Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:31:04.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Avoidable causes of failed labors

from Section 1 - A wake-up call

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2015

Paul Reuwer ,
Hein Bruinse  and
Arie Franx
Paul Reuwer
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg
Hein Bruinse
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Utrecht University Medical Center
Arie Franx
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Proactive Support of Labor
The Challenge of Normal Childbirth
 , pp. 14 - 20
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Johnson, AM, Bellerose, L, Billstrom, R, Deckers, E, Beller, P. Evaluating outcomes of labor inductions beyond 39 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123 Suppl 1:58SGoogle Scholar
Seyb, ST, Berka, RJ, Socol, ML, Doodley, SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:600–7Google Scholar
Macer, JA, Macer, CL, Chan, LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1690–6Google Scholar
Cammu, H, Marten, G, Ruyssinck, G, Amy, JJ. Outcome after elective induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:240–4Google Scholar
Luthy, DA, Malmgren, JA, Zingheim, RW. Increased Cesarean section rates associated with elective induction in nulliparous women; the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1511–15Google Scholar
Dublin, S, Lydon-Rochelle, M, Kaplan, RC, Watts, DH, Critchlow, CW. Maternal and fetal outcomes after induction without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;18:986–94Google Scholar
Van Gemund, N, Hardeman, A, Scherjon, SA, Kanhai, HH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset: a matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003;56:133–8Google Scholar
Maslow, AS, Sweeny, AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:917–22Google Scholar
Smith, KM, Hoffman, MK, Scicione, A. Elective induction of labor in nulliparous women increases the risk of cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:S45Google Scholar
Kauffman, K, Bailit, J, Grobman, W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:209Google Scholar
Vahratian, A, Zhang, J, Troendle, JF, et al. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:698–704Google Scholar
Hamar, B, Mann, S, Greenberg, P, et al. Low-risk inductions of labor and cesarean delivery for nulliparous and parous women at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:215Google Scholar
Yeast, JD, Jones, A, Poskin, M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery; a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:628–33Google Scholar
Johnson, DP, Davis, NR, Brown, AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1565–72Google Scholar
Vrouenraets, FP, Roumen, FJ, Dehing, CJ, et al. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:690–7Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711Google Scholar
Kozhimannil, KB, Law, MR, Virnig, BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff 2013;32:527–35Google Scholar
Cunningham, FG, Leveno, KJ, Bloom, SL. Section IV. Labor and Delivery. In: Williams Obstetrics, 22nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005:496Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar
Pham, JC, Aswani, MS, Rosen, M, et al. Reducing medical errors and adverse events. Ann Rev Med 2012;63:447–63Google Scholar
Chin, GS, Warren, N, Kornman, L, Cameron, P. Patients’ perceptions of safety and quality of maternity clinical handover. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011;11:58Google Scholar
Chin, GS, Warren, N, Kornman, L, Cameron, P. Transferring responsibility and accountability in maternity care: clinicians defining their boundaries of practice in relation to clinical handover. Br Med J Open 2012;2(5):e000734Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, et al. National Vital Statistics Reports. Report No. 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Vital Statistics System; 2012Google Scholar
The Health and Social Care Information Centre. NHS Maternity Statistics 2011–2012 Summary Report. Geneva, Switzerland: National Health Service; 2012. Available at: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hesGoogle Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Li Z, Zeki, R, Hilder, L, et al. Australia’s Mothers and Babies 2010. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2012. Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129542376Google Scholar
EURO-PERISTAT Project. European Perinatal Health Report. Paris: EURO-PERISTAT; 2008. Available at: http://www.europeristat.comGoogle Scholar
Wing, DA, Lockwood, CJ, Barss, VA. Induction of labor. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. AHRQ Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 176. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2009 (Systematic review)Google Scholar
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. Induction of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107; 2009Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×