids to improve infomed decision-making in pregacy care: a systematic review. BJOG 2013; 120: 257-266 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12060.
- 63 Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H. et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e94670 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670.
- 64 Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K. et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (04) CD001431 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
- 65 Horey D, Kealy M, Davey MA. et al. Interventions for supporting pregnant womenʼs decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (07) CD010041 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010041.pub2.
- 66 Knape N. Eine Sekundärdatenanalyse der Arbeitsbelastung und Betreuungsdichte von Hebammen in der klinischen Geburtsbetreuung von Low-Risk-Gebärenden [Dissertation]. Witten: Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten Fakultät für Gesundheit, Department für Pflegewissenschaft; 2016: 41f
- 67 National Institute for Health and Care-Excellence (NICE). Intrapartum Care. Care of healthy woman and their babies during childbirth. Clinical guideline [CG 190]. NICE CG190 National Collaborating Centre for Womenʼs and Childrenʼs Health; 2014. Zugriff am 10. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190
- 68 Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (07) CD003766 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6.
- 69 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Evidenzbericht zur Anwesenheit und Verfügbarkeit des geburtshilflichen Fachpersonals. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 635. 2018 Zugriff am 21. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01b_anwesenheit-und-verfuegbarkeit-des-geburtshilflichen-fachpersonals_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf
- 70 Amiri Farahani L, Rajabi F, Shirazi V. Effect of Different Birthing Positions during the Second Stage of Labor on Motherʼs Experiences Regarding Birth, Pain, Anxiety and Fatigue. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 2012; 22: 75-83
- 71 Sehhati F, Najjarzadeh M, Seyyedrasouli A. et al. Effect of continuous midwifery care on length of labor. J Caring Sci 2012; 1: 47-52 DOI: 10.5681/jcs.2012.007.
- 72 Zhang T, Liu C. Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean. Pak J Med Sci 2016; 32: 711-714 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.323.9546.
- 73 Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ. et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (03) CD003766
- 74 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Evidenzbericht zur Erfahrung/Expertise des geburtshilflichen Fachpersonals. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 705. 2018 Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01b_erfahrung-expertise-des-geburtshilflichen-fachpersonals_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf
- 75 Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M. et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1710-1721 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407120.
- 76 Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM. et al. Opinion leaders vs. audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265: 2202-2207
- 77 Belghiti J, Coulm B, Kayem G. et al. [Oxytocin administration during labor. Results from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2013; 42: 662-670 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2013.02.011.
- 78 Chuilon AL, Le Ray C, Prunet C. et al. [Episiotomy in France in 2010: Variations according to obstetrical context and place of birth]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2016; 45: 691-700 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.10.005.
- 79 Coulm B, Le Ray C, Lelong N. et al. Obstetric interventions for low-risk pregnant women in France: do maternity unit characteristics make a difference?. Birth 2012; 39: 183-191 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00547.x.
- 80 Finnstrom O, Berg G, Norman A. et al. Size of delivery unit and neonatal outcome in Sweden. A catchment area analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 63-67 DOI: 10.1080/00016340500324225.
- 81 Karalis E, Gissler M, Tapper AM. et al. Effect of hospital size and on-call arrangements on intrapartum and early neonatal mortality among low-risk newborns in Finland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 198: 116-119 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.10.020.
- 82 Wehberg S, Guldberg R, Gradel KO. et al. Risk factors and between-hospital variation of caesarean section in Denmark: a cohort study. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019120 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019120.
- 83 Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012 (08) CD000012 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4.
- 84 Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA. et al. Re-conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the PLACE (pregnant and laboring in an ambient clinical environment) pilot trial. Birth 2009; 36: 159-166 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00311.x.
- 85 Aburas R, Pati D, Casanova R. et al. The influence of nature stimulus in enhancing the birth experience. HERD 2017; 10: 81-100 DOI: 10.1177/1937586716665581.
- 86 Lorentzen I. Birth Environment of the Future. Zugriff am 10. März 2018 unter: https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02478385%22%3ehttps://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02478385
- 87 Ayerle G, Schäfers R, Mattern E. et al. Design und methodische Herausforderungen in der randomisiert kontrollierten, multizentrisch angelegten Studie „BE-UP“ zum Effekt der Geburtsumgebung auf das maternale und neonatale Outcome. 4 Internationale Fachtagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft (DGHWi); 16.02.2020. 2018.
- 88 Mendelson CL. The aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs during obstetric anesthesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1946; 52: 191-205 DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)39829-5.
- 89 Parsons M. Policy or tradition: oral intake in labour. Aust J Midwifery 2001; 14: 6-12 DOI: 10.1016/s1445-4386(01)80017-3.
- 90 American College of Nurse-Midwives. Providing oral nutrition to women in labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2016; 61: 528-534 DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.12515.
- 91 Simkin P. Stress, pain, and catecholamines in labor: Part 1. A review. Birth 1986; 13: 227-233 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1986.tb01053.x.
- 92 Armstrong TS, Johnston IG. Which women want food during labour?: results of an audit in a Scottish DGH. Health Bull (Edinb) 2000; 58: 141-144
- 93 Vallejo MC, Cobb BT, Steen TL. et al. Maternal outcomes in women supplemented with a high-protein drink in labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53: 369-374 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12079.
- 94 Scrutton MJ, Metcalfe GA, Lowy C. et al. Eating in labour. A randomised controlled trial assessing the risks and benefits. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 329-334 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00750.x.
- 95 Kubli M, Scrutton MJ, Seed PT. et al. An evaluation of isotonic “sport drinks” during labor. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 404-408 DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200202000-00033.
- 96 Scheepers HC, Essed GG, Brouns F. Aspects of food and fluid intake during labour. Policies of midwives and obstetricians in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 78: 37-40 DOI: 10.1016/s0301-2115(98)00007-4.
- 97 Scheepers HC, de Jong PA, Essed GG. et al. Carbohydrate solution intake during labour just before the start of the second stage: a double-blind study on metabolic effects and clinical outcome. BJOG 2004; 111: 1382-1387 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00277.x.
