Continuous Foetal CTG Monitoring, with Dr Kirsten Small
Continuous Foetal CTG Monitoring, with Dr Kirsten Small
S4 E2
Continuous Foetal CTG Monitoring can be uncomfortable, anxiety-inducing or misleading, but there’s plenty of evidence for its use, right? That’s the question Dr. Kirsten Small set out to answer after her long career in obstetrics. Her research led her to question everything about trace monitoring, from the case for low and high risk differentials to how centralised monitoring changes care in the birth room.
In this episode, I’m speaking to Kirsten about her findings, and how you can make an informed choice about whether to use CTG monitoring during your birth.
Dr Kirsten Small is a retired specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist, working as an educator, writer, and researcher.
Her vision is to promote and protect respectful maternity care for women, babies, families, and their care providers through education and research.
She is a feminist and is critical of the patriarchal values embedded within healthcare systems, and particularly within obstetrics and gynaecology.
Kirsten is mother to two lovely grown up people. When she’s not writing or teaching, she’s probably reading, sewing, gardening, or cooking.
Find more from Kirsten on her blog - www.birthsmalltalk.com or follow her on Instagram, Facebook or X @birthsmalltalk
Transcript
(AI GENERATED)
This episode is brought to you in partnership with iCandy.
I've been using our iCandy Peach Push Chair almost daily for the last seven years and counting, and I've really put their five-year warranty to the test, using it for both my boys on muddy walks, in aeroplane holds, in and out of my car boot, and aside from being completely filthy, my fault, not theirs, it's still going strong.
I can't wait to tell you more about my experience with iCandy later in the show.
This episode is brought to you in partnership with The Bump Plan, which is honestly the best pre-
and postnatal exercise programme that I've come across in a decade of supporting families through pregnancy and the early years of parenting.
For 20% off and access to a free pregnancy or postnatal safe workout, follow the link in the show notes.
You're listening to The BirthEd Podcast.
I'm your host and founder of BirthEd, Megan Rossiter.
If you're looking for the evidence, the nuance, the detail that's missing from your antinatal appointments, then I've got your back.
The BirthEd Podcast is here to help you sort the facts from the advertising, the instinct from the influences, and the information you're looking for from the white noise of the internet.
I hope you've got a cup of tea in hand and a notepad at the ready.
Let's dive in.
Hi, everybody.
Welcome back to The BirthEd Podcast.
I am really excited today to be having a conversation about something that is in the UK, certainly impacting more and more women as they are preparing for their birth, whether this is something that they're kind of offered and understand about before they go into labour, or whether it's something that's kind of sprung upon them at some stage in labour that they suddenly have to find themselves making a decision about.
And the conversation that we are having today is about continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring with Dr.
Kirsten Small.
So, Kirsten is a retired specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist, now working as an educator, writer and researcher.
Her vision is to promote and protect respectful maternity care for women, babies, families and their care providers through education and research.
Kirsten's main approach to achieving respectful maternity care includes promotion of physiological birth, ensuring access to timely, appropriate and proven interventions when pathology arises, supporting women's decisional capacity and the expansion of midwifery continuity of care and models of care.
Kirsten describes herself as a feminist and therefore critical of the patriarchal values embedded within healthcare systems, particularly obstetrics and gynaecology.
So, we are going to get on like a house on fire.
Kirsten is also a mum to two lovely grown up people of her own.
Kirsten, welcome.
Thank you so much for joining me.
Thank you for having me, Megan.
I'm really looking forward to it.
So, this is your almost lifelong area of expertise.
What was it that led you to being so interested in kind of unpicking the research and the evidence behind continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring in labour, how did you get here?
When I first qualified as a specialist way back in 2000, I moved into private practice here in Australia and went to a private hospital, whereas previously I'd only worked in the public system, so the government-funded hospital system.
And the approach to CTG fetal monitoring in labour was different, and people that I'd worked in the public sector were quite convinced that theirs was the correct and right way.
And in the private sector, people were quite convinced that theirs was the correct and right way.
And I was curious about the fact that there seemed to be this interesting reinterpretation of the evidence base to kind of suit the culture of the organisation.
And I kind of parked that and didn't think too much about it and got on with raising children and building a career and being busy and trying to catch some sleep.
And eventually thought, you know, it would be really interesting to write a book about this to help women make decisions.
But I was busy having a career and raising children and trying to get some sleep.
So it just, it never happened.
And then eventually life changed and the kids grew up and I became increasingly attracted into academic spaces.
A couple of years before that happened, I had a consultation with a couple who, she was pregnant with twins and I'd given what I thought was really standard advice according to our College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines here in Australia.
And that was that CTG monitoring and labour would be her best option.
And her partner challenged me to find some evidence to prove that that was the case.
And I thought this will be easy, or as we say in Australian, hold my beer.
And said, I don't have anything on hand, give me a couple of days and I'll email you something.
And I thought, you know, this will be a quick trip through the university library, download a couple of papers and we'll be done.
Well, couldn't find anything.
And in fact, there was nothing.
And now that I've spent decades looking at the literature, there is nothing, there is no research that actually says that outcomes are better.
In the case of a woman with a twin pregnancy, if she uses CTG monitoring during labor rather than the alternative of intermittent auscultation.
So I had to kind of go back and go, well, you know, I think this is just one of those things that everyone thinks is a good idea, but we can't actually prove it.
And I was really shocked that I didn't know that.
I'd been practicing for about 20 years at that point.
