Page Section: Centre Content Column
Management of labour in light of CTG evidence suggesting fetal compromise (05HDC16711)
Download Management of labour in light of CTG evidence suggesting fetal compromise (05HDC16711) (PDF 144Kb)
(05HDC16711, 19 September 2006)
Obstetrician ~ Midwife ~ Labour ~ Delivery ~ Syntocinon ~
Cardiotocograph ~ Complications ~ Monitoring ~ Fetal distress ~
Caesarean section ~ Rights 4(1), 6(1)
A woman complained about the care provided by an obstetrician
during her labour and the delivery of her baby, in particular the
use of Syntocinon during the first stage of labour, and monitoring
during the second stage of labour. The woman was under the care of
the obstetrician and a midwife for her second pregnancy. She had
experienced complications during the birth of her first child,
resulting in a delivery by emergency Caesarean section due to early
warning signs of fetal distress. The woman agreed to a trial of
labour for her second child.
The labour was slow and difficult. The first stage of labour was
dysfunctional owing to slow progress, and even after Syntocinon was
commenced progress still fell short of an accepted "normal"
Some cardiotocograph (CTG) tracings suggested developing fetal
hypoxia and should have prompted further testing such as fetal
blood sampling and consideration of an emergency Caesarean section.
The obstetrician did not recognise these abnormalities, which
resulted in an inappropriate delay to effect delivery. The
baby was admitted to the neonatal unit shortly after her birth. Her
progress was slow and complicated by seizures. She remained in the
neonatal unit for two and a half weeks. She was later diagnosed
with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy.
It was held that the woman should have been repeatedly advised
of the risks of using Syntocinon, and been given the option of
abandoning the attempt at a vaginal delivery and proceeding to a
Caesarean section. Given the baby's position, the lack of progress,
and the woman's anxiety about her labour, a reasonable person in
her situation would expect to be told of the risks, side effects
and benefits of continuing with an induced labour, and the relative
risks and benefits of any alternative, which in this case was to
proceed to Caesarean section. The woman was not sufficiently
informed to be able to make decisions about her care, which
constituted a breach of Right 6(1).
It was also held that the obstetrician did not interpret some of
the CTG tracings with reasonable care and skill. The abnormal
reading should have prompted further investigations and, if
necessary, a more urgent delivery. In these circumstances, the
obstetrician breached Right 4(1).