Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36443887›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2023

Midwives' perspectives of intravenous fluid management and fluid balance documentation in labour: A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis study.

Belinda R Bruce, Julie Leask, Bradley S De Vries, Heather L Shepherd

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Belinda R BruceThe University of Sydney Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0772-6093
Julie LeaskThe University of Sydney Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Bradley S De VriesThe National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Heather L ShepherdThe University of Sydney Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo describe current practice, examine the influences and explore barriers and facilitators to accurate documentation, for the administration of intravenous fluids during labour.

designA descriptive qualitative study was performed.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with Registered Midwives working across Australia. Midwives were recruited via email and social media advertisements. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to identify potential participants. Interview questions explored four main areas: (i) understanding of indications for IV fluids in labour; (ii) identification of current practice; (iii) barriers to documentation and (iv) benefits and complications of IV fluid administration. Reflexive thematic analysis of recorded-transcribed interviews was conducted.

resultsEleven midwives were interviewed. Clinical practice variation across Australia was recognized. Midwives reported a potential risk of harm for women and babies and a current lack of evidence, education and clinical guidance contributing to uncertainty around the use of IV fluids in labour. Overall, eight major themes were identified: (i) A variable clinical practice; (ii) Triggers and habits; (iii) Workplace and professional culture; (iv) Foundational knowledge; (v) Perception of risk; (vi) Professional standards and regulations; (vii) The importance of monitoring maternal fluid balance and (viii) barriers and facilitators to fluid balance documentation.

conclusionThere was widespread clinical variation identified and midwives reported a potential risk of harm. The major themes identified will inform future quantitative research examining the impact of IV fluids in labour. IMPACT: The implications of this research are important and potentially far-reaching. The administration of IV fluids to women in labour is a common clinical intervention. However, there is limited evidence available to guide practice. This study highlights the need for greater education and evidence examining maternal and neonatal outcomes to provide improved clinical guidance.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricMidwiferyNurse MidwivesDocumentationFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfusions, IntravenousPregnancyQualitative Researchclinical variationfluid balanceintrapartumintravenous fluidslabourlabour interventionsmidwiferymidwivesnursesnursing

Identifiers

PMID36443887
PMCPMC10099802
OpenAlexW4310365101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.