Ep 11: Continuous Fetal Monitoring is Not Living Up To Its Promise

In this episode Alex and Lacey explore a New York Times article's report of the negative impact of constant fetal monitoring.Constant fetal monitoring is used in almost every U.S. hospital labor and delivery unit. Most people in labor are attached to belts that track the baby's heart rate continuously. This particular tool became widespread in the 1970's, replacing intermittent monitoring with a handheld device or stethoscope. Research over the decades has found that continuous fetal monitoring does not significantly reduce cerebral palsy, infant death and long term neurological problems. Constant fetal monitoring does however, increase medical interventions, especially cesareans.One of the most common reasons for cesareans in otherwise low risk pregnancies is "fetal distress" determined by fetal monitor tracings from constant monitoring. Hospitals continue to use this tool despite the largest increase in c-section rates since the 1970's. The article mentions reasons such as liability concerns, hospital efficiency and institutional habit.Continuous fetal monitoring became the standard practice in U.S. hospitals, but evidence suggests it does not improve major newborn outcomes and may significantly increase unnecessary c-sections due to false alarms and defensive medicine.Some alternatives for electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) include, intermittent auscultation, (listening to the baby's heartbeat at regular intervals instead of continuously) wireless monitoring, (still electronic monitoring but without wires) and intermittent electronic monitoring (checking baby's heartbeat using short periodic monitoring sessions such as monitoring for 20 mins; recheck in 40 mins).If you're a first time mom or a fifth time mom, Alex and Lacey dive into this article and dissect it from the ground up offering information, education and alternatives for your birth experience.