Did you see this? - Page 7

[IwannaBanRN]

Originally Posted by by-the-lake 

Sorry, your experience is not 'proof'.  Its your experience, and that's fine. but you then say

tsk *eyeroll* Proof that just because it's WIRELESS, doesn't mean you're free from the bed. So, yes, it IS proof of women made to lie on her back, laboring, even with wireless technology. The point is moot if it's used in the fashion that it was used with me.

[Imakcerka]

Originally Posted by by-the-lake 

Interesting point. This can be applied to both sides of the fence. What is your suggestion for doing better?

We can't stop searching and learning.  There is always a way to make "anything" better.  Whether it's a hospital birth, a home birth, cancer treatments, autism and anything else we know there isn't a complete answer for.  Never be complacent, never become complacent and learn how to decipher between what is right and what is being pushed on us for others agendas.  Some people may think I sound crazy, but there is so much out there we don't know about.  Regular people just like us find it, all the time.  Also don't put up walls and always listen.  In truths there are lies and in lies there are truths.

As simple as someone stating that cesareans happen more often around the holidays.  Find out if it's true.  Do some digging.  And once you find out report back and give others the information, tell us how you got it.  Prove to us we can find out all this by ourselves without relying on what someone else said, thinks or interpreted. 

[by-the-lake]

Originally Posted by IwannaBanRN 

tsk *eyeroll* Proof that just because it's WIRELESS, doesn't mean you're free from the bed. So, yes, it IS proof of women made to lie on her back, laboring, even with wireless technology. The point is moot if it's used in the fashion that it was used with me.

First off, I applaud your maturity with a tsk and eye roll. Second, you use the word ' many ' but only cite your experience. That was my point.

[by-the-lake]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

We can't stop searching and learning.  There is always a way to make "anything" better.  Whether it's a hospital birth, a home birth, cancer treatments, autism and anything else we know there isn't a complete answer for.  Never be complacent, never become complacent and learn how to decipher between what is right and what is being pushed on us for others agendas.  Some people may think I sound crazy, but there is so much out there we don't know about.  Regular people just like us find it, all the time.  Also don't put up walls and always listen.  In truths there are lies and in lies there are truths.

As simple as someone stating that cesareans happen more often around the holidays.  Find out if it's true.  Do some digging.  And once you find out report back and give others the information, tell us how you got it.  Prove to us we can find out all this by ourselves without relying on what someone else said, thinks or interpreted. 

I totally agree. Both sides of the debate should be doing this, and learning from each other

[Imakcerka]

IwannabanRN, it's not worth it to keep up with this one.  Just ignore this and go on. 
 

Originally Posted by by-the-lake 



First off, I applaud your maturity with a tsk and eye roll. Second, you use the word ' many ' but only cite your experience. That was my point.

[IwannaBanRN]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

IwannabanRN, it's not worth it to keep up with this one.  Just ignore this and go on. 
 

I completely agree. It's a bit exhausting trying to show people how something is with some people and all they want to hear is data data data. Anecdotal experience IS part of statistic. I'm just looking forward to being part of the happy homebirther statistic come November.
 

[starrlamia]

do you have any training or done any research outside of the scope of an L&D nurse? Seeing as most organizations support the studies showing intermittent listening to be as safe and as good as continuous, im not sure how it is a bad thing. Midwives will use EFM if indicated in hospital and if at home they feel there is risk they will transfer.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673687912669

For many obstetricians and midwives continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring during labour has replaced the traditional method of intermittent auscultation. Of the eight prospective randomised controlled trials designed to assess its value in obstetric care, four were concerned with mothers defined as being at high-risk, three with normal or low-risk patients, and the eighth with the total population of a maternity hospital over several months. None suggested any major advantage of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring over intermittent surveillance in terms of neonatal mortality, morbidity, cord blood pH values, or the five minute Apgar score. The rates of caesarean section and forceps delivery were higher in the continuously monitored group. For low-risk mothers there is a good case for a return to the traditional method of intermittent auscultation with its lower false-positive rate, lesser incidence of intervention, and opportunity for greater contact between the maternity care staff and the mother.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13181.x/full

Quote:

Conclusions Intermittent use of electronic fetal monitoring at regular intervals (with stethoscopic auscultation in between) appears to be as safe as continuous electronic fetal monitoring in low risk labours.

http://www.oocities.org/pacubill/monitorizacion.pdf

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) states that with specific

intervals, intermittent auscultation of the FHR is equivalent to continuous EFM in detecting fetal

compromise.4 ACOG

Originally Posted by by-the-lake 

Thank you.. I know this. In fact, I take 4 hour classes every two years to keep current as this is part of my continuing education to do my job. What I am seeing are two issues being confused. You are describing listening for accelerations and decelerations in relation to the contraction pattern. This information can be used very effectively to assess fetal well being. The term 'variability' is being used here,in this thread, and variability is a different assessment. Determining variability to assess fetal well being needs to be graphed, because a longer period of time is needed to collect this data, as it is beat to beat dependent.

When using intermittent monitoring with a fetoscope, you can certainly detect deceleration. If deceleration is detected, the logical next step to gain more information is to get a strip of EFM, because not only will the deceleration be graphed, the beat to beat variability can be determined as a bigger picture of fetal tolerance to labor

[Turquesa]

Is 1% of births droves?

Did you click on the link in my post?  I’d say that a 20% increase constitutes “droves.”

 Google is research?

No more than a library card catalogue is.  Both are tools for finding research, and SoSurreal09 found some to support the fact that cesareans increase chances for maternal mortality (up to fourfold, but I’ll let you do your own search on that one ).

When you're ready to provide direct answers to my other questions (tu quoque doesn't cut it), I'll gladly entertain a discussion on that topic. 

Anecdotes are not data

If you gather enough of them and identify particular trends, then yes, they are.  Qualitative research often serves as such a launch pad for further quantitative study.  Oh, and here is the rest of the data that you dismissed as "anecdotes."

Interesting that you should say the aforementioned, though.  When my state had its legislative hearing to license midwives, the midwife supporters showed up armed with data.  The doctor-opponents just got up and ad-libbed: "As a physician, I once witnessed.......blah, blah, blah." 

But then, pay me no mind.  That's just an anecdote.