Page Section: Centre Content Column
Death of baby after delay in Caesarean section (04HDC04652)
Download Death of baby after delay in Caesarean section (04HDC04652) (PDF 149Kb)
(04HDC04652, 17 January 2006)
Midwife ~ LMC ~ Obstetrician ~ Fetal distress ~ Deceleration
~ Caesarean section ~ CTG trace ~ Induction ~ Labour ~ Syntocinon ~
Prostaglandin ~ Documentation ~ Retrospective records ~ Access
agreement ~ Speed of labour ~ ACC ~ Medical error ~ Vicarious
liability ~ Rights 4(1), 4(2)
A couple complained about the services provided during the
labour and delivery of their first child. The woman had an
uneventful pregnancy, and at 41 weeks + 4 days' gestation she saw
an obstetric registrar to discuss induction. The plan was to induce
the woman the following day under her midwife's (her lead maternity
carer) care. The consultant obstetrician warned of the risk of
shoulder dystocia as the baby was large. The woman was to be
continuously monitored during labour with active management of the
third stage; the registrar was to attend the birth; and a
paediatrician was to assess the baby following birth.
During labour, following some non-reassuring CTG traces, the
obstetric registrar ordered hourly CTG recordings. The woman became
very distressed with pain and asked for an epidural. The baby was
born by Caesarean section at the hospital birthing unit. He was
described as "flat" following birth and, following resuscitation,
he was transferred to a neonatal intensive care unit, where he died
several days later. The autopsy report indicated that he was a
large baby who appeared anatomically normal. The cause of death was
"hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy grade 3" precipitated by fetal
distress.
It was held that the midwife did not have the skills to provide
appropriate services in this situation and should have passed the
woman's care to the secondary care team. The midwife's care did not
meet professional standards, and she did not provide midwifery
services of an appropriate standard, breaching Rights 4(1) and
4(2).
The obstetric registrar was sufficiently qualified and
experienced to handle the situation. However, she did not comment
at all on uterine activity, did not correct the midwife's
interpretation of events, misread a CTG tracing and failed to
indicate clearly the urgency of the Caesarean section. She failed
to provide maternity care of the standard expected of an obstetric
registrar with four years' experience, and breached Right 4(1).
The DHB was not held vicariously liable for the actions of the
midwife (an independent contractor) or the registrar. Although the
registrar was an employee, she had not followed the relevant DHB
guidelines and had not called for on-call consultant support, and
thus the DHB was not liable for her breach of the Code.
This case highlights potential problems in the co-ordination and
quality of care where LMC midwives access public hospital maternity
facilities, and the need for review of the national maternity
services access agreement.