Download PDF
Hebamme 2020; 33(01): 59-65
DOI: 10.1055/a-1084-5255
Geburt
Fortbildung

Aussagekräftige Methoden zur Einschätzung des Geburtsfortschrittes

Franziska von Moers∗
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Bachelorarbeit | Angesichts hoher Interventionsraten bei Gebärenden mit niedrigem Ausgangsrisiko ist die Entscheidungsgrundlage für Interventionen neu zu hinterfragen. Die Beurteilung des Geburtsfortschrittes beeinflusst maßgeblich den Einsatz von Medikation und mechanischen Interventionen. Die vaginale Untersuchung als zentraler Parameter für das Voranschreiten der Geburt steht in der Fachwelt auf dem Prüfstand. Die Autorin identifiziert mögliche Alternativen zur Beurteilung des Geburtsfortschrittes und leitet Empfehlungen für die Geburtsbetreuung durch Hebammen ab.



Publication History

Article published online:
03 March 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Baker A, Kenner A. N. 1993; Communication of Pain: Vocalization as an Indicator of the Stage of Labour. australian new zealand journal obstetrics gynaecology, 33 (04) 384.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Berentson-Shaw J, Scott KM, Jose PE. 2009; Do sel-efficacy beliefs predict the pri-miparous labour and birth experience? A longitudinal study. J Reprod Infant Psychol; 27: 357-73
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Buchmann E. J, Libhaber E. 2007; Accuracy of cervical assessment in the active phase of labour. BJOG International Journal of Obstretics and Gynoaecology, 144: 833-837.
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Brancadoro M, Tognarelli S, Fambrini F, Ragusa A, Menciassi A. 2018 Devices for Measuring Cervical Dilation During Labor: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obtretrical and Gynecological survey,
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Bryne D. L, Edmonds D. K. 1990; Clinical method for evaluating progress in first stage of labour. The Lancet, 335: 122.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Chalubinski K. M. 2016. Normale Geburt. In: Schneider H, Husslein P, Schneider K. T. M. (Hrsg.), Die Geburtshilfe (S. . 663-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Davies L. 2011; Sitting next to Nellie: Vaginal examinations in normal labour. Essen-tially MIDIRS 2 (04) S. 38-42
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Dick-Read G. 2006. Childbirth without Fear. London: Pollinger.86). 2. Aufl.. Berlin: Springer;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Dixon L, Skinner J, Foureur M. 2014; The emotional journey of labourwomen’s per-spectives of the experience of labour moving towards birth. Midwifery 2014; 30: 371-7.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege (DNQP) & Verbund Heb-ammenforschung (Hrsg.). 2015. Expertinnenstandard Förderung der physiologischen Geburt. Osnabrück: Schriftenreihe des DNQP.;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Downe S, Gyte GM, Dahlen HG, Singata M. 2013. Routine vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term. , Cochraine Database systematic review;
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Georg J, Cignacco E. 2006. Hebammendiagnosen und deren Bedeutung für die Professionalisierung des Hebammenberufes.. In: Cignacco E. (Hrsg.), Hebammenarbeit. S. 255-281. Bern: Huber.;
  • 13 Hamilton E. F, Warrick P. A, Collins K, Smith S, Garite T. J. 2016; Assessing first-stage labor progression and its relationship to complications. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 214 (03) 358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.016
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hanley G. E, Munro S, Greyson D, Gross M. M, Hundley V, Spiby H, Janssen P. A. 2016 Diagnosing onset of labor: a systematic review of definitions in the research literature. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth,. 16. (03). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0857-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hodnett E. D, Gates S, Hofmeyr G. J, Sakala C, Weston J. 2011 Continous support for women during childbirth (Review): The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Library. 2. .
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Huhn K. A, Brost B. 2004; Accuracy of simulated cervical dilatation and efface-ment measurements among practitioners. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gyne-cology 191: 1797-1799.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 International Confederation of Midwives (ICM). 2017 International definition of the midwife. Aufgerufen unter: https: / /www.internationalmidwives.org/our-work/policy-and-practice/icm-definitions.html (letzter Zugriff am 11.03.2019).
