Information sharing and communication in management of large for gestational age babies in non‐diabetic mothers

Author:

Kahlon Gurnaaz1,Relph Sophie2ORCID,Yoong Wai3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Speciality Trainee North Middlesex University Hospital Sterling Way London N18 1QX UK

2. Subspecialist Trainee in Maternal and Fetal Medicine University College Hospital 235 Euston Road London NW1 2BU UK

3. Consultant Obstetrician and Urogynaecologist North Middlesex University Hospital Sterling Way London N18 1QX UK

Abstract

Key content There is no specific UK guideline on how to identify or manage large for gestational age (LGA) fetuses in non‐diabetic mothers. There is conflicting evidence with regard to the optimal mode and timing of delivery in such women and babies in order to minimise the possible risks. Pre‐delivery patient–clinician discussion on management and mode of delivery in LGA babies can be challenging due to the lack of conclusive evidence and guidance for both screening and interventions, but it is crucial in order to facilitate information sharing, counselling and collaborative decision making. Decision‐making tools could help to facilitate these discussions and ensure ‘material risks’ are discussed. Learning objectives To be aware of the limitations of available methods for screening for LGA fetuses, specifically symphyseal fundal height and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. To understand the lack of robust evidence for obstetric interventions, which makes it difficult to convey clear information in a practical and useful way. To consider the use of decision‐making tools (such as BRAIN and iDECIDE), which can provide a framework for shared decision making, particularly when the evidence is limited or conflicting. These tools offer a structure which empowers patients to weigh up information as well as assist clinicians in determining what is considered ‘material risk’ when counselling in line with the Montgomery ruling. Ethical issues The Montgomery ruling advises that doctors must discuss any ‘material risks’ involved in a proposed treatment and offer other reasonable alternatives. Clinicians, therefore, have a duty to be transparent about the lack of strong evidence to recommend one mode of birth over another but at the same time acknowledge that individual preference and perceptions need to be explored to enable personalised decision making.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Medicine

Reference33 articles.

1. Reynolds et al., on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Care of Women with Obesity in Pregnancy;Denison FC;Green‐top Guideline No. 72. BJOG,2018

2. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of large for gestational age pregnancies

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3