Heart Rate Monitoring

[Deesalie]

During Julians birth, they put a heart rate monitor around my belly as they were "concerned".... meconium in my waters, stressed baby etc etc.

But I've been talking to a few other people who have birthed at the same hospy and it seems as though a heart rate monitor is the norm, for no particularly good reason.

Unfortunantely we don't have any birthing options here except for the hospy, so i was wondering... under what circumstances should a heart rate monitor be used. I want to be well prepared this time so I can put my foot down and have a birth that is not restricted to lying on the bed.

TIA

[lulu12345]

i dont know the official reasons for needing them but i think it varys, very much on the obstetriton that you get, i had to have one with my second because i was vbac thus they need to know if heart rate on baby drops as it will show the scar may be tearing,, if the waters had meconium in them they would definitly use it as that is a sign of distress and the heartrate would confirm distress or not, if you are preterm (small baby) they will do it to ensure baby isnt too stressed by labour,

i was lucky in that i had a midwife who let me move around with the monitor and i even got to take it off for a minute or two to have a shower but when the ob came in he went off telling her off for letting me up.

i think its in their training that it is the "safest" way to know what is happening with the baby but as my midwife argued it can be done every 15 minutes or so if neccessary its just scare mongering from the obs really. I think my midwife would have only used it once or twice if it hadnt have been for the ob as she was confident everything was fine, good luck with your search just thought id let you know what id had with bub no 2

[DePome]

I think it's only about 50% accurate anyway so there aren't going to be any good cases arguing anything like routine use of it.

[~jane~]

From memory there are studies that show constant monitoring does not significantly improve outcomes. Someone else might know more about the details of the study. Monitoring, while not physically invasive, is an intervention and the risks of having the intervention need to be considered in conjunction with the benefits. I am sure that there are cases where monitoring is warranted but routine monitoring for the sake of monitoring scares me.

Just wanted to add that I had no heart rate monitoring with my last bub and found it enormously beneficial. I was not touched by anyone for any reason during the labour and found that my labouring space was not disturbed. I felt in tune with my body and my bub - it really felt like we were working together. I would certainly do it that way again.

[kadownie]

Not sure about the stats-- but very sure that I don't want continuous monitoring for my upcoming vbac (unless the doppler picks up a problem...) the hospy has been ok about it- not their preference- I'm sure I'll have to sign something at some stage...

[Heartwood]

It's times like these former member Janet came in handy

The "belly monitor" is pretty useless. It's uncomfortable, unreliable, and unrealistic. If there's anything that strays from the hospital norm. (and that's pretty much anything) then you'll end up with one of these puppies around your stomach. A much more gentle approach is to monitor the baby's heartrate with a handheld doppler, but ofcourse this would require that the m/w actually hang around for a few minutes to do so A scalp monitor (screwed into baby's scalp) is another form of constant monitoring that enables you to remain mobile in labour. It is invasive though.

I requested to be monitored with a hand held doppler during my vbac. I had no problems in acheiving this.

[michelle_j_r]

i had the scalp monitor as DS was distressed and his heart rate plummetted drastically several times. Long labour for the poor little guy

I believe i did need it. But it was a pain in the bum. It fell off a couple of times and it meant i could not go in the water or walk around all that much.

I think if your labour is going nicely and normally then there should be no reason for more than the doppler as Kathy mentioned.

[MindfulMama]

I had constant monitoring as DS joined us at 34 weeks gestation which is enough to panic a hospy (not that it takes much )

I insisted that the sound was turned off & monitor facing away from me at all times & even the ob couldn't argue with that. It did not restrict me moving that much as DH moved the machine with me if I felt the urge to wander. I laboured standing, squatting etc with it on. It was annoying not being able to go in water tho. If I felt I needed a break from the monitoring to be even more active I hid out in the toilet!

[alzarex]

Originally Posted by DePome

I think it's only about 50% accurate anyway so there aren't going to be any good cases arguing anything like routine use of it.

yup
that was the statistic the Dr gave me when he was talking about DD's heart rate dropping - his suggested options for 'checking' whether the monitor was accurate or not were fetal scalp monitoring/blood test or a cesaerean.....

nobody can 'make' you have the monitor on, but what we found easiest was to agree to an initial period of monitoring then intermittent monitoring using a hand held option - in the end it was too uncomfortable so I took it off and headed to the shower/bath for the next few hours

[KristinC]

I can't believe they are only 50% accurate. I had the belly type monitor, the bub's HR dropped ONCE to around 100, and it was off for a caesar. I was fully effaced and dilated at the time.