- 98 Scheepers HC, Thans MC, de Jong PA. et al. A double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled study on the influence of carbohydrate solution intake during labour. BJOG 2002; 109: 178-181 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.t01-1-01062.x.
- 99 Scheepers HC, Thans MC, de Jong PA. et al. The effects of oral carbohydrate administration on fetal acid base balance. J Perinat Med 2002; 30: 400-404 DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2002.062.
- 100 Ludka LM, Roberts CC. Eating and drinking in labor. A literature review. J Nurse Midwifery 1993; 38: 199-207 DOI: 10.1016/0091-2182(93)90003-y.
- 101 OʼSullivan G. The stomach–fact and fantasy: eating and drinking during labor. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1994; 32: 31-44
- 102 Dalton C, Gudgeon C. Fasting or feeding during labour. Med J Aust 1987; 147: 625-626 DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1987.tb133720.x.
- 103 Douglas M. Commentary: the case against a more liberal food and fluid policy in labor. Birth 1988; 15: 93-94
- 104 Sleutel M, Golden SS. Fasting in labor: relic or requirement. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1999; 28: 507-512 DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1999.tb02024.x.
- 105 Pengelley L, Gyte G. Eating and drinking in labour (IV). A summary of medical research to facilitate informed choice about the care of mother and child. Pract Midwife 1998; 1: 24-26
- 106 Speak S. Food intake in labour: the benefits and drawbacks. Nurs Times 2002; 98: 42-43
- 107 OʼSullivan G, Scrutton M. NPO during labor. Is there any scientific validation?. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2003; 21: 87-98 DOI: 10.1016/s0889-8537(02)00029-9.
- 108 Singata M, Tranmer J, Gyte GM. Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013 (08) CD003930 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003930.pub3.
- 109 Malin GL, Bugg GJ, Thornton J. et al. Does oral carbohydrate supplementation improve labour outcome? A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. BJOG 2016; 123: 510-517 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13728.
- 110 Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong CY, Chandraharan E. et al. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131: 13-24 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.020.
- 111 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Evidenzbericht zur intrapartalen Ultraschalldiagnostik. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 578. 2018. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01b_evidenzbericht-zur-intrapartalen-ultraschalldiagnostik_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf?rev=187261
- 112 Ghi T, Eggebo T, Lees C. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 128-139 DOI: 10.1002/uog.19072.
- 113 Simkin P. Just another day in a womanʼs life? Womenʼs long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part I. Birth 1991; 18: 203-210 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1991.tb00103.x.
- 114 Green JM. Expectations and experiences of pain in labor: findings from a large prospective study. Birth 1993; 20: 65-72 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1993.tb00419.x.
- 115 Lowe NK. Maternal confidence for labor: development of the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory. Res Nurs Health 1993; 16: 141-149 DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770160209.
- 116 Christiaens W, Bracke P. Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007; 7: 26 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-7-26.
- 117 Van der Gucht N, Lewis K. Womenʼs experiences of coping with pain during childbirth: a critical review of qualitative research. Midwifery 2015; 31: 349-358 DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.12.005.
- 118 Kannan S, Jamison RN, Datta S. Maternal satisfaction and pain control in women electing natural childbirth. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 468-472 DOI: 10.1053/rapm.2001.24260.
- 119 Nikkola E, Laara A, Hinkka S. et al. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labor does not always improve maternal satisfaction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 188-194 DOI: 10.1080/00016340500409935.
- 120 Hodnett ED. Pain and womenʼs satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: S160-S172 DOI: 10.1067/mob.2002.121141.
- 121 Capogna G, Alahuhtat S, Celleno D. et al. Maternal expectations and experiences of labour pain and analgesia: a multicentre study of nulliparous women. Int J Obstet Anesth 1996; 5: 229-235 DOI: 10.1016/s0959-289x(96)80042-2.
- 122 Dickinson JE, Paech MJ, McDonald SJ. et al. Maternal satisfaction with childbirth and intrapartum analgesia in nulliparous labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 43: 463-468 DOI: 10.1046/j.0004-8666.2003.00152.x.
- 123 Ranta P, Spalding M, Kangas-Saarela T. et al. Maternal expectations and experiences of labour pain–options of 1091 Finnish parturients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995; 39: 60-66 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1995.tb05593.x.
- 124 Smith CA, Levett KM, Collins CT. et al. Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (03) CD009514 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009514.pub2.
- 125 Huntley AL, Coon JT, Ernst E. Complementary and alternative medicine for labor pain: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 36-44 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.008.
- 126 Cheung NF. Choice and control as experienced by Chinese and Scottish childbearing women in Scotland. Midwifery 2002; 18: 200-213 DOI: 10.1054/midw.2002.0315.
- 127 Cluett ER, Nikodem VC, McCandlish RE. et al. Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (02) CD000111 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub2.
- 128 Field T, Hernandez-Reif M, Taylor S. et al. Labor pain is reduced by massage therapy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 18: 286-291 DOI: 10.3109/01674829709080701.
- 129 Chang MY, Wang SY, Chen CH. Effects of massage on pain and anxiety during labour: a randomized controlled trial in Taiwan. J Adv Nurs 2002; 38: 68-73 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02147.x.
- 130 Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K. et al. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ 2004; 328: 314 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37963.606412.EE.
- 131 Lee MK, Chang SB, Kang DH. Effects of SP6 acupressure on labor pain and length of delivery time in women during labor. J Altern Complement Med 2004; 10: 959-965 DOI: 10.1089/acm.2004.10.959.
- 132 Madden K, Middleton P, Cyna AM. et al. Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (05) CD009356 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3.
- 133 Nesheim BI, Kinge R, Berg B. et al. Acupuncture during labor can reduce the use of meperidine: a controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain 2003; 19: 187-191 DOI: 10.1097/00002508-200305000-00006.
- 134 Ramnero A, Hanson U, Kihlgren M. Acupuncture treatment during labour–a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002; 109: 637-644
- 135 Skilnand E, Fossen D, Heiberg E. Acupuncture in the management of pain in labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 943-948 DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811008.x.
- 136 Smith CA, Collins CT, Crowther CA. Aromatherapy for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (07) CD009215 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009215.
