scholarly journals Self-Reported Outcomes With the Use of a mHealth Fetal Monitoring App During Pregnancy

2022 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. S466-S467
Author(s):  
Lyndi Buckingham-Schutt ◽  
Emily Price ◽  
Pamela Duffy ◽  
Megan Aucutt
Keyword(s):  
Ob Gyn News ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
CHRISTINE KILGORE

2006 ◽  
Vol 66 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Nonnenmacher ◽  
N Fuhr ◽  
H Hopp ◽  
J Dudenhausen
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 211 (S 2) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Hörmansdörfer ◽  
A Scharf ◽  
I Staboulidou ◽  
P Hillemanns ◽  
P Schmidt

2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. S462-S463
Author(s):  
Erin Bailey ◽  
Nandini Raghuraman ◽  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Jeny Ghartey ◽  
George A. Macones ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 100008
Author(s):  
Manoj Mohan ◽  
Joohi Ramawat ◽  
Gene La Monica ◽  
Pradeep Jayaram ◽  
Sherif Abdel Fattah ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 147775092097180
Author(s):  
Thomas P Sartwelle ◽  
James C Johnston ◽  
Berna Arda ◽  
Mehila Zebenigus

The Alice Books, full of illogical thoughts, words, and contradictions, were unrivaled entertainment until the publication of the medical literature promoting electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for every pregnancy. The modern-day EFM advocates acknowledge EFM’s decades long failure but simultaneously recommend EFM use for lawsuit protection and because the profession has used EFM for every pregnancy for fifty years, therefore, it must be efficacious. These self-indulgent, illogical rationalizations ignore the half century of evidence-based scientific research proving that EFM is a complete failure as well as ignoring the fact that continued EFM use violates the fundamental principles of modern bioethics. This blind advocacy perpetuates four pernicious EFM harms occurring to mothers, babies, and the medical profession itself. This article sets out these four EFM harms with the goal of abolishing the misguided, illogical, contradictory, arguments used by the twenty-first century EFM Lewis Carroll mimics.


1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-91
Author(s):  
Myra Gerson Gilfix

AbstractElectronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has been criticized as ineffective, unsafe and costly. Despite existing controversy regarding the risks involved in using EFM, this monitoring procedure continues to be widely employed. In many jurisdictions, in fact, the use of EFM during labor may be considered the customary practice. This Article analyzes the medical and legal issues arising from a physician's use of or failure to use EFM. The Author argues that EFM subjects the mother and the fetus to risks which may be avoided if auscultation, a less intrusive monitoring technique, is employed. The ‘customary practice’ standard of care, the ordinary negligence standard of care, and the ‘best judgment’ and ‘duty to keep abreast’ standards of care are compared and applied to the physician's decision to use EFM. The Author contends that physicians who employ auscultation may not be liable for failing to use EFM; however, physicians who use EFM despite the evidence of its risks may be liable for failing to ‘keep abreast’ or to use their ‘best judgment’ or for negligence. Finally, the Author contends that both physicians and their patients are best protected when the physician elicits the mother's informed consent to employ a particular monitoring technique during labor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document