Practices During Labor
Kathleen Rice Simpson, PhD, RNC, FAAN
The Context & Clinical Evidence for
Common Nursing
T
he current state of intrapartum nursing practice is the result of an evolution of knowledge and tech-nologies since childbirth moved from home to the hospital. However, much of what we do is still based on nonscientific routines (Enkin et al., 2000). We know that childbirth is a natural physiologic process, but it’s often hard to keep this concept in clear focus when practicing in the high-tech clinical environments that characterize most busy labor and delivery units in the United States today. What is clear is that the evidence for some of these high-tech practices is lacking.Excellent intrapartum care requires a team effort. Mem-bers of the interdisciplinary perinatal team have comple-mentary, and sometimes overlapping, roles and responsi-bilities. Although many nursing interventions during labor and birth are based on physician orders, there are many care processes that remain mainly within the realm of nursing practice. For example, women are admitted to the labor and delivery unit by physicians with the assumption that nurses will carefully monitor the mother and baby during the labor process. Nurses identify maternal-fetal risk factors on admission and plan the type and amount of assessment based on both those initial data and ongoing data gathered as labor progresses. The decision for labor induction or augmentation rests with the physician, while titration of the oxytocin infusion is often based on the
nurse’s assessment of labor progress and the maternal-fe-tal response. In many institutions, nurses identify when second-stage labor has begun and choose the method of second-stage care. They remain at the bedside during sec-ond-stage pushing, encouraging the mother in her efforts to effect fetal descent, and notify the physician when birth is imminent.
The focus of review of evidence in this article is on the three most common clinical practices for which nurses have primary responsibility in most settings. These practices comprise the majority of nursing time spent caring for women during labor: (1) maternal-fetal assessment, (2) management of oxytocin infusions, and (3) second-stage care. Evidence exists about these nursing interventions that can be used to promote maternal-fetal well-being, minimize risk, and enhance patient safety. In many cases, particularly in community hospitals, routine physician orders for intra-partum care provide wide latitude for nurses in how they ultimately carry out those orders (James, Simpson, & Knox, 2003). Before evaluating evidence for common nurs-ing practices durnurs-ing labor, it’s worthwhile to consider the context or practice model in which those practices occur.
Intrapartum Nursing Care Models
The model of intrapartum nursing care in each institution significantly determines how much nursing autonomy is
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to review the context and current evidence for common nurs-ing care practices durnurs-ing labor and birth. Although many nursnurs-ing interventions durnurs-ing labor and birth are based on physician orders, there are a number of care processes that are mainly within the realm of nursing practice. In many cases, particularly in community hospitals, routine physician orders for intrapartum care provide wide latitude for nurses in how they ultimately carry out those orders. An important consideration of common nurs-ing practices durnurs-ing labor is the context or practice model in which those practices occur. Nursing practice is not the same in all clinical environments. Intrapartum nursing practice consists of an assortment of different roles depending on the circumstances, hospital set-ting, and context in which it takes place. A variety of intrapartum nursing practice models have evolved as a result and in response to the range of sizes, locations, and provider prac-tice styles found in hospitals providing obstetric services. A summary of intrapartum nurs-ing models is presented. The evidence is reviewed for the three most common clinical practices for which nurses have primary responsibility in most settings and that comprise the majority of their time in caring for women during labor: (1) maternal-fetal assessment, (2) management of oxytocin infusions, and (3) second-stage care. Evidence exists for these nursing interventions that can be used to promote maternal-fetal well-being, minimize risk, and enhance patient safety.
Key Words: Models of intrapartum nursing practice; Labor and birth; Evidence-based
involved in caring for women during labor and birth, yet no evidence exists as to which model is best for patients and members of the perinatal healthcare team (James et al., 2003). Intrapartum nursing is generally thought of and de-scribed as a discrete area of nursing practice with a specific set of clinical skills, requisite knowledge, and responsibili-ties, that is, a recognized and universally defined specialty. In reality, however, intrapartum nursing practice consists of an assortment of different roles depending on the circum-stances, hospital setting, and context in which it takes place. A variety of practice models have evolved as a result and in response to the range of sizes, locations, and provider practice styles found in hospitals providing obstet-ric services. A summary of intrapartum nursing models is presented in Figure 1.
Most inpatient institutions in the United States are com-munity hospitals. Of the 3,024 U.S. hospitals that provide obstetric care, only 241 are academic medical centers (Amer-ican Hospital Association, 2005). Fifty percent of hospitals in the United States that provide obstetric care have less than 500 births per year (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG] & American Society of Anesthesiol-ogists [ASA], 2000). Based on these data, it can be assumed that nurse-managed labor is the predominant model of intra-partum nursing care in the United States; however, research about interventions during labor and birth is more likely to be conducted in academic centers.
