Stemming the Standard-of-Care SPRAWL: Clinician Self-Interest and the Case of Electronic Fetal Monitoring

Hastings Center Report

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 16-24

  Spector Bagdady, Kayte ^a   De Vries, Raymond ^a   Harris, Lisa Hope ^a   Low, Lisa Kane ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENEFICENCE; COURT; FEAR; FEMALE; FETUS MONITORING; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; THEORETICAL STUDY; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH SERVICE; LEGAL LIABILITY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; TRENDS; UTILIZATION;

CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MEDICAL OVERUSE; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PREGNANCY; PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY;

EID: 85034993415     PISSN: 00930334     EISSN: 1552146X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hast.781     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. J. Gibson, “Doctrinal Feedback and (Un)Reasonable Care,” Virginia Law Review 94 (2008): 1641–1714.
2. Z. Alfirevic et al., “Continuous Cardiotocography (CTG) as a Form of Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) for Fetal Assessment during Labour,” Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews 2, no. CD006066 (2017).
3. H. D. Banta and S. B. Thacker, “Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Electronic Fetal Monitoring,” Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 34, no. 8 (1979): 627–42.
4. T. Lewin, “Despite Criticism, Fetal Monitors Are Likely to Remain in Wide Use,” New York Times, March 27, 1988.
5. A. G. Lawthers et al., “Physicians’ Perceptions of the Risk of Being Sued,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 17, no. 3 (1992): 463–82.
6. A. M. Carpentieri et al., Overview of the 2015 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Survey on Professional Lability (Washington, D.C.: American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2015).
7. Gibson, “Doctrinal Feedback,” 1675.
8. H. J. Baker, “‘We Don't Want to Scare the Ladies’: An Investigation of Maternal Rights and Informed Consent Throughout the Birth Process,” Women's Rights Law Reporter 31 (2010): 549.
9. L. B. McCullough and F. A. Chervenak, Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
10. H. Lindemann, M. Verkerk, M. U. Walker, eds., Naturalized Bioethics: Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009);
11. M. U. Walker, Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
12. L. A. Haggerty, “Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Contradictions between Practice and Research,” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 28, no. 4 (1999): 409–16, at 414.
13. A. I. Almand, “A Mother's Worst Nightmare, What's Left Unsaid: The Lack of Informed Consent in Obstetrical Practices,” William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 18 (2012): 574–75.
14. Haggerty, “Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Contradictions between Practice and Research.”
15. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 317 P.2d 170, 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957).
16. Banta and Thacker, “Assessing the Costs,” 627.
17. E. R. Declercq et al., Listening to Mothers III: New Mothers Speak Out (New York: Childbirth Connection, 2013), 85.
18. E. M. Graham et al., “Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring and the Prevention of Perinatal Brain Injury,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 108, no. 3, pt. 1 (2006): 656–66, at 659.
19. E. H. Hon and R. H. Petrie, “Clinical Value of Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 18, no. 4 (1975): 1–23.
20. Z. Alfirevic et al., “Continuous Cardiotocography.”
21. A. M. Vintzileous et al., “A Randomized Trial of Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring versus Intermittent Auscultation,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 81, no. 6 (1993): 899–907;
22. A. M. Vintzileous et al., “Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring versus Intermittent Auscultation: A Meta-Analysis,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 85, no. 1 (1995): 149–55.
23. M. J. N. C. Keirse, “Electronic Monitoring: Who Needs a Trojan Horse?” Birth 21, no. 2 (1994): 111–13.