- 137 Chen SF, Wang CH, Chan PT. et al. Labour pain control by aromatherapy: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Women Birth 2019; 32: 327-335 DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.09.010.
- 138 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Recherche zur aktuellen Evidenz komplementär-medizinischer Maßnahmen, fokussiert auf die Homöopathie, zur Schmerzerleichterung während der Geburt. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 712. 2017. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01c_s3-leitlinie-vaginale-geburt-am-termin-recherche-zu-homoeopathie_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf
- 139 Zafar S, Najam Y, Arif Z. et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing Pentazocine and Chamomilla recutita for labor pain relief. Homeopathy 2016; 105: 66-70 DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2015.09.003.
- 140 Dowswell T, Bedwell C, Lavender T. et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relief in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (02) CD007214 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007214.pub2.
- 141 Derry S, Straube S, Moore RA. et al. Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (01) CD009107 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009107.pub2.
- 142 Gogarten W, Bürkle H, VanAken H. et al. Durchführung von Regionalanästhesien in der Geburtshilfe. Anästh Intensivmed 2004; 45: 151-153
- 143 Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T. et al. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012 (03) CD009234 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2.
- 144 Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Cyna AM. et al. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (05) CD000331 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4.
- 145 Bremerich DH, Greve S. Die neue S1-Leitlinie „Geburtshilfliche Analgesie und Anästhesie“ – Vorstellung und Kommentar. Anaesthesist 2021; 70: 229-236 DOI: 10.1007/s00101-020-00910-7.
- 146 Ahlborg jr. G, Axelsson G, Bodin L. Shift work, nitrous oxide exposure and subfertility among Swedish midwives. Int J Epidemiol 1996; 25: 783-790 DOI: 10.1093/ije/25.4.783.
- 147 Axelsson G, Ahlborg jr. G, Bodin L. Shift work, nitrous oxide exposure, and spontaneous abortion among Swedish midwives. Occup Environ Med 1996; 53: 374-378 DOI: 10.1136/oem.53.6.374.
- 148 Bodin L, Axelsson G, Ahlborg jr. G. The association of shift work and nitrous oxide exposure in pregnancy with birth weight and gestational age. Epidemiology 1999; 10: 429-436 DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199907000-00012.
- 149 Boivin JF. Risk of spontaneous abortion in women occupationally exposed to anaesthetic gases: a meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med 1997; 54: 541-548 DOI: 10.1136/oem.54.8.541.
- 150 Zielhuis G, Peelen SJ, Florack EI. et al. Hospital work and fecundability. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999; 25: 47-48
- 151 Dammer U, Weiss C, Raabe E. et al. Introduction of inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen for pain management during labour – evaluation of patientsʼ and midwivesʼ satisfaction. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74: 656-660 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368606.
- 152 Zanardo V, Volpe F, Parotto M. et al. Nitrous oxide labor analgesia and pain relief memory in breastfeeding women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31: 3243-3248 DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1368077.
- 153 Richardson MG, Lopez BM, Baysinger CL. et al. Nitrous oxide during labor: maternal satisfaction does not depend exclusively on analgesic effectiveness. Anesth Analg 2017; 124: 548-553 DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001680.
- 154 Richardson MG, Raymond BL, Baysinger CL. et al. A qualitative analysis of parturientsʼ experiences using nitrous oxide for labor analgesia: It is not just about pain relief. Birth 2019; 46: 97-104 DOI: 10.1111/birt.12374.
- 155 Leong EW, Sivanesaratnam V, Oh LL. et al. Epidural analgesia in primigravidae in spontaneous labour at term: a prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2000; 26: 271-275 DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2000.tb01321.x.
- 156 Weibel S, Jelting Y, Afshari A. et al. Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (04) CD011989 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011989.pub2.
- 157 Selbmann H, Eißner H, Warnke W. Qualitätssicherung in der Geburtshilfe. Materialien und Berichte. Gerlingen: Bleicher Verlag; 1989
- 158 Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen (IQTIQ). Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr. 2017. Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Berlin: 2018. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2017/16n1gebh/QSKH_16n1-GEBH_2017_BUAW_V02_2018-08-01.pdf
- 159 Dangel-Vogelsang B, Holthaus E, Kolleck B, Korporal J. Außerklinische Geburtshilfe in Hessen: Wie modern ist die Hebammen-Geburtshilfe?. Hamburg: E B Verlag; 1997
- 160 GKV Spitzenverband. Hebammenhilfevertrag. Anlage 3 Qualitätsvereinbarung zum Vertrag nach § 134a SGB V. Redaktionell angepasst am 01.04.2020. 2015. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/media/dokumente/krankenversicherung_1/ambulante_leistungen/hebammen/20200401_Hebammen_Anlage_3_Qualitaetsvereinbarung.pdf
- 161 AQUA-Institut. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2009 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Göttingen: AQUA-Institut; 2010
- 162 AQUA-Institut. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2011 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Göttingen: AQUA-Institut; 2012
- 163 AQUA-Institut. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2013 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Göttingen: AQUA-Institut; 2014
- 164 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses Richtlinie zu planungsrelevanten Qualitätsindikatoren – plan. QI-RL. 2019. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.g-ba.de/richtlinien/91/
- 165 Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK (WIdO). QSR – Verfahren. Entwicklung der Leistungsbereiche Vaginale Entbindung und Sectio Abschlussbericht. Berlin: Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK; 2016
- 166 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Perinatale Medizin. S1-Leitlinie 087-001: Empfehlungen für die strukturellen Voraussetzungen der perinatologischen Versorgung in Deutschland. 2015. Zugriff am 15. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/087-001.html
- 167 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Safe midwifery staffing for maternity settings. NICE guideline [NG4]. 2015. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-institute-for-clinical-excellence
- 168 Bazian Ltd.. Safe midwife staffing for maternity settings: The relationship between midwife staffing at a local level and maternal and neonatal outcomes, and factors affecting these requirements. A report for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. London: Bazian Ltd.; 2014
- 169 Tucker J, Parry G, Penney G. et al. Is midwife workload associated with quality of process of care (continuous electronic fetal monitoring [CEFM]) and neonatal outcome indicators? A prospective study in consultant-led labour wards in Scotland. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003; 17: 369-377 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2003.00524.x.
- 170 Cerbinskaite A, Malone S, McDermott J. et al. Emergency caesarean section: influences on the decision-to-delivery interval. J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 640379 DOI: 10.1155/2011/640379.
- 171 Cheyne H, Dunlop A, Shields N. et al. A randomised controlled trial of admission electronic fetal monitoring in normal labour. Midwifery 2003; 19: 221-229
- 172 Mitchell K. The effect of the labour electronic fetal monitoring admission test on operative delivery in low-risk women: a randomised controlled trial. Evidence Based Midwifery 2008; 6: 18-26
- 173 Mires G, Williams F, Howie P. Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population. BMJ 2001; 322: 1457-1460
Correspondence
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 16. Juli 2022
Angenommen nach Revision: 16. Juli 2022
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. November 2022
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References/Literatur
- 1 Ackermann-Liebrich U, Voegeli T, Gunter-Witt K. et al. Home versus hospital deliveries: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures and outcome. Zurich Study Team. BMJ 1996; 313: 1313-1318 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1313.
- 2 Begley C, Devane D, Clarke M. et al. Comparison of midwife-led and consultant-led care of healthy women at low risk of childbirth complications in the Republic of Ireland: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11: 85 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-85.
- 3 Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. Brocklehurst P, Hardy P. et al. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011; 343: d7400 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d7400.
- 4 Blix E, Huitfeldt AS, Oian P. et al. Outcomes of planned home births and planned hospital births in low-risk women in Norway between 1990 and 2007: a retrospective cohort study. Sex Reprod Healthc 2012; 3: 147-153 DOI: 10.1016/j.srhc.2012.10.001.
- 5 Byrne JP, Crowther CA, Moss JR. A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide, Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40: 268-274 DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.2000.tb03333.x.
- 6 Campbell R, Macfarlane A, Hempsall V. et al. Evaluation of midwife-led care provided at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. Midwifery 1999; 15: 183-193 DOI: 10.1016/s0266-6138(99)90063-3.
- 7 Chapman MG, Jones M, Spring JE. et al. The use of a birthroom: a randomized controlled trial comparing delivery with that in the labour ward. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 182-187 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07884.x.
- 8 Coxon K, Sandall J, Fulop N. Do Birth Place Decisions Change Over a Womanʼs Childbearing Career?. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2013; 87 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-303966.2081K.
- 9 Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S. et al. Planned place of birth in New Zealand: does it affect mode of birth and intervention rates among low-risk women?. Birth 2011; 38: 111-119 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00458.x.
- 10 Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S. et al. Risk of severe postpartum hemorrhage in low-risk childbearing women in new zealand: exploring the effect of place of birth and comparing third stage management of labor. Birth 2012; 39: 98-105 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00531.x.
- 11 de Jonge A, van der Goes BY, Ravelli AC. et al. Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG 2009; 116: 1177-1184 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x.
- 12 de Jonge A, Mesman JA, Mannien J. et al. Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2013; 346: f3263 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3263.
- 13 Dowswell T, Thornton JG, Hewison J. et al. Should there be a trial of home versus hospital delivery in the United Kingdom?. BMJ 1996; 312: 753-757 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.753.
- 14 Eide BI, Nilsen AB, Rasmussen S. Births in two different delivery units in the same clinic–a prospective study of healthy primiparous women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9: 25 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-25.
- 15 Feldman E, Hurst M. Outcomes and procedures in low risk birth: a comparison of hospital and birth center settings. Birth 1987; 14: 18-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1987.tb01444.x.
- 16 Gaudineau A, Sauleau EA, Nisand I. et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in a home-like birth centre: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287: 211-216 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2553-6.
- 17 Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Lang GD. et al. Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ 1994; 309: 1400-1404 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.309.6966.1400.
- 18 Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2009; 36: 180-189 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00322.x.
- 19 Jackson DJ, Lang JM, Swartz WH. et al. Outcomes, safety, and resource utilization in a collaborative care birth center program compared with traditional physician-based perinatal care. Am J Public Health 2003; 93: 999-1006 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.6.999.
- 20 Janssen PA, Lee SK, Ryan EM. et al. Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia. CMAJ 2002; 166: 315-323
- 21 Klein M, Papageorgiou A, Westreich R. et al. Care in a birth room versus a conventional setting: a controlled trial. Can Med Assoc J 1984; 131: 1461-1466
- 22 Lindgren HE, Radestad IJ, Christensson K. et al. Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 751-759 DOI: 10.1080/00016340802199903.
- 23 MacVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen-Johnstone L. et al. Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 316-323 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12972.x.
- 24 Nove A, Berrington A, Matthews Z. Comparing the odds of postpartum haemorrhage in planned home birth against planned hospital birth: results of an observational study of over 500,000 maternities in the UK. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12: 130 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-130.
- 25 Overgaard C, Fenger-Gron M, Sandall J. The impact of birthplace on womenʼs birth experiences and perceptions of care. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74: 973-981 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.023.
- 26 Pang JW, Heffelfinger JD, Huang GJ. et al. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989–1996. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 253-259 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02074-4.
- 27 Schroeder E, Petrou S, Patel N. et al. Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e2292 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e2292.
- 28 Scupholme A, McLeod AG, Robertson EG. A birth center affiliated with the tertiary care center: comparison of outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 598-603
- 29 Stone PW. Maternity care outcomes: assessing a nursing model of care for low-risk pregnancy. Outcomes Manag Nurs Pract 1998; 2: 71-75
- 30 van der Kooy J, Poeran J, de Graaf JP. et al. Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 1037-1046 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182319737.
- 31 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. A randomized controlled study of birth center care versus standard maternity care: effects on womenʼs health. Birth 1997; 24: 17-26 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1997.tb00332.x.
- 32 Woodcock HC, Read AW, Bower C. et al. A matched cohort study of planned home and hospital births in Western Australia 1981–1987. Midwifery 1994; 10: 125-135 DOI: 10.1016/0266-6138(94)90042-6.
- 33 Bauer S, Kotter C. Versorgungsalternative zur Klinikentbindung?. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 2013; 217: 14-23
- 34 Gesellschaft für Qualität in der außerklinischen Geburtshilfe e.V. (QUAG). Geburtenzahlen in Deutschland. 2019. Zugriff am 20. September 2022 unter: https://www.quag.de/quag/geburtenzahlen.htm
- 35 Institut für klinische Epidemiologie, Teil des Instituts für Integrierte Versorgung der Tirol Kliniken GmbH. Geburtenregister Österreich. Bericht über die Geburtshilfe in Österreich 2017. 2018. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iet.at/data.cfm?vpath=publikationen210/groe/groe-jahresbericht-2018
- 36 Schweizerischer Hebammenverband (SHV). Statistikbericht der frei praktizierenden Hebammen der Schweiz 2017. 2018. Zugriff am 22. September 2022 unter: https://www.hebamme.ch/qualitaet/statistikberichte-fph/
- 37 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. Womenʼs satisfaction with birth center care: a randomized, controlled study. Birth 1993; 20: 3-13
- 38 Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. Experience of childbirth in birth center care. A randomized controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994; 73: 547-554 DOI: 10.3109/00016349409006271.
- 39 Littlefield VM, Adams BN. Patient participation in alternative perinatal care: impact on satisfaction and health locus of control. Res Nurs Health 1987; 10: 139-148 DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770100305.
- 40 Janssen PA, Still DK, Klein MC. et al. Early labor assessment and support at home versus telephone triage: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1463-1469 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000247644.64154.bb.
- 41 Geerts CC, Klomp T, Lagro-Janssen AL. et al. Birth setting, transfer and maternal sense of control: results from the DELIVER study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 27 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-27.
- 42 Shaw I. Reactions to transfer out of a hospital birth center: a pilot study. Birth 1985; 12: 147-150 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1985.tb00953.x.
- 43 Tingstig C, Gottvall K, Grunewald C. et al. Satisfaction with a modified form of in-hospital birth center care compared with standard maternity care. Birth 2012; 39: 106-114 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00533.x.
- 44 Esposito NW. Marginalized womenʼs comparisons of their hospital and freestanding birth center experiences: a contrast of inner-city birthing systems. Health Care Women Int 1999; 20: 111-126 DOI: 10.1080/073993399245827.
- 45 Christiaens W, Verhaeghe M, Bracke P. Childbirth expectations and experiences in Belgian and Dutch models of maternity care. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 2008; 26: 309-322
- 46 Christiaens W, Gouwy A, Bracke P. Does a referral from home to hospital affect satisfaction with childbirth? A cross-national comparison. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 109 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-109.
- 47 Dahlen HG, Barclay LM, Homer CS. The novice birthing: theorising first-time mothersʼ experiences of birth at home and in hospital in Australia. Midwifery 2010; 26: 53-63 DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.01.012.
- 48 Coyle KL, Hauck Y, Percival P. et al. Normality and collaboration: mothersʼ perceptions of birth centre versus hospital care. Midwifery 2001; 17: 182-193 DOI: 10.1054/midw.2001.0256.
- 49 Coyle KL, Hauck Y, Percival P. et al. Ongoing relationships with a personal focus: mothersʼ perceptions of birth centre versus hospital care. Midwifery 2001; 17: 171-181 DOI: 10.1054/midw.2001.0258.
- 50 Gagnon AJ, Sandall J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 2007 (03) CD002869 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002869.pub2.
- 51 Johnson R, Slade P. Does fear of childbirth during pregnancy predict emergency caesarean section?. BJOG 2002; 109: 1213-1221 DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.01351.x.
- 52 Bt Maznin NL, Creedy DK. A comprehensive systematic review of factors influencing womenʼs birthing preferences. JBI Libr Syst Rev 2012; 10: 232-306 DOI: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-46.
- 53 OʼCathain A, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP. et al. Use of evidence based leaflets to promote informed choice in maternity care: randomised controlled trial in everyday practice. BMJ 2002; 324: 643 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7338.643.
- 54 Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R. et al. Life satisfaction, general well-being and costs of treatment for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women by psychoeducative group or conventional care attendance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 527-533 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12594.
- 55 Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Toivanen R. et al. Obstetric outcome after intervention for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women – randomised trial. BJOG 2013; 120: 75-84 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12011.
- 56 Stapleton H, Kirkham M, Thomas G. Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care. BMJ 2002; 324: 639 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7338.639.
- 57 Thomas J, Callwood A, Brocklehurst P. et al. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit. BJOG 2000; 107: 579-580 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13296.x.
- 58 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. (DGGG). S3-Leitlinie Sectio Caesarea. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 896-921 DOI: 10.1055/a-1529-6141.
- 59 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean section. Clinical guideline [CG132]. National Collaborating Centre for Womenʼs and Childrenʼs Health (UK). Caesarean Section. London: RCOG Press; 2011
- 60 Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C. et al. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth 2004; 31: 17-27 DOI: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.0270.x.
- 61 Loh A, Simon D, Levente K. et al. Patientenbeteiligung bei medizinischen Entscheidungen. Effekte der Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung aus systematischen Reviews. Dtsch Arztebl 2007; 104: A1483-A1488
- 62 Vlemmix F, Warendorf JK, Rosman AN. et al. Decision aids to improve infomed decision-making in pregacy care: a systematic review. BJOG 2013; 120: 257-266 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12060.
- 63 Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H. et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e94670 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670.
- 64 Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K. et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (04) CD001431 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
- 65 Horey D, Kealy M, Davey MA. et al. Interventions for supporting pregnant womenʼs decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (07) CD010041 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010041.pub2.
- 66 Knape N. Eine Sekundärdatenanalyse der Arbeitsbelastung und Betreuungsdichte von Hebammen in der klinischen Geburtsbetreuung von Low-Risk-Gebärenden [Dissertation]. Witten: Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten Fakultät für Gesundheit, Department für Pflegewissenschaft; 2016: 41f
- 67 National Institute for Health and Care-Excellence (NICE). Intrapartum Care. Care of healthy woman and their babies during childbirth. Clinical guideline [CG 190]. NICE CG190 National Collaborating Centre for Womenʼs and Childrenʼs Health; 2014. Zugriff am 10. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190
- 68 Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (07) CD003766 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6.
- 69 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Evidenzbericht zur Anwesenheit und Verfügbarkeit des geburtshilflichen Fachpersonals. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 635. 2018 Zugriff am 21. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01b_anwesenheit-und-verfuegbarkeit-des-geburtshilflichen-fachpersonals_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf
- 70 Amiri Farahani L, Rajabi F, Shirazi V. Effect of Different Birthing Positions during the Second Stage of Labor on Motherʼs Experiences Regarding Birth, Pain, Anxiety and Fatigue. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 2012; 22: 75-83
- 71 Sehhati F, Najjarzadeh M, Seyyedrasouli A. et al. Effect of continuous midwifery care on length of labor. J Caring Sci 2012; 1: 47-52 DOI: 10.5681/jcs.2012.007.
- 72 Zhang T, Liu C. Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean. Pak J Med Sci 2016; 32: 711-714 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.323.9546.
- 73 Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ. et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (03) CD003766
- 74 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Evidenzbericht zur Erfahrung/Expertise des geburtshilflichen Fachpersonals. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 705. 2018 Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01b_erfahrung-expertise-des-geburtshilflichen-fachpersonals_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf
- 75 Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M. et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1710-1721 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407120.
- 76 Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM. et al. Opinion leaders vs. audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265: 2202-2207
- 77 Belghiti J, Coulm B, Kayem G. et al. [Oxytocin administration during labor. Results from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2013; 42: 662-670 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2013.02.011.
- 78 Chuilon AL, Le Ray C, Prunet C. et al. [Episiotomy in France in 2010: Variations according to obstetrical context and place of birth]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2016; 45: 691-700 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.10.005.
- 79 Coulm B, Le Ray C, Lelong N. et al. Obstetric interventions for low-risk pregnant women in France: do maternity unit characteristics make a difference?. Birth 2012; 39: 183-191 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00547.x.
- 80 Finnstrom O, Berg G, Norman A. et al. Size of delivery unit and neonatal outcome in Sweden. A catchment area analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 63-67 DOI: 10.1080/00016340500324225.
- 81 Karalis E, Gissler M, Tapper AM. et al. Effect of hospital size and on-call arrangements on intrapartum and early neonatal mortality among low-risk newborns in Finland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 198: 116-119 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.10.020.
- 82 Wehberg S, Guldberg R, Gradel KO. et al. Risk factors and between-hospital variation of caesarean section in Denmark: a cohort study. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019120 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019120.
- 83 Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012 (08) CD000012 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4.
- 84 Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA. et al. Re-conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the PLACE (pregnant and laboring in an ambient clinical environment) pilot trial. Birth 2009; 36: 159-166 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00311.x.
- 85 Aburas R, Pati D, Casanova R. et al. The influence of nature stimulus in enhancing the birth experience. HERD 2017; 10: 81-100 DOI: 10.1177/1937586716665581.
- 86 Lorentzen I. Birth Environment of the Future. Zugriff am 10. März 2018 unter: https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02478385%22%3ehttps://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02478385
- 87 Ayerle G, Schäfers R, Mattern E. et al. Design und methodische Herausforderungen in der randomisiert kontrollierten, multizentrisch angelegten Studie „BE-UP“ zum Effekt der Geburtsumgebung auf das maternale und neonatale Outcome. 4 Internationale Fachtagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft (DGHWi); 16.02.2020. 2018.
- 88 Mendelson CL. The aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs during obstetric anesthesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1946; 52: 191-205 DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)39829-5.
- 89 Parsons M. Policy or tradition: oral intake in labour. Aust J Midwifery 2001; 14: 6-12 DOI: 10.1016/s1445-4386(01)80017-3.
- 90 American College of Nurse-Midwives. Providing oral nutrition to women in labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2016; 61: 528-534 DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.12515.
- 91 Simkin P. Stress, pain, and catecholamines in labor: Part 1. A review. Birth 1986; 13: 227-233 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1986.tb01053.x.
- 92 Armstrong TS, Johnston IG. Which women want food during labour?: results of an audit in a Scottish DGH. Health Bull (Edinb) 2000; 58: 141-144
- 93 Vallejo MC, Cobb BT, Steen TL. et al. Maternal outcomes in women supplemented with a high-protein drink in labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53: 369-374 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12079.
- 94 Scrutton MJ, Metcalfe GA, Lowy C. et al. Eating in labour. A randomised controlled trial assessing the risks and benefits. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 329-334 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00750.x.
- 95 Kubli M, Scrutton MJ, Seed PT. et al. An evaluation of isotonic “sport drinks” during labor. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 404-408 DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200202000-00033.
- 96 Scheepers HC, Essed GG, Brouns F. Aspects of food and fluid intake during labour. Policies of midwives and obstetricians in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 78: 37-40 DOI: 10.1016/s0301-2115(98)00007-4.
- 97 Scheepers HC, de Jong PA, Essed GG. et al. Carbohydrate solution intake during labour just before the start of the second stage: a double-blind study on metabolic effects and clinical outcome. BJOG 2004; 111: 1382-1387 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00277.x.
- 98 Scheepers HC, Thans MC, de Jong PA. et al. A double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled study on the influence of carbohydrate solution intake during labour. BJOG 2002; 109: 178-181 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.t01-1-01062.x.
- 99 Scheepers HC, Thans MC, de Jong PA. et al. The effects of oral carbohydrate administration on fetal acid base balance. J Perinat Med 2002; 30: 400-404 DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2002.062.
- 100 Ludka LM, Roberts CC. Eating and drinking in labor. A literature review. J Nurse Midwifery 1993; 38: 199-207 DOI: 10.1016/0091-2182(93)90003-y.
- 101 OʼSullivan G. The stomach–fact and fantasy: eating and drinking during labor. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1994; 32: 31-44
- 102 Dalton C, Gudgeon C. Fasting or feeding during labour. Med J Aust 1987; 147: 625-626 DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1987.tb133720.x.
- 103 Douglas M. Commentary: the case against a more liberal food and fluid policy in labor. Birth 1988; 15: 93-94
- 104 Sleutel M, Golden SS. Fasting in labor: relic or requirement. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1999; 28: 507-512 DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1999.tb02024.x.
- 105 Pengelley L, Gyte G. Eating and drinking in labour (IV). A summary of medical research to facilitate informed choice about the care of mother and child. Pract Midwife 1998; 1: 24-26
- 106 Speak S. Food intake in labour: the benefits and drawbacks. Nurs Times 2002; 98: 42-43
- 107 OʼSullivan G, Scrutton M. NPO during labor. Is there any scientific validation?. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2003; 21: 87-98 DOI: 10.1016/s0889-8537(02)00029-9.
- 108 Singata M, Tranmer J, Gyte GM. Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013 (08) CD003930 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003930.pub3.
- 109 Malin GL, Bugg GJ, Thornton J. et al. Does oral carbohydrate supplementation improve labour outcome? A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. BJOG 2016; 123: 510-517 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13728.
- 110 Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong CY, Chandraharan E. et al. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131: 13-24 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.020.
- 111 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Evidenzbericht zur intrapartalen Ultraschalldiagnostik. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 578. 2018. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01b_evidenzbericht-zur-intrapartalen-ultraschalldiagnostik_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf?rev=187261
- 112 Ghi T, Eggebo T, Lees C. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 128-139 DOI: 10.1002/uog.19072.
- 113 Simkin P. Just another day in a womanʼs life? Womenʼs long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part I. Birth 1991; 18: 203-210 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1991.tb00103.x.
- 114 Green JM. Expectations and experiences of pain in labor: findings from a large prospective study. Birth 1993; 20: 65-72 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1993.tb00419.x.
- 115 Lowe NK. Maternal confidence for labor: development of the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory. Res Nurs Health 1993; 16: 141-149 DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770160209.
- 116 Christiaens W, Bracke P. Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007; 7: 26 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-7-26.
- 117 Van der Gucht N, Lewis K. Womenʼs experiences of coping with pain during childbirth: a critical review of qualitative research. Midwifery 2015; 31: 349-358 DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.12.005.
- 118 Kannan S, Jamison RN, Datta S. Maternal satisfaction and pain control in women electing natural childbirth. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 468-472 DOI: 10.1053/rapm.2001.24260.
- 119 Nikkola E, Laara A, Hinkka S. et al. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labor does not always improve maternal satisfaction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 188-194 DOI: 10.1080/00016340500409935.
- 120 Hodnett ED. Pain and womenʼs satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: S160-S172 DOI: 10.1067/mob.2002.121141.
- 121 Capogna G, Alahuhtat S, Celleno D. et al. Maternal expectations and experiences of labour pain and analgesia: a multicentre study of nulliparous women. Int J Obstet Anesth 1996; 5: 229-235 DOI: 10.1016/s0959-289x(96)80042-2.
- 122 Dickinson JE, Paech MJ, McDonald SJ. et al. Maternal satisfaction with childbirth and intrapartum analgesia in nulliparous labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 43: 463-468 DOI: 10.1046/j.0004-8666.2003.00152.x.
- 123 Ranta P, Spalding M, Kangas-Saarela T. et al. Maternal expectations and experiences of labour pain–options of 1091 Finnish parturients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995; 39: 60-66 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1995.tb05593.x.
- 124 Smith CA, Levett KM, Collins CT. et al. Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (03) CD009514 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009514.pub2.
- 125 Huntley AL, Coon JT, Ernst E. Complementary and alternative medicine for labor pain: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 36-44 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.008.
- 126 Cheung NF. Choice and control as experienced by Chinese and Scottish childbearing women in Scotland. Midwifery 2002; 18: 200-213 DOI: 10.1054/midw.2002.0315.
- 127 Cluett ER, Nikodem VC, McCandlish RE. et al. Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (02) CD000111 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub2.
- 128 Field T, Hernandez-Reif M, Taylor S. et al. Labor pain is reduced by massage therapy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 18: 286-291 DOI: 10.3109/01674829709080701.
- 129 Chang MY, Wang SY, Chen CH. Effects of massage on pain and anxiety during labour: a randomized controlled trial in Taiwan. J Adv Nurs 2002; 38: 68-73 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02147.x.
- 130 Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K. et al. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. BMJ 2004; 328: 314 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37963.606412.EE.
- 131 Lee MK, Chang SB, Kang DH. Effects of SP6 acupressure on labor pain and length of delivery time in women during labor. J Altern Complement Med 2004; 10: 959-965 DOI: 10.1089/acm.2004.10.959.
- 132 Madden K, Middleton P, Cyna AM. et al. Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (05) CD009356 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3.
- 133 Nesheim BI, Kinge R, Berg B. et al. Acupuncture during labor can reduce the use of meperidine: a controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain 2003; 19: 187-191 DOI: 10.1097/00002508-200305000-00006.
- 134 Ramnero A, Hanson U, Kihlgren M. Acupuncture treatment during labour–a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002; 109: 637-644
- 135 Skilnand E, Fossen D, Heiberg E. Acupuncture in the management of pain in labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 943-948 DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811008.x.
- 136 Smith CA, Collins CT, Crowther CA. Aromatherapy for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (07) CD009215 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009215.
- 137 Chen SF, Wang CH, Chan PT. et al. Labour pain control by aromatherapy: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Women Birth 2019; 32: 327-335 DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.09.010.
- 138 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Recherche zur aktuellen Evidenz komplementär-medizinischer Maßnahmen, fokussiert auf die Homöopathie, zur Schmerzerleichterung während der Geburt. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 712. 2017. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.iqwig.de/download/v16-01c_s3-leitlinie-vaginale-geburt-am-termin-recherche-zu-homoeopathie_rapid-report_v1-0.pdf
- 139 Zafar S, Najam Y, Arif Z. et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing Pentazocine and Chamomilla recutita for labor pain relief. Homeopathy 2016; 105: 66-70 DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2015.09.003.
- 140 Dowswell T, Bedwell C, Lavender T. et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relief in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (02) CD007214 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007214.pub2.
- 141 Derry S, Straube S, Moore RA. et al. Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (01) CD009107 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009107.pub2.
