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

IF 1.2 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Obstetrician & Gynaecologist Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1111/tog.12894
Gurnaaz Kahlon, Sophie Relph, Wai Yoong
{"title":"Information sharing and communication in management of large for gestational age babies in non‐diabetic mothers","authors":"Gurnaaz Kahlon, Sophie Relph, Wai Yoong","doi":"10.1111/tog.12894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":51862,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrician & Gynaecologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrician & Gynaecologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非糖尿病母亲大胎龄儿管理的信息共享与交流
关于如何在非糖尿病母亲中识别或处理大胎龄(LGA)胎儿,英国没有具体的指南。关于这些妇女和婴儿的最佳分娩方式和时间,以尽量减少可能的风险,有相互矛盾的证据。由于缺乏筛查和干预的结论性证据和指导,分娩前患者与临床医生对LGA婴儿的管理和分娩模式的讨论可能具有挑战性,但这对于促进信息共享、咨询和协作决策至关重要。决策工具可以帮助促进这些讨论,并确保“重大风险”得到讨论。学习目标了解现有方法筛选LGA胎儿的局限性,特别是腹底联合高度和超声估计胎儿体重。了解产科干预措施缺乏强有力的证据,这使得难以以实际和有用的方式传达明确的信息。考虑使用决策工具(如BRAIN和iDECIDE),这些工具可以为共同决策提供框架,特别是在证据有限或相互矛盾的情况下。这些工具提供了一种结构,使患者能够权衡信息,并协助临床医生在根据蒙哥马利裁决进行咨询时确定哪些是“重大风险”。蒙哥马利的裁决建议医生必须讨论拟议治疗中涉及的任何“重大风险”,并提供其他合理的替代方案。因此,临床医生有责任对缺乏强有力的证据来推荐一种分娩方式而不是另一种分娩方式保持透明,但同时承认需要探索个人偏好和看法,以实现个性化决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Obstetrician & Gynaecologist
Obstetrician & Gynaecologist OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
自引率
7.10%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
A focus on progestogens in hormone replacement therapy Re: Advanced abdominal pregnancy: challenges, update and review current management What's new in guidance: Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) update What I've learnt… with Prof James Drife CPD questions for volume 25 issue 4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1