A fundamental determinant of each nursing care model is the predominant type (face-to-face on-site versus off-site
via telephone) and amount of communi-cation that occurs between the labor nurse and the primary healthcare provider. Other key distinctions between models in-clude the amount and type of hands-on assessment and care by the labor nurse and the primary care provider. Limited nurse-physician communication and lim-ited hands-on care by primary care providers suggests additional nursing dis-cretion in making clinical decisions; thus, increasing amounts of nursing autonomy are required (Kramer & Schmalenberg, 2003). The distinctions between intra-partum nursing models are not mutually exclusive. Within a given clinical setting, multiple degrees of intrapartum nursing autonomy simultaneously coexist depend-ing on the primary care provider for each patient.
Terms to describe perinatal services such as labor-delivery-recovery (LDR), la-bor-delivery-recovery-postpartum (LDRP), single-room maternity care (SRMC), labor and delivery, well-baby nursery, special care nursery, neonatal intensive care, an-tepartum, postpartum, etc., are usually as-sumed to be indicative of the practice model but in reality often just reflect the physical layout of the unit. With the wide variety of descriptive terms and set-tings discussed in the literature, it is difficult to determine whether one type of care model promotes better outcomes as compared with another. Published research reports about intrapartum nursing practice have not routinely provided descriptions of the model of nursing care on the units in which nursing interventions were studied (Corbett & Callis-ter, 2000; Gale, Fothergill-Bourbonnais & Chamberlain, 2001; Hodnett et al., 2002; Miltner, 2002; Sleutel, 2000).
For the most part, intrapartum nursing practice has been considered monolithic and homogenous by nurse re-searchers; however, this assumption is not valid. Perhaps previous published research results would have been differ-ent if data had been analyzed based on the practice model of the units studied. Although one recent study suggests nurses working in the nurse-managed labor model enjoy autonomy in practice (James et al., 2003), it is not known if labor nurses would select one care model over another if they were given a choice and had sufficient knowledge of alternative models available. Likewise, there are no data available concerning patient preferences for a distinct mod-el of nursing care. These are important questions that should be evaluated by nurse researchers. Future research about intrapartum nursing practice should include clear de-scriptions of the model of the units in which study inter-ventions were implemented. This factor could have impor-tant implications for generalizability of findings and appli-cation to specific clinical practice.
Nurse-managed labor model
Communication is limited to “as needed” between the labor nurse and the physician who may be in the office or at home. The labor nurse is in a relatively autonomous role, making many key clinical decisions during the labor process and providing the majority of hands-on clinical care.
Academic/teaching model
Resident physicians in training and faculty attending physicians are present on the labor unit. Nurses do not routinely perform vaginal examinations to assess the progress of labor; rather, these examinations are part of the resident learning process. Nurses are encouraged to communicate primarily with the resident physi-cians about labor management decisions rather than with attending physiphysi-cians. Resident physicians in consultation with their faculty attending physicians make many of the decisions about labor management. The nurse and resident physician share responsibility for hands-on clinical care.
Nurse-attending physician communication on-site model
There is an attending physician in-house covering all women in labor or attending physicians for each practice group designate a physician from the group to be in-house to cover their patients in labor. The labor nurse and the attending physician collaborate on labor management decisions and have the ability to communicate in person. The nurse provides the majority of hands-on clinical care.
Nurse-nurse midwife communication on-site model
There is a nurse midwife in-house covering their patients in labor. The labor nurse and the nurse midwife collaborate on labor management decisions and have the ability to communicate in person. The nurse and nurse midwife share responsibility for hands-on clinical care.
Based on James, Simpson, & Knox, 2003.
Intrapartum Nursing Care Practices
Maternal-Fetal Assessment During Labor Maternal
There have been no randomized trials comparing type and amount of nursing assessment for women during labor. In-dividual unit protocols are based on established routines and what seems to make sense based on perceived patient needs and staffing availability. Usually, protocols for fetal assessment are linked to maternal assessment and include vital signs, uterine activity, how the woman is tolerating la-bor, and her level of pain. In an attempt to gather all of the data required, nurses often use automatic blood pressure (BP) devices and pulse oximeters to mechanically record maternal vital signs and leave them in place continuously during labor. With the widespread use of fetal monitors that assess maternal vitals signs simultaneously, this prac-tice has become more common. However, there are data to suggest that these devices do not provide accurate clinical information in this population.
During pregnancy, labor, and the postpartum period, use of a manual BP cuff and stethoscope is the more accurate method of assessing BP. Automatic BP devices tend to over-estimate systolic BP by 4 to 6 mmHg and underover-estimate di-astolic BP by 10 mmHg when used for childbearing women (Brown et al., 1994; Franx et al., 1994; Natarajan et al., 1999; Pomini, 2001). Inaccuracies in BP data can lead to in-appropriate treatment. For example, a diastolic BP of 95 mmHg obtained by a nurse using a manual
BP cuff and stethoscope would be recorded as 85 mmHg by an automatic BP device; thus, with this practice an elevated BP would potentially be missed and not treated appropriately or in a timely manner. In con-trast, an underestimated diastolic BP could result in treatment for hypotension follow-ing epidural dosage, potentially leadfollow-ing to fetal compromise if a vasopressor is given for hypotension that does not actually exist. There is the perception that use of con-tinuous pulse oximetry will assist with
dis-tinguishing between the maternal and fetal heart rate and decrease liability by producing an uninterrupted recording of both rates permanently on the fetal monitoring strip. Pulse oximeters are designed to measure oxygen saturation (SpO2) rather than heart rate. They are subject to variations
in accuracy due to placement, maternal position, blood flow, and the patient’s condition. Often they produce inac-curate data for some time before noted by the nurse because the data are automatically generated and printed on the strip while the nurse is away from the bedside. When peri-ods of inaccurately recorded low SpO2readings are
accom-panied by nonreassuring fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns, there is increased liability risk. Claims that the mother was inadequately oxygenated when low SpO2readings occurred during nonreassuring FHR patterns have been made
suc-cessfully in obstetric malpractice cases. Although during re-al-time recording on the fetal monitoring strip the data from the pulse oximetry are lighter than the FHR, when printed from the electronic archival system later as part of the retro-spective review process that occurs during litigation these maternal and fetal data are virtually indistinguishable. In-ability to distinguish between the rates during retrospective review is an additional source of liability.
Direct bedside evaluation of maternal status should co-incide with times of assessment data recorded in the med-ical record. When these data are automatmed-ically generated in the nurse’s absence, there is no ability to retrospectively know whether maternal conditions at that time could have contributed to the findings. For example, the mother may have repositioned herself or may be having a uterine con-traction when the BP device is activated, or the BP cuff and/or pulse oximeter may be malpositioned. These factors affect device accuracy.
There is no evidence or standards for routine continuous use of automatic devices for maternal assessment during la-bor; preliminary data even suggest that they can be a liabil-ity risk. Studies about maternal discomfort and activliabil-ity re-striction with their use do not exist; however, anyone who has had their BP assessed by an automatic BP device can appreciate the discomfort, multiplied by the number of times these devices activate during labor, particularly if they are set for every 5- to 15-minute assessments. When women in labor are attached to multiple devices, their abil-ity to reposition for comfort is likely limited and they may
fear that their movement will affect the monitors. Routine use of automatic maternal vital sign assessment devices during labor should be questioned.
Fetal
The basis for the traditionally recommended fetal assess-ment frequencies during labor is a series of randomized controlled trials comparing intermittent auscultation (IA) and continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) that were conducted after the introduction of EFM into clinical practice (American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] & ACOG, 2002). When using protocols that included one-to-one nursing assessment of FHR patterns every 15 minutes during the active phase of the first stage of labor and every 5 minutes during the second stage of labor for patients
Routine use of automatic
maternal vital sign assessment
devices during labor should
be questioned.
with and without identified risk factors, no differences were found in the rate of intrapartum fetal deaths (AAP & ACOG, 2002). However, rates of cesarean births were in-creased in women who were monitored via EFM. Despite these findings, continuous EFM (rather than IA) is the most common obstetric procedure in the United States (Kozak, Hall, & Owings, 2002). Recently, ACOG (2005) changed its long-standing guidelines for fetal assessment during labor. IA is no longer recommended for women with high-risk conditions, and the frequency for fetal as-sessment using IA for women without identified risk ftors has been increased to every 15 minutes during the ac-tive phase of first-stage labor and every 5 minutes during second-stage labor. There are many reasons for the di-chotomy between evidence and clinical practice for fetal as-sessment during labor, including lack of financial resources to support one-to-one nursing care required for IA, lack of an adequate number of perinatal nurses in some areas, lack of knowledge for how to perform IA, lack of patient choice in many institutions, and liability concerns (Priddy, 2004; Wood, 2003).
Despite the problems with the sensitivity and specificity of EFM in detecting fetuses who are “in distress,” there are some FHR patterns that most experts would agree warrant close observation, and in some cases, emergent birth (ACOG & AAP, 2003; Freeman, Garite, & Nageotte, 2003). FHR patterns that may suggest that the fetus is pressed, hypoxic, or acidotic include recurrent variable de-celerations that become progressively deeper or longer last-ing (generally <70 beats per minute and lastlast-ing >60 sec-onds) and show persistent slow return to baseline, recur-rent late decelerations, prolonged decelerations, sinusoidal patterns, bradycardia, and absent baseline variability (ACOG & AAP, 2003; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop, 1997). Variability of the FHR, evolution of the pattern, and association with clinical events are important addition-al considerations (Fox, Kilpatrick, King, & Parer, 2000). Labor nurses should be aware of the potential significance of these types of FHR patterns and initiate appropriate in-terventions based on the pattern displayed.
The evidence for appropriate intrauterine resuscitation techniques when the FHR pattern is nonreassuring could be more robust; however, there is enough evidence to sug-gest that the following interventions do improve fetal well-being to some extent (based on the individual clinical
situa-tion): (1) lateral maternal repositioning, (2) an intravenous fluid bolus of lactated Ringer’s solution, (3) oxygen admin-istration at 10 L per nonrebreather face mask, (4) amnioin-fusion, (5) correction of maternal hypotension, and (6) duction of uterine activity (discontinuation of oxytocin, re-moval of dinoprostone insert, terbutaline .25 mg subcuta-neously) (ACOG, 2005; Freeman et al., 2003; Simpson & James, 2005b). In selected cases, especially if there is a cat-astrophic event such as placental abruption, uterine rup-ture, umbilical cord prolapse, or ruptured vasa previa, an emergent birth is the best option to rescue the fetus (AAP & ACOG, 2002; ACOG & AAP, 2003; Freeman et al., 2003). Labor nurses are often the first members of the peri-natal team to identify and initiate intrauterine resuscitation techniques, and their ability to notify other providers to set in motion what needs to be accomplished to promote fetal well-being and protect the fetus from harm is critical.
Although fetal assessment is a shared responsibility, peri-natal nurses and our professional association (Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses [AWHONN]) have traditionally devoted far more attention to education on this topic than our physician colleagues. In most institutions, nurses are required to regularly attend fe-tal monitoring classes on an annual or at least biannual ba-sis, while many physicians have not attended an educational program about EFM since their residency. Since nurses and physicians are jointly responsible for fetal assessment and communicate daily about fetal status via EFM, development of programs that include expectations for attendance of both physicians and nurses together has merit and could promote patient safety (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [JCAHO], 2004).
Oxytocin for Induction and Augmentation of Labor Because of the lack of knowledge about the exact physiolo-gy of labor, it is difficult to determine the optimal dosages necessary to induce labor or correct abnormal labor with artificial pharmacologic agents (Simpson, 2002). Each woman has individual myometrial sensitivity to oxytocin (Ulmsten, 1997). The primary goals are to achieve ade-quate progress of labor using the lowest possible dose with the fewest side effects and to have continued evidence of maternal-fetal well-being. During the initial incremental phase of oxytocin administration (first 1.5 to 2 hours), uterine contractions will progressively increase in frequency and duration (Phaneuf, Rodriguez-Linares, TambyRaja,
The approach to intravenous oxytocin administration associated
with the fewest side effects is to begin at 0.5 to 1 mU per minute
and increase by 1 to 2 mU per minute at intervals no less than every
30 to 40 minutes until active labor is achieved.
MacKenzie, & Lopez-Bernal, 2000). Once the stable phase has been reached (after 3.5 to 4.5 hours of administration), any further increase in dosage will not result in more fre-quent normal uterine activity, but rather a risk of medica-tion side effects such as hyperstimulamedica-tion and nonreassur-ing FHR changes (Phaneuf et al., 2000). Uterine oxytocin receptor sites decrease significantly during prolonged oxy-tocin-induced or augmented labor compared to sponta-neous labor. This desensitization is directly related to oxy-tocin dosage rate and length of administration (Phaneuf et al., 2000). Thus, although it seems counterintuitive to many practitioners, more exogenous oxytocin does not re-sult in more effective contractions.
The approach to intravenous oxytocin administration associated with the fewest side effects is to begin at 0.5 to 1 mU per minute and increase by 1 to 2 mU per minute at intervals no less than every 30 to 40 minutes until active la-bor is achieved (ACOG, 1999; Crane & Young, 1998; Simpson, 2002). There is a cumulative body of evidence to suggest that using oxytocin at high rates, increasing the dosage at intervals inconsistent with basic pharmacologic principles (less than every 30 to 40 minutes), and causing uterine hyperstimulation will not result in a clinically signif-icant decrease in the length of labor (Crane & Young, 1998; Daniel-Spiegel, Weiner, Ben-Shlomo & Shalev, 2004). Multiple clinical studies and current data based on physiologic and pharmacologic principles have shown that 90% of pregnant women at term will have labor success-fully induced with less than 6 mU per minute of oxytocin (Daniel-Spiegel et al., 2004; Simpson, 2002).
A meta-analysis of low-dose versus high-dose oxytocin for labor induction by Crane and Young (1998) found that low-dose protocols resulted in fewer episodes of excessive uterine activity, fewer operative vaginal births, a higher rate of spontaneous vaginal birth, and a lower rate of cesarean birth. Pharmacologic agents increase the risk of uterine hy-perstimulation, nonreassuring FHR due to hyperstimula-tion, and cesarean birth for nonreassuring FHR patterns (ACOG, 1999; Crane, Young, Butt, Bennett, & Hutchens, 2001; Rayburn, 2002). Since 50% of hyperstimulation re-sults in a nonreassuring FHR pattern (Rayburn, 2002), this is a significant concern for the nurse who is responsible for titrating the oxytocin infusion to labor progress and the maternal-fetal response (Clayworth, 2000).
Often during oxytocin infusion, nurses are focused on the rate increase section of the protocol while ignoring the clinical criteria for dosage increases (Simpson & Atterbury, 2003). For example, if cervical effacement is occurring or if the woman is progressing in labor at approximately 1 cm per hour, there is no need to increase the oxytocin rate, even if contractions appear to be mild and infrequent. La-bor progress and maternal-fetal response to the drug should be the primary considerations (Simpson, 2002). When there is evidence of a nonreassuring FHR pattern or contractions are excessive in strength and/or frequency, the dosage should be decreased or discontinued based on the individual clinical situation. Although recommended
nurse-to-patient staffing is 1:2 while caring for women receiving oxytocin (AAP & ACOG, 2002), providing the type of in-tensive nursing care required to carefully monitor more than one mother and baby is often difficult. Failure to rec-ognize and timely treat hyperstimulation and resultant non-reassuring FHR patterns is a significant source of successful claims against physicians, nurses, and healthcare institu-tions (Simpson & Knox, 2003).
Second-Stage Labor
There are two methods of nursing care when the second stage of labor begins. One method is to coach the woman to push immediately and the other method is to allow pas-sive fetal descent until the woman feels the urge to push. The immediate pushing method involves instructing the woman to hold her breath while pushing three to four times with each contraction while the nurse counts to 10 to help the woman focus on pushing for at least 10 seconds with each pushing effort. Women are told to bring their knees up to their chest with their elbows outstretched and not to make a sound. The Valsalva maneuver is instituted, resulting in an increase in intrathoracic pressure, impaired blood return from the lower extremities, and initially in-creased and then dein-creased blood pressure, resulting in a decrease in blood flow to the placenta (Caldeyro-Barcia et al., 1981). Periods of 9 to 15 seconds of closed-glottis pushing results in a decrease in maternal pO2and increase
in pCO2, thus affecting the pO2and pCO2of blood flow to the placenta and ultimately to the fetus (Caldeyro-Barcia
i Avoid the use of automatic blood pressure devices during labor.
i Promote intermittent auscultation for fetal assessment during labor.
i Evaluate the fetal heart rate (FHR) based on patterns that are known to suggest fetal compromise, pattern evolution, and clinical context.
i Initiate appropriate intrauterine resuscitation techniques in a timely manner based on the FHR pattern.
i Use the lowest dose of oxytocin possible to promote ade-quate labor progress.
i Avoid hyperstimulation of uterine activity, and if it occurs, treat in a timely manner.
i Allow passive fetal descent during second-stage labor until the woman feels the urge to push.
i Avoid coached closed-glottis pushing techniques; allow the woman to bear down as long as she feels is appropriate.
Figure 2.
Recommended clinical practices
based on available evidence.
et al., 1981). Over the course of the average 2-hour second stage, these maternal hemodynamic changes have the po-tential to have a progressive negative effect on fetal status (Bassell, Shaesta, Humayun, & Marx, 1980; Nordstrom, Achanna, Nuka, & Arulkumaran, 2001).
Coached closed-glottis pushing beginning at 10-cm cer-vical dilation and continuing until birth has been used more frequently in the last 15 years since the increased inci-dence of epidural anesthesia, yet it has no scientific basis (Roberts, 2002). Proponents of this method intuitively be-lieve that it results in a clinically significant shortening of the second stage and decreases risk of cesarean birth; how-ever, results of recent randomized clinical trials do not sup-port these beliefs (Fraser et al., 2000; Hansen, Clark, & Foster, 2002; Mayberry, Hammer, Kelly, True-Driver, & De, 1999; Parnell, Langhoff-Roos, Iversen, & Damgaard, 1993; Vause, Congdon, & Thornton, 1998).
In an alternative but less common approach (also known as “laboring down,” “passive descent,” and “physiologic second stage”), pushing is delayed until the woman feels the urge to push, passive fetal descent is allowed, and open-glottis pushing is encouraged when the woman reports the urge to push. If the fetus has not descended sufficiently after a 2-hour period of passive fetal descent, the woman is en-couraged to grunt without holding her breath (open-glottis) and bear down during contractions. There is no count to 10 or instruction to hold her breath. No more than three push-es are encouraged with each contraction and the woman bears down as long as she feels the urge (AWHONN, 2000; Roberts, 2002). This method has been found to be as effec-tive in aiding fetal descent as traditional closed-glottis push-ing, but without the negative maternal hemodynamic impli-cations of the Valsalva maneuver and its effects on fetal sta-tus such as FHR decelerations, hypoxemia, and abnormal acid-base changes (AWHONN, 2000; Mayberry, Wood, et
al., 2000; Roberts, 2002; Simpson & James, 2005a). Additional benefits include less operative vaginal births, less maternal fatigue, less perineal trauma, protection of the pelvic floor, and avoid-ance of incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in the future (Fraser et al., 2000; Handa, Harris, & Ostergard, 1996; Hansen et al., 2002; May-berry, Gennaro, Strange, Williams, & De, 1999; Sampselle & Hines, 1999; Schaffer et al., 2005). An evidence-based practice resource with a re-view of the literature and recommendations for second-stage nursing care has been published by AWHONN (2000). Although more data are needed about all aspects of second-stage care, there is enough evidence to support delayed push-ing until the woman feels the urge to push and avoiding coached closed-glottis pushing and the supine lithotomy position (Roberts, 2002). These practices will not increase risk of cesarean birth or result in a clinically significant lengthening of the second stage (Fraser et al., 2000; Hansen et al., 2002; Mayberry, Hammer, et al., 1999).
Summary
Recommendations for these three common nursing prac-tices during labor based on the evidence to date are listed in Figure 2. Clearly there is a need for more evidence about our intrapartum care practices, and since nurses provide the majority of this care, nurses are in an ideal situation to conduct meaningful studies. The foundation for safe and effective nursing care during labor and birth should be the results of rigorous research. Science rather routine should guide what we do every day. We have a collective obliga-tion to keep mothers and babies safe during the childbirth process. Nursing practices based on solid evidence will con-tribute to our ability to fulfill this responsibility. Sugges-tions for future nursing research on these important topics are listed in Figure 3. Nurses in the clinical setting should explore partnership with their colleagues in the academic setting to design and conduct research studies that will add to what is known about how to provide the most optimal care for mothers and babies during labor and birth. <
Kathleen Rice Simpson, PhD, RNC, FAAN, is a Peri-natal Clinical Nurse Specialist, St. John’s Mercy Medical Center, St. Louis, MO, and an Editorial Board Member of MCN. Dr. Simpson can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
References
American Academy of Pediatrics & American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2002). Guidelines for perinatal care (5th ed.). Elk-grove Village, IL: Author.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2005). Intrapartum
fetal heart rate monitoring. (Practice Bulletin No. 62). Washington, DC:
Author.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (1999). Induction of
labor. (Practice Bulletin No. 10). Washington, DC: Author.
Intrapartum practice models
i Do nurses prefer one model over another?
i Would women choose one model over another if fully informed? i Does one model promote better outcomes for mothers and babies?
Maternal-fetal assessment
i How often should maternal vital signs be assessed during low-risk labor? i Is intermittent auscultation during labor feasible in the current conditions
in labor and delivery units in the United States?
Oxytocin during labor induction and augmentation
i How would a nursing protocol of increasing the rate of oxytocin only if there has been no cervical change within the last hour and contractions are not of adequate frequency and intensity affect the length of labor? i Would this type of protocol result in less uterine hyperstimulation and/or
nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns?
Second-stage labor care
i What strategies would be effective to convince all members of the peri-natal team to adopt second-stage practices based on available evidence?
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists & American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy:
Defin-ing the pathogenesis and pathophysiology. WashDefin-ington, DC: Authors.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists & American Soci-ety of Anesthesiologists. (2001). Optimal goals for anesthesia care in
obstetrics. (Committee Opinion No. 256). Washington, DC: Author.
American Hospital Association. (2005). Directory of America’s hospitals. Chicago, IL: Author.
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. (2000).
Nursing management of the second stage of labor. (Evidence-based
clinical practice guideline). Washington, DC: Author.
Bassell, G. M., Shaesta, G., Humayun, M. B., & Marx, G. F. (1980). Mater-nal bearing down: Another fetal risk. Obstetrics and Gynecology,
56(1), 39-41.
Brown, M. A., Reiter, L., Smith, B., Buddle, M. L., Morries, R., & White-worth, J. A. (1994). Measuring blood pressure in pregnant women: A comparison of direct and indirect methods. American Journal of
Ob-stetrics and Gynecology, 171(3), 661-667.
Caldeyro-Barcia, R., Giussi, G., Storch, E., Poseiro, J. J., Kettenhuber, K., & Ballejo, G. (1981). The bearing down efforts and their effects on fetal heart rate, oxygenation, and acid-base balance. Journal of Perinatal
Medicine, 9(Suppl. 1), 63-67.
Clayworth, S. (2000). The nurse’s role during oxytocin administration.
MCN The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 25, 80-85.
Corbett, C. A., & Callister, L. C. (2000). Nursing support during labor.
Clini-cal Nursing Research, 9(1), 70-83.
Crane, J. M., & Young, D. C. (1998). Meta-analysis of low-dose versus high-dose oxytocin for labour induction. Journal of the Society of
Ob-stetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, 20(13), 1215-1223.
Crane, J. M., Young, D. C., Butt, K. D., Bennett, K. A., & Hutchens, D. (2001). Excessive uterine activity accompanying induced labor.
Ob-stetrics and Gynecology, 97(6), 926-931.
Daniel-Spiegel, E., Weiner, S., Ben-Shlomo, I., & Shalev, E. (2004). For how long should oxytocin be continued during induction of labour?
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 111(4), 331-334.
Enkin, M., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Neilson, J., Crowther, C., Duley, L., Hodnett, E., et al. (2000). A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fox, M., Kilpatrick, S., King, T., & Parer, J. T. (2000). Fetal heart rate moni-toring: Interpretation and collaborative management. Journal of
Mid-wifery and Women’s Health, 45(6), 498-507.
Franx, A., van der Post, J. A. M., Elfering, I. M., Veerman, D. P., Merkus, H. M. W. M., Boer, K., et al. (1994). Validation of automatic blood pres-sure recording in pregnancy. British Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynae-cology, 101(10), 66-69.
Fraser, W. D., Marcoux, S., Krauss, I., Douglas, J., Goulet, C., & Boulvain, M., for the PEOPLE (Pushing Early or Pushing Late with Epidurals) Study Group. (2000). Multicenter randomized controlled trial of de-layed pushing for nulliparous women in the second stage of labor with continuous epidural analgesia. American Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, 182(5), 1165-1172.
Freeman, R. K., Garite, T. J., & Nageotte, M. P. (2003). Fetal heart rate
mon-itoring (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Gale, J., Fothergill-Bourbonnais, F., & Chamberlain, M. (2001). Measuring nursing support during childbirth. MCN The American Journal of
Ma-ternal Child Nursing, 26(5), 264-271.
Handa, V. L., Harris, T. A., & Ostergard, D. R. (1996). Protecting the pelvic floor: Obstetric management to prevent incontinence and pelvic or-gan prolapse. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 88(3), 470-478.
Hansen, S. L., Clark, S. L., & Foster, J. C. (2002). Active pushing versus passive fetal descent in the second stage of labor: A randomized con-trolled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 99(1), 29-34.
Hodnett, E. D., Lowe, N. K., Hannah, M. E., Willan, A. R., Stevens, B., West-on, J. A., et al. (2002). Effectiveness of nurses as providers of labor support in North American hospitals: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(11), 1373-1381.
James, D. C., Simpson, K. R., & Knox, G. E. (2003). How do expert labor nurses view their role? Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and
Neona-tal Nursing, 32(6), 814-823.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. (2004).
Preventing infant death and injury during delivery. (Sentinel Event
Alert No. 30), Oak Brook, IL: Author.
Kozak, L. J., Hall, M. J., & Owings, M. F. (2002). National hospital dis-charge survey 2002: Annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. National Center for Health Statistics, 13(153), 1-203. Kramer, M., & Schmalenberg, C. E. (2003). Magnet hospital staff nurses
describe clinical autonomy. Nursing Outlook, 51(1), 13-19.
Mayberry, L. J., Gennaro, S., Strange, L., Williams, M., & De, A. (1999). Ma-ternal fatigue: Implications of second stage nursing care. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 28(2), 175-181.
Mayberry, L. J., Hammer, R., Kelly, C., True-Driver, B., & De, A. (1999). Use of delayed pushing with epidural anesthesia: Findings from a random-ized controlled trial. Journal of Perinatology, 19(1), 26-30.
Mayberry, L. J., Wood, S. H., Strange, L. B., Lee, L., Heisler, D. R., & Niel-son-Smith, K. (2000). Second stage labor management: Promotion of
evidence-based practice and a collaborative approach to patient care.
(Practice Monograph). Washington, DC: Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses.
Miltner, R. S. (2002). More than labor support: Nursing interventions pro-vided to women in labor. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and
Neonatal Nursing, 31(6), 753-761.
Natarajan, P., Shennan, A. H., Penny, J., Halligan, A. W., de Swiet, M., & Anthony, J. (1999). Comparison of auscultatory and oscillometric automatic blood pressure monitors in the setting of preeclampsia.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181(5, Pt. 1),
1203-1210.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Plan-ning Workshop. (1997). Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: Research guidelines for interpretation. American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gy-necology, 177(6), 1385-1390, and Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 26(6), 635-640.
Nordstrom, L., Achanna, S., Nuka, K., & Arulkumaran, S. (2001). Fetal and maternal lactate increase during active second stage labour. British
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 108(3), 263-268.
Parnell, C., Langhoff-Roos, J., Iverson, R., & Damgaard, P. (1993). Pushing method in the expulsive phase of labor: A randomized trial. Acta
Ob-stetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 72(1), 31-35.
Phaneuf, S., Rodriguez-Linares, B., TambyRaja, R. L., MacKenzie, I. Z., & Lopez-Bernal, A. (2000). Loss of myometrial oxytocin receptors during oxytocin-induced and oxytocin-augmented labour. Journal of
Repro-duction and Fertility, 120(1), 91-97.
Pomini, F., Scavo, M., Ferrazzani, S., DeCarolis, S., Caruso, A., & Mancuso, S. (2001). There is poor agreement between manual auscultatory and automatic oscillometric methods for the measurement of blood pres-sure in normotensive pregnant women. Journal of Maternal-Fetal
Medicine, 10(6), 398-403.
Priddy, K. D. (2004). Is there logic behind fetal monitoring? Journal of
Ob-stetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 33(5), 550-553.
Rayburn, W. F. (2002). Preinduction cervical ripening: Basis and methods of current practice. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 57(10), 683-692. Roberts, J. E. (2002). The “push” for evidence: Management of the second
stage. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 47(1), 2-15. Sampselle, C., & Hines, S. (1999). Spontaneous pushing during
birth—rela-tionship to perineal outcomes. Journal of Nurse Midwifery, 44 (1), 36-39. Schaffer, J. I., Bloom, S. L., Casey, B. M., McIntire, D. D., Mihira, M. A., &
Leveno, K. J. (2005). A randomized trial of the effects of coached vs uncoached maternal pushing during second stage of labor on post-partum pelvic floor structure and function. American Journal of
Ob-stetrics and Gynecology, 192(5), 1692-1696.
Simpson, K. R. (2002). Cervical ripening and induction and augmentation
of labor. (Practice Monograph). Washington, DC: Association of
Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses.
Simpson, K. R., & Atterbury, J. (2003). Labor induction in the United States: Trends and issues for clinical practice. Journal of Obstetric,
Gy-necologic and Neonatal Nursing, 32(6), 767-779.
Simpson, K. R., & James, D. C. (2005a). Effects of immediate versus de-layed pushing during second-stage labor on fetal well-being: A ran-domized clinical trial. Nursing Research, 54(3), 149-157.
Simpson, K. R., & James, D. C. (2005b). Efficacy of intrauterine resuscita-tion techniques in improving fetal oxygen status during labor.
Obstet-rics and Gynecology, 105(6), 1362-1368.
Simpson, K. R., & Knox, G. E. (2003). Common areas of litigation related to care during labor and birth: Recommendations to promote patient safety and decrease risk exposure. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal
Nursing, 17(1), 110-125.
Sluetel, M. R. (2000). Intrapartum nursing care: A case study of supportive interventions and ethical conflicts. Birth, 27(1), 38-45.
Ulmsten, U. (1997). Onset and forces of term labor. Acta Obstetricia et
Gy-necologica Scandinavica, 76, 499-514.
Vause, S., Congdon, H. M., & Thornton, J. G. (1998). Immediate and de-layed pushing in the second stage of labour for nulliparous women with epidural analgesia: A randomized controlled trial. British Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 105(2), 186-188.
Wood, S. H. (2003). Should women be given a choice about fetal assess-ment in labor? MCN The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing,