24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Nomenclature, Interpretation, and General Management Principles,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 114, no. 1 (2009): 192–202.
25. M. F. Greene, “Obstetricians Still Await a Deus ex Machina,” New England Journal of Medicine 355, no. 21 (2006): 2247–48.
26. INFANT Collaborative Group, “Computerized Interpretation of Fetal Heart Rate during Labour (INFANT): A Randomised Controlled Trial,” Lancet 389, no. 10080 (2017): 1719–29.
27. Alfirevic et al., “Continuous Cardiotocography.”
28. E. L. Barber et al., “Contributing Indications to the Rising Cesarean Delivery Rate,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 118, no. 1 (2011): 29–38.
29. American Pregnancy Association, “Risks of a Cesarean Procedure,” August 2015, http://americanpregnancy.org/labor-and-birth/cesarean-risks/.
30. L. Thurn et al., “Abnormally Invasive Placenta—Prevalence, Risk Factors and Antenatal Suspicion: Results from a Large Population-Based Pregnancy Cohort Study in the Nordic Countries,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 123, no. 8 (2015): 1348–55.
31. Y. Z. Yang, X. P. Ye, and X. X. Sung, “Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity: Repeat Cesarean versus a Trial of Labour after Previous Cesarean Delivery,” Clinical and Investigative Medicine 40, no. 3 (2017): E135.
32. American College of Nurse-Midwives, “Intermittent Auscultation for Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Surveillance,” Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health 55, no. 4 (2010): 397–403.
33. Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, “Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring,” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 44 (2015): 683–86, at 683.
34. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring.”
35. Lewin, “Despite Criticism.”
36. R. G. De Vries, L. K. Low and E. Bogdan-Lovis, “Choosing Surgical Birth: Desire and the Nature of Bioethical Advice,” in Naturalized Bioethics: Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice, ed. H. Lindemann et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008): 42–64.
37. Gibson, “Doctrinal Feedback,” at 1686.
38. T. P Sartwelle, J. C. Johnston, and B. Arda, “Perpetuating Myths, Fables, and Fairy Tales: A Half Century of Electronic Fetal Monitoring,” Surgery Journal 1, no. 1 (2015): e29.
39. T. P. Sartwelle, “Electronic Fetal Monitoring: A Bridge Too Far,” Journal of Legal Medicine 33, no. 3 (2012): 313–79, at 328.
40. Carpentieri et al., Overview of the 2015 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Survey on Professional Lability.
41. N.J. Super.Draper v. Jasionowski, 858 A.2d 1141 (Ct. App. Div. 2004).
42. Modaber v. Kelley, 348 S.E.2d 233 (Va. 1986).
43. Gonzales v. Mascarenas, 190 P.3d 826 (Colo. App. 2008).
44. D. M. Studdert et al., “Defensive Medicine among High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293, no. 21 (2005): 2609–17, at 2609.
45. K. De Ville, “Act First and Look Up the Law Afterward?: Medical Malpractice and the Ethics of Defensive Medicine,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (1998): 569–89, at 570.
46. Salgo, 317 P.2d at 181.
47. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
48. K. Spector-Bagdady, “Reconceptualizing Consent for Direct-to-Consumer Health Services,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 41, no. 4 (2015): 580–82.
49. K. Kozhimannil, M. R. Law, B. A. Virnig, “Cesarean Delivery Rates Vary Tenfold among US Hospitals; Reducing Variation May Address Quality and Cost Issues,” Health Affairs 32, no. 3 (2013): 527–35.
50. C. Hindley and A. M. Thomson, “The Rhetoric of Informed Choice: Perspectives from Midwives on Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring,” Health Expectations 8, no. 4 (2005): 306–14, at 309.
51. C. E. Schneider, The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors and Medical Decisions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 11.
52. Salgo, 317 P.2d at 181.
53. J. S. King and B. M. Moulton, “Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Decision-Making,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 32 (2006): 429–502, at 430.
54. Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1979).
55. King and Moulton, “Rethinking Informed Consent,” 443–45.
56. T. Carlton, L. C. Callister, and E. Stoneman, “Decision Making in Laboring Women: Ethical Issues for Perinatal Nurses,” Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing 19, no. 2 (2005): 145–54, at 147.
57. C. Sakala and M. P. Corry, Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve (New York: Childbirth Connection, 2008), 66.
58. Almand, “A Mother's Worst Nightmare,” 574–75.
59. Haggerty, “Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring.”
60. S. Kruske et al., “Maternity Care Providers’ Perceptions of Women's Autonomy and the Law,” BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 13, no. 84 (2013): https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-84.
61. M. Oberman, “Mothers and Doctors’ Orders: Unmasking the Doctor's Fiduciary Role in Maternal-Fetal Conflicts,” Northwestern University Law Review 94, no. 2 (2000): 451–501, at 469.
62. C. Forell and A. Sortun, “The Tort of Betrayal of Trust,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 42 (2009): 586–87.
63. L. F. Wiley, “From Patient Rights to Health Justice: Securing the Public's Interest in Affordable, High-Quality Health Care,” Cardozo Law Review 37 (2016): 833–89, at 840–41.
64. V. Prasad et al., “A Decade of Reversal: An Analysis of 146 Contradicted Medical Practices,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 88, no. 8 (2013): 790–998.
65. D. Merenstein, “Winners and Losers,” Journal of the American Medical Association 291, no. 1 (2004): 15–16.
66. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993).
67. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring.”
68. T. P. Sartwelle and J. C. Johnston, “Cerebral Palsy Litigation: Change Course or Abandon Ship,” Journal of Child Neurology 30, no. 7 (2015): 828–841, at 829.
69. M. M. Mello, A. Kachalia, D. M. Studdert, “Medical Liability—Prospects for Federal Reform,” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 19 (2017): 1806–8.
70. Baker, “‘We Don't Want to Scare the Ladies,” 587–88.
71. R. L. Kravitz, J. E. Rolph, and K. McGuigan, “Malpractice Claims Data as a Quality Improvement Tool. I. Epidemiology of Error in Four Specialties,” Journal of the American Medical Association 266, no. 15 (1991): 2087–92, at 2087.
72. Gibson, “Doctrinal Feedback,” 1643.
73. M. Lent, “The Medical and Legal Risks of the Electronic Fetal Monitor,” Stanford Law Review 51 (1999): 807–37, at 835.
74. J. P. Neilson, “Electronic Fetal Monitoring during Labor: Information from Randomized Trials,” Birth 21, no. 2 (1994): 101–104, at 103.
75. Gibson, “Doctrinal Feedback,” 1687.
76. Prasad et al., “A Decade of Reversal: An Analysis of 146 Contradicted Medical Practices,” 790; Merenstein, “Winners and Losers.”
77. Gibson, “Doctrinal Feedback,” 1687.
78. American Medical Association, “AMA Code of Medical Ethics: AMA Priniciples of Medical Ethics,” June 2001, https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/principles-of-medical-ethics.pdf.
79. De Ville, “Act First and Look up the Law Afterward?,” 571.
80. American Board of Internal Medicine, “Choosing Wisely,” http://www.choosingwisely.org/about-us/.
81. American Board of Internal Medicine, “Nursing—Continuous Electronic FHR Monitoring during Labor,” October 2016, http://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/american-academy-nursing-continuous-electronic-fhr-monitoring-during-labor/.
82. Almand, “A Mother's Worst Nightmare”;
83. Haggerty, “Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring.”
84. WashingtonD.C.This is adapted from an argument by Mildred Cho from her talk “Diverse Patient Values about a ‘Library of Medical Information’: EHRs and Biospecimens in Research,” at the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Annual Conference, October 6–9, 2016
85. Kruske et al., “Maternity Care Providers’ Perceptions of Women's Autonomy and the Law.”
86. T. L. Hafemeister and R. M. Gulbrandsen, Jr., “The Fiduciary Obligation of Physicians to ‘Just Say No’ If an ‘Informed’ Patient Demands Services That Are Not Medically Indicated,” Seton Hall Law Review 39 (2009): 368.
87. Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal. 3d 120 (Cal. 1990).
88. Ibid., 150.
89. Sartwelle and Johnston, “Cerebral Palsy Litigation”; Mello, Kachalia, and Studdert, “Medical Liability.”
90. J. A. Martin et al., “Births: Final Data for 2015,” National Vital Statistics Reports 66, no. 1 (2017): 1–69.