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Karlsdottir S, Sveinsdottir H, Kristijansdottir H, Aspelund T, Olafsdottir O. 2017. Predictors of women’s positive childbirth pain experience: Findings from an Icelandic national, Women and Birth 31 (2018). e178-e184 , Elsevier;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kordi M, Irani M, Tara F, Esmaily H. 2014; The Diagnostic Accuracy of Purple Line in Prediction of Labor Progress in Omolbanin Hospital, Iran. Iranian Red Cresent Medical Journal, 16 (11) ): e16183.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Lavender T, Hart A, Smyth RM. 2013 Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 21 Leap N, Sandall J, Buckland S, Huber U. 2010 Journey to confidence: women’s experiences of pain in labour and relational continuity of care, Journal of Midwifery and women´s health, American College of Nurse-Midwives; Elsevier,
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 22 Lewis L. 2015. Fundamentals of Midwifery: A Textbook for Students. Chichester: Wiley.;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lindsay P, Bagness C, Peate I. 2018. Midwifery Skills at a Glance. Oxford: Wiley.;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Munro J, Jokinen M. 2012 Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour. Assessing Progress in Labour. The Royal College of Midwives Trust Retrieved from. http: / /www.rcm.org.uk/college/policy-practice/evidence-basedguidelines/ (Abgerufen am 13.06.2019)
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Narchi N. Z, Camargo J. C. S, Salim N. R, Menezes M. O, Bertolino M. M. 2011; Utilização da “linha púrpura” como método clínico auxiliar para avaliação da fase ativa do trabalho de parto. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil, 11 (03) 313-322. https: / /doi.org/10.1590/s1519-38292011000300012
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2014 Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth, clinical guideline 190.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Nizard J, Haberman S, Paltieli Y, Gonen R, Ohel G, Nicholson D, Ville Y. 2009 How reliable is the determination of cervical dilation? Comparison of vaginal examination with spatial position-tracking ruler. American Journal of obstretrics and gynecology,.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Nunes R. D, Locatelli P, Traebert J. 2018; Use of the purple line to diagnose cervical dilatation and fetal head station during labor, May; 141 (02) 250-251.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Odent M. 1992 Geburt und Stillen. Über die Natur elementarer Erfahrungen. Mün-chen. Beck
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Olza I, Leahy-Warren P, Benvamini Y, Kazmierczak M, Karlsdottir S, Spyridou A. et al. 2018 Women’s psychological experiences of physiological childbirth: a meta-synthesis, bjm open,
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 31 Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence (2009) - CEBM. (auf-gerufen unter: https: / /www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009 ,/,letzter Zugriff am 30.06.2019)
  • 32 Phelps J. Y, Higby K, Smyth M. H, Ward J. A, Arredondo F, Mayer A. R. 1995; Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 173 , 942-945.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Renfrew M. J, McFadden A, Bastos M. H, Campbell J, Channon A. A, Cheung Audebert, Delage Silva D. R, Downe S, Kennedy H. P, Malata A, McCormick F, Wick L, Declercq E, McCormick F. 2014; Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care,. The Lancet, 384 (9948), 1129-1145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Sheperd A, Cheyne H, Kennedy S, McIntosh C, Styles M, Niven C. 2010; The purple line as a measure of labour progress: a longitudal study. BMC Pregmancy and Childbirth. 10: 54-60.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Sheperd A, Cheyne H. 2011; The frequency and reasons for vaginal examinations in labour.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Simkin P, Klaus P. 2015. Wenn missbrauchte Frauen Mütter werden. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Torraco R. J. 2005; Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review 4 (03) 356-367.
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Walsh D. 2007. Evidence-based Care for Normal Labour and Birth: A guide for mid-wives. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Walsh D. (2010a): Labour rhythms vs labour progress: one final update. British Journal of Midwifery, 18 (08) S. 482
  • 40 World Health Organization (2018). WHO recommendations Intrapartum care for a posi-tive childbirth experience, Geneva: Licence: CCBY-NC-SA3.0IGO
  • 41 Zagami S. EMSC, Golmakani N. MSC, Ali-Reza Saadatjoo SMSC, Ghomian N. MD, Baghbani BBSC. 2013 The Shape of Uterine Contractions and Labor Pro-gress in the Spontaneous Active Labor. Iranian journal of medical sciences,. 40. (02). Ab-gerufen von https: / /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359943/
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar