Impacted foetal head at caesarean section: a national survey of practice and training

This is a national survey of UK obstetric trainees and consultant labour ward leads designed to investigate the current practice and training for an impacted foetal head (IFH) at Caesarean Section (CS). An anonymous, on-line survey was disseminated to trainees via Postgraduate Schools and RCOG trainee representatives, and to labour ward leads via their national network. Three hundred and forty-five obstetric trainees and consultants responded. The results show that IFH is variably defined and encountered by most UK obstetricians (98% had encountered IFH and 76% had experienced it before full cervical dilatation). There is significant variation in management strategies, although most respondents would use a vaginal push up to assist delivery prior to reverse breech extraction. Responses revealed a paucity of training and lack of confidence in disimpaction techniques: over one in ten respondents had not received any training for IFH and less than half had received instruction in reverse breech extraction.Impact statementWhat is already known on the subject? IFH is an increasingly recognised, technically challenging complication of intrapartum CS. A recent report suggested that birth injuries associated with IFH are now as common as with shoulder dystocia. However, there is no consensus nor guidelines regarding the best practice for management or training.What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrates that IFH is poorly defined and commonly encountered by UK obstetricians. It highlights that IFH is not restricted to CS at full dilatation and reveals the ubiquity of the vaginal push method in UK practice. We found evidence that UK obstetricians are using techniques which have not been investigated and are not recommended for managing an IFH. Moreover, this survey is an eye-opener as to the paucity of training, highlighting that UK obstetric trainees are not adequately prepared to manage this emergency.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There is a pressing need to standardise the definition, guidance and training for IFH at CS. Further research should clarify the appropriate techniques for IFH and establish consensus for the best practice. An evidence-based simulation training package, which allows clinicians to learn and practice recognised disimpaction techniques is urgently required. What is already known on the subject? IFH is an increasingly recognised, technically challenging complication of intrapartum CS. A recent report suggested that birth injuries associated with IFH are now as common as with shoulder dystocia. However, there is no consensus nor guidelines regarding the best practice for management or training. What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrates that IFH is poorly defined and commonly encountered by UK obstetricians. It highlights that IFH is not restricted to CS at full dilatation and reveals the ubiquity of the vaginal push method in UK practice. We found evidence that UK obstetricians are using techniques which have not been investigated and are not recommended for managing an IFH. Moreover, this survey is an eye-opener as to the paucity of training, highlighting that UK obstetric trainees are not adequately prepared to manage this emergency. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There is a pressing need to standardise the definition, guidance and training for IFH at CS. Further research should clarify the appropriate techniques for IFH and establish consensus for the best practice. An evidence-based simulation training package, which allows clinicians to learn and practice recognised disimpaction techniques is urgently required.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2020.1780422
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12850763.v1
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12850763
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12850763.v1
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01443615.2020.1780422
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01443615.2020.1780422
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2020.1780422
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12850763
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/3046100389
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Restricted
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Katie Cornthwaite, 0000-0002-5690-5656
Author Rachna Bahl
Author Erik Lenguerrand
Author Cathy Winter
Author John Kingdom
Author Tim Draycott
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From Datacite; figshare; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph
Hosted By figshare; Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Journal Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, null, null
Publication Date 2020-01-01
Publisher Informa UK Limited
Additional Info
Field Value
Language Undetermined
Resource Type Other literature type; Article
keyword FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences
keyword FOS: Health sciences
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::bc0eeed21e7099b7d83a0da4bd923c21
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 26 December 2020, 07:53 (CET)
Created 26 December 2020, 07:53 (CET)