Am J Perinatol 2013; 30(06): 463-468
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1326991
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Interobserver Reliability of Fetal Heart Rate Pattern Interpretation Using NICHD Definitions

Aaron J. Epstein
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Irvine, Orange, California
,
Sara Twogood
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
,
Richard H. Lee
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
,
Neisha Opper
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
,
Anna Beavis
,
David A. Miller
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 April 2012

11 June 2012

Publication Date:
16 November 2012 (online)

Preview

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the interobserver reliability of fetal heart rate (FHR) pattern definition and interpretation assessed by physicians at various levels of training using standard Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) definitions and standard principles of interpretation.

Study Design We conducted an interrater reliability study of the intrapartum FHR tracings of 32 singleton term pregnancies at Los Angeles County–University of Southern California (LAC + USC) Medical Center. Analysis included the 5 hours immediately preceding delivery, divided into 10- minute segments. A medical student, resident, and three attending physicians evaluated the same set of FHR tracings. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the free-marginal kappa coefficient.

Results Reviewers demonstrated substantial to excellent agreement on baseline rate (κ = 0.97), moderate variability (κ = 0.80), accelerations (κ = 0.62), decelerations (κ = 0.63), category (κ = 0.68), and the ability to identify the presence of either moderate variability or accelerations (κ = 0.82).

Conclusions Interobserver agreement was significantly higher on all components of FHR definition and interpretation than previously expected. Standardization of FHR definitions and interpretation may improve interobserver reliability and patient safety.