- 142 Gogarten W, Bürkle H, VanAken H. et al. Durchführung von Regionalanästhesien in der Geburtshilfe. Anästh Intensivmed 2004; 45: 151-153
- 143 Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T. et al. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012 (03) CD009234 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2.
- 144 Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Cyna AM. et al. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (05) CD000331 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4.
- 145 Bremerich DH, Greve S. Die neue S1-Leitlinie „Geburtshilfliche Analgesie und Anästhesie“ – Vorstellung und Kommentar. Anaesthesist 2021; 70: 229-236 DOI: 10.1007/s00101-020-00910-7.
- 146 Ahlborg jr. G, Axelsson G, Bodin L. Shift work, nitrous oxide exposure and subfertility among Swedish midwives. Int J Epidemiol 1996; 25: 783-790 DOI: 10.1093/ije/25.4.783.
- 147 Axelsson G, Ahlborg jr. G, Bodin L. Shift work, nitrous oxide exposure, and spontaneous abortion among Swedish midwives. Occup Environ Med 1996; 53: 374-378 DOI: 10.1136/oem.53.6.374.
- 148 Bodin L, Axelsson G, Ahlborg jr. G. The association of shift work and nitrous oxide exposure in pregnancy with birth weight and gestational age. Epidemiology 1999; 10: 429-436 DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199907000-00012.
- 149 Boivin JF. Risk of spontaneous abortion in women occupationally exposed to anaesthetic gases: a meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med 1997; 54: 541-548 DOI: 10.1136/oem.54.8.541.
- 150 Zielhuis G, Peelen SJ, Florack EI. et al. Hospital work and fecundability. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999; 25: 47-48
- 151 Dammer U, Weiss C, Raabe E. et al. Introduction of inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen for pain management during labour – evaluation of patientsʼ and midwivesʼ satisfaction. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74: 656-660 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368606.
- 152 Zanardo V, Volpe F, Parotto M. et al. Nitrous oxide labor analgesia and pain relief memory in breastfeeding women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31: 3243-3248 DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1368077.
- 153 Richardson MG, Lopez BM, Baysinger CL. et al. Nitrous oxide during labor: maternal satisfaction does not depend exclusively on analgesic effectiveness. Anesth Analg 2017; 124: 548-553 DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001680.
- 154 Richardson MG, Raymond BL, Baysinger CL. et al. A qualitative analysis of parturientsʼ experiences using nitrous oxide for labor analgesia: It is not just about pain relief. Birth 2019; 46: 97-104 DOI: 10.1111/birt.12374.
- 155 Leong EW, Sivanesaratnam V, Oh LL. et al. Epidural analgesia in primigravidae in spontaneous labour at term: a prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2000; 26: 271-275 DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2000.tb01321.x.
- 156 Weibel S, Jelting Y, Afshari A. et al. Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (04) CD011989 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011989.pub2.
- 157 Selbmann H, Eißner H, Warnke W. Qualitätssicherung in der Geburtshilfe. Materialien und Berichte. Gerlingen: Bleicher Verlag; 1989
- 158 Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen (IQTIQ). Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr. 2017. Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Berlin: 2018. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2017/16n1gebh/QSKH_16n1-GEBH_2017_BUAW_V02_2018-08-01.pdf
- 159 Dangel-Vogelsang B, Holthaus E, Kolleck B, Korporal J. Außerklinische Geburtshilfe in Hessen: Wie modern ist die Hebammen-Geburtshilfe?. Hamburg: E B Verlag; 1997
- 160 GKV Spitzenverband. Hebammenhilfevertrag. Anlage 3 Qualitätsvereinbarung zum Vertrag nach § 134a SGB V. Redaktionell angepasst am 01.04.2020. 2015. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/media/dokumente/krankenversicherung_1/ambulante_leistungen/hebammen/20200401_Hebammen_Anlage_3_Qualitaetsvereinbarung.pdf
- 161 AQUA-Institut. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2009 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Göttingen: AQUA-Institut; 2010
- 162 AQUA-Institut. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2011 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Göttingen: AQUA-Institut; 2012
- 163 AQUA-Institut. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2013 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Qualitätsindikatoren. Göttingen: AQUA-Institut; 2014
- 164 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses Richtlinie zu planungsrelevanten Qualitätsindikatoren – plan. QI-RL. 2019. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.g-ba.de/richtlinien/91/
- 165 Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK (WIdO). QSR – Verfahren. Entwicklung der Leistungsbereiche Vaginale Entbindung und Sectio Abschlussbericht. Berlin: Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK; 2016
- 166 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Perinatale Medizin. S1-Leitlinie 087-001: Empfehlungen für die strukturellen Voraussetzungen der perinatologischen Versorgung in Deutschland. 2015. Zugriff am 15. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/087-001.html
- 167 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Safe midwifery staffing for maternity settings. NICE guideline [NG4]. 2015. Zugriff am 09. Oktober 2022 unter: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-institute-for-clinical-excellence
- 168 Bazian Ltd.. Safe midwife staffing for maternity settings: The relationship between midwife staffing at a local level and maternal and neonatal outcomes, and factors affecting these requirements. A report for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. London: Bazian Ltd.; 2014
- 169 Tucker J, Parry G, Penney G. et al. Is midwife workload associated with quality of process of care (continuous electronic fetal monitoring [CEFM]) and neonatal outcome indicators? A prospective study in consultant-led labour wards in Scotland. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003; 17: 369-377 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2003.00524.x.
- 170 Cerbinskaite A, Malone S, McDermott J. et al. Emergency caesarean section: influences on the decision-to-delivery interval. J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 640379 DOI: 10.1155/2011/640379.
- 171 Cheyne H, Dunlop A, Shields N. et al. A randomised controlled trial of admission electronic fetal monitoring in normal labour. Midwifery 2003; 19: 221-229
- 172 Mitchell K. The effect of the labour electronic fetal monitoring admission test on operative delivery in low-risk women: a randomised controlled trial. Evidence Based Midwifery 2008; 6: 18-26
- 173 Mires G, Williams F, Howie P. Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population. BMJ 2001; 322: 1457-1460
