Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40229762›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025

Intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring practice in different UK birth settings: a cross-sectional survey.

Megan Douthwaite, Alessandra Morelli, Sara Kenyon, Julia Sanders, Rachel Rowe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors.

Megan DouthwaiteNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. megan.douthwaite@npeu.ox.ac.uk.
Alessandra MorelliNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Sara KenyonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Heath Park Campus, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK.
Rachel RoweNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR134306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring is used to assess fetal wellbeing throughout labour. The interpretation of fetal heart rate patterns during labour informs decisions about clinical management and intervention. The World Health Organisation and other professional health care bodies recommend intermittent auscultation (IA) for monitoring the fetal heart rate for women with uncomplicated labour. Despite this there is little research on how IA is carried out in practice. This study aimed to describe IA practice across different birth settings in the United Kingdom (UK).

methodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey between November 2022 and February 2023. The survey explored whether local guidance on IA was in place; the frequency of IA training and competency assessment and packages used; content and frequency of IA audits; access to and use of IA devices; fetal heart rate counting methods used; and use of 'fresh ears'. We invited respondents from 205 alongside and freestanding midwifery units, and 33 obstetric units in National Health Service (NHS) organisations without midwifery units, from 140 NHS organisations across the UK. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse responses about IA practice by birth setting.

resultsOne hundred and seventy-four units (73%) responded from 119 NHS organisations. Most (91%) had local IA guidance in place for midwifery or obstetric led care, or both. While most maternity units (58%) required midwives to undertake annual IA training and competency assessments, 18% did not. A third of units reported an annual IA audit, but 67% of units had no set frequency or did not know the timing of their unit IA audit. At least six different methods for counting the fetal heart rate were reported, with 45% using some form of 'Intelligent IA' counting method. Just under half of units reported implementing 'fresh ears' for IA.

conclusionsThis was the first national survey of IA practice in the UK, and provides evidence of widespread variation in practice. Further investigations would be helpful to better understand why certain practices are followed or not, and the rationale behind these decisions in a clinical setting. Evidence to inform IA best practice is urgently needed.

Indexed as

AuscultationFetal MonitoringHeart AuscultationHeart Rate, FetalCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricMidwiferyPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomFetal heart rateFetal monitoringIntermittent auscultationIntrapartumMidwiferyUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID40229762
PMCPMC11995465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.