And you think that here's this technology that I used on a daily basis.
I didn't actually know what the research evidence said.
And so, I mean, I've had multiple various interests during my life, but CTG has really gone underneath my skin.
And so when it came time to do a PhD, it was the one idea that kept floating back up to the top.
And I just couldn't get rid of it.
And despite my lovely supervisors suggesting, at least half a dozen alternative options to get Kirsten off the bloody CTGs again, it was the one that stuck.
And so, yeah, ultimately, my doctoral research was actually about central fetal monitoring, a particular kind of approach to fetal monitoring.
But that required me to actually go and get across all of the evidence in great detail that had ever been written and turned into a couple of research papers.
And then once the thesis was written, of course, I'd read all this stuff.
I didn't actually quite make it into the thesis, and there were still things I wanted to get quite chowty and tell the world about.
So what do you do?
Well, you start a blog.
So that happened.
And I'm pleased to say that there is actually a book.
It is currently still hiding in the hard drive of my computer, but I do have a publisher looking at it at the moment.
And depending on the outcome of that conversation, either they'll take it forward or the next thing I'll be teaching myself is how to self-publish a book.
So it will finally eventually actually emerge in the world.
But in the meantime, I have some online courses for folks to do to update their knowledge as well.
Yeah, I mean, I think we're gonna need to take it all the way back in a minute, but I just think it's really interesting to hear that perspective, particularly when you're saying, you're practicing for 20 years and you'd never even kind of questioned what it was that you were actually practicing.
So it is incredible that finally somebody is kind of shouting about this stuff and hopefully we can get this message across, not just to kind of healthcare providers, but to women, families that are accessing services as well, so that when they are making decisions about how their baby is monitored in labor, they are able to do that from a kind of truly informed place.
So let's take it right, right, right back to basics.
Some people might have listened to everything you just said and been like, what on earth are you talking about?
What are all these words?
We're talking about CTG, Intimacy and Oscillation.
What starts at that very, very, I know nothing, imagine that stage.
One of the key questions that a maternity professional is gonna be asking themselves when they're looking after you during labor is, is this baby fetus?
Okay, can it stay where it is and we wait for labor to unfold?
Or do we need to make some changes to improve the situation?
Or possibly get it out of there really quick and be dashing off to do caesarean sections or instrumental birth, like forceps or vacuum extraction.
And the main way that we get that question answered is to pay attention to patterns of the fetal heart rate and how they change in relation to contractions.
And originally, the first technology that was designed to achieve that was to use something like a stethoscope and to listen to the fetal heart rate.
And you'd listen for long enough to be sure about what it was that you were hearing and happy or not happy about what was going on.
And then you'd stop and you'd do some other stuff.
And then some time later, you'd go back and listen again.
So that's called intermittent auscultation.
Auscultation just comes from, I think it's French or Latin or some one of those things.
And it means listening.
And there are various different ways that we do that in current practice.
And the most common one is going to be a handheld Doppler device, which uses, it's got batteries in it.
They're often have a waterproof handset on it.
So you can use it in the shower or the bath, put a little dob of gel on the end, pop it on over where you expect to find the heart, where it's close, and listen to the sound.
And it comes out through a speaker, so everyone hear it.
And it often has a little inbuilt computer that'll actually calculate the heart rate and display on a screen, so that you don't have to be looking at your watch and listening to the sound and trying to do maths inside your head at three o'clock in the morning when it's your third night duty shift in a row, to make life a little bit easier.
That, obviously we didn't have the high-tech versions of that.
We had the low-tech versions of it, which came into practice about 1830s, so almost 200 years.
They've been around for a long time.
But then by the early 1960s, as computerization and technology developed further, people started to think, okay, we could do better than this.
And they came up with what we now know as the CTG, or Cardio-Toco graph.
So cardio refers to the heart, toco refers to contractions, and graph refers to the fact that you're generating a graph of that information.
So the heart rate and the strength of the contraction are plotted over time, one on top of each other, so that you can watch how the heart rate changes as the contractions come and go.
And it's used continuously usually.
So when a woman first presents into professional care at a hospital or a birth center or wherever she is and that equipment's being used, then the monitoring equipment goes on and it stays on until the baby's born.
And so depending on where you are in the world, it might be called Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring, CEFM, which I've been a rant about it in one of my courses.
I know, I've watched it.
Yeah, because the machine actually isn't monitoring anything.
It's just generating a graph.
The monitoring happens because a health professional comes and looks at the thing determines is there enough information to even begin to make sense of this and then make sense of it and decides that what this is telling me is that things are okay, things are not okay, and so they need to understand how to interpret it.
They also need to have the authority to do something about it.
So you could have a woman's husband who's an information technology engineer who did his master's thesis about how to design a computer to interpret CTGs, but he's not allowed to say, quick call the theater team.
It requires a particular person with a particular skill set and that authority, and then you can call it monitoring.
The machine doesn't actually do that, and the process of monitoring is never continuous.
People look at the trace, make that determination, then they do something else.
So it's actually continuous recording, but it's not really continuous monitoring.
And of course, now that we've got modern Doppler technology for intermittent noscleotation, well, that's electronic, and it's the fetus, and the purpose of it is also to monitor.
So it's also electronic fetal monitoring.
So you'll hear me call it CTG, and when I write, I call it CTG because the CTG is only one thing.
It's the CTG, it's nothing else, and you're not going to get confused.
Using electronic fetal monitoring has also created this kind of bizarre situation, which you see appearing in the research literