Analysis Of The Specialty Of Obstetrics And Gynecologists

Within Victoria there are multiple models of maternity care available to women. An initial discussion with the woman’s treating GP during the early stages of her pregnancy is critical in her decision-making about which model of care she will choose and this key discussion is essential in allowing a woman to make the first of many informed decisions throughout her pregnancy. According to a survey conducted by Stevens et al. (2010) only 43% of women felt ‘they were not supported to maintain up-to-date knowledge on models of care, and most reported that model of care referrals were influenced by whether women had private health insurance coverage.’ Many elements of these models of care differ: from location of care, degree of caregiver continuity, rates of intervention and maternal and infant health, outcomes access to medical procedure, and philosophical orientation such as natural or medical (Stevens, Thompson, Kruske, Watson, & Miller, 2014). According to the World Health Organization (1985) and Commonwealth of Australia (2008) there is a recognition that ‘85% of pregnant women are capable of giving birth safely with minimal intervention with the remaining 15% at potential risk of medical complications’ (McIntyre & Francis, 2012).

The writer explained there could be no concern for fetal or maternal health during the delivery although some obstetricians tended to induce labor in all diabetic mothers to protect babies and mothers. Moreover, labor progress was supposedly assessed by old-fashioned methods, which resulted in performing unnecessary obstetrical practices. Intervention was imposed in cases of inaccurately labeled slow or abnormal labors and failures to progress. It is common practice that a primary cesarean generally produces subsequent surgical deliveries. The author realized that cesareans were performed because of insufficient data on laboring women’s

The conclusion was ultimately reached that medical or elective induction of term women was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery and that estimate was determined heavily based on the Bishop Scores attained The study closes by advising that induction of labor, whether it is medical or electively induced, should be avoided because a low Bishop score means that the cervix is unripe and even with cervical ripening agents, the study showed that the risk of cesarean delivery for nulliparous women remained unchanged. Their advice is to allow the mothers to spontaneously go into labor if they have an unfavorable Bishop score because it will lower cesarean delivery rates (Vrouenraets et al. 2005). This rationale directly correlates

The author is a nurse in a level two trauma facility in a community of approximately fifty thousand people in Oregon. The community is a college-town surrounded by a large agricultural area. There is a minimal ethnic diversity within the community. The diversity present occurs mainly from internationally students and faculty from the college. There is a growing population of women who desire low interventional births in the community. The author has worked on the labor and delivery unit of the hospital for the last 14 years. The hospital is the only one in the area to offer trial of labor services to women who have previously undergone a cesarean section. The unit on average experiences around 1000 deliveries annually.

In many cases, a patient increases their odds of a cesarean section if they chose to be induced without causation. A study was conducted between the years of 1999 to 2000 with 3215 nulliparous women. The findings of this study showed that nulliparous women are at a significantly higher risk of needing a cesarean section if they were electively induced (Luthy et al., 2004). Multiple studies have looked at nulliparous versus multiparous women and have found that elective inductions do not look to increase the odds of a woman needing a cesarean section in multiparous women. Researchers have begun to look at other possible relationships between patients who undergo an elective induction that results in a caesarean section and they have found

The intent of this paper is to examine effective solutions for reducing cesarean deliveries. Cesarean deliveries involve more risk to both the mother and baby than vaginal births do. Cesarean deliveries have a higher potential of complications than vaginal births. Cesarean deliveries cost more, require longer hospital stays, and require more resources—both human and systemic—than vaginal births.

A concern that many women have who have undergone cesarean birth, is whether or not they can have a vaginal birth after. The answer is yes; they can have a vaginal birth, but only if the incision made was a horizontal one. The benefits are the woman ass’d with fewer blood transfusions, fewer post-partum infections and shorter hospital stays (Rose, 1). On the other hand there are many risks: the uterine may rupture, it could result in maternal and

I believe expecting mothers need to seek guidance from their doctor on whether or not she should have a vaginal birth, or follow through with a "Elective" C-Section. I feel like women are so concerned about their rights, and though our female rights are important, I also feel that we need to seek guidance from those that are medically trained to see what they think is going to be best for the mother as well as the child. If the doctor feels that the mother and the child will be okay with proceeding with an "Elective" C-Section, I think it is so important (more important than the doctor's opinion) to seek our Heavenly Father's will. Our will might not always be His will, and it is important that we come before Him in all things in order for

Cesarean section (C/S) births can occur in the hospital for several reasons. Some women choose to have elective C/S birth and others require C/S births out of infant or maternal safety, complications, or by necessity. This paper discusses both elective and emergency C/S deliveries and reviews both National Guideline policy and Carilion Clinic policies on C/S births. The problem statement is: in pregnant women (population), does C/S delivery following National or Carilion policies (IV: exposure vs. none-exposure) differ in terms of patient care and outcomes concerning maternal and neonatal health (DV)?

Many woman give up in labor and beg the doctor to perform a cesarean section or many times the doctor does not want to wait for the laboring patient to progress on their terms and will call for a cesarean section. A cesarean section is a major abdominal surgery. Many woman are not educated in the short and long term effects of having one to be able to stay as far away from them. Maternal complications can be both physical and emotional due to the fact that the woman will not be able to care for her infant exclusively on her own during the recovery period. The first and most common complication with a cesarean section is surgical site infections. This could be caused by many things. It could be a cause of not cleaning the skin properly, a break in sterile technique, or personal hygiene of the wound during the recovery period. It can also be caused by the way the incision is closed. “ The use of staples for skin closure was associated with a marginally statistically significant increase in surgical site infections” (Corcoran 2013, pg. 1262). Infections can also be seen as urinary tract infections, endometritis, and pneumonia. Another complication that can occur from a cesarean section is a thrombus which can lead to pulmonary embolism. When a person has a cesarean section, they are bed bond more than a vaginal delivery. This causes the blood to not circulate in their legs

“The moral duty to protect vulnerable populations is dogma in ethics and research principles. One would have to argue that the fetus is the utmost of vulnerable populations and yet there are circumstances in which the protection of the fetus is effaced in a maternal decision to refuse delivery by cesarean” (Deshpande, Oxford, 2012). In cases like these, respecting a patient’s autonomy is important. In order for the patient to maintain autonomy though, it is crucial for the medical team to help Maryam and Hossein fully understand the implications of not going through with the cesarean section. Our job as a healthcare provider is to maintain a level of beneficence for our patients; that is, we are to act in their best interest. However, acting in their best interest comes with many legalities as well. It is important to remember though, that what may be ethical is not always

According to the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNMb) (2015), home births account for 1.4% of all births in the U.S. In eight years the number of home births in the US increased by 41% (ACNM, 2015b). Providing home births falls within the scope of practice of midwives and is supported by the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM, 2015b). A mother can have the option of a home birth as long as the home birth follows regulations set in place by the state and can provide a favorable safe environment for both mother and newborn (ACNM, 2015b). Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) state that the ultimate decision of having a home birth is a patient’s right, especially if she is medically well informed (Declercq, & Stotland, 2016).

I believed that cesarean section (C-section) is a more preferred way of giving birth by mother and physicians now a days due to medical advances. It is also the safest way for baby when done between 39-41 weeks of gestation. For the mother, it is more convenient to do C-section because they can control the time of delivery, more convenient, and less stress. It gives the mother a sense of control of the situation. The down side are: it is very expensive, higher risk of blood loss, risk for infections, and it needs more time to heal the wound. For physicians, C-section is more preferred because it prevents malpractice suits when something goes wrong during vaginal delivery. It also prevents the circulatory systems of the mother to mix with the

Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is the name used for identifying the method of giving birth vaginally after previously delivering at least one baby through a caesarean section (CS). A trial of labour (TOL) is the term used to describe the process of attempting a VBAC. An elected repeat caesarean (ERC) is the other option for women who have had a caesarean in the past. The rates of women choosing to deliver by means of an ERC has been increasing in many countries, this is typically due to the common assumption that there are too many risks for the baby and mother (Knight, Gurol-Urganci, Van Der Meulen, Mahmood, Richmond, Dougall, & Cromwell, 2013). The success rate of VBAC lies in the range of 56 - 80%, a reasonably high success rate, however, the repeat caesarean birth rate has increased to 83% in Australia (Knight et al., 2013). It is essential to inform women of the contraindications, success criteria, risks, benefits, information on uterine rupture and the role of the midwife in relation to considering attempting a VBAC (Hayman, 2014). This information forms the basis of an antenatal class (Appendix 1) that provides the necessary information to women who are considering attempting a VBAC and can therefore enable them to make their own decision regarding the mode of birth.

You are now more likely to die in childbirth than in a legal and safe abortion. As with all surgery there is a risk involved. Today the risk is very small with less than one death for every 100.000 abortions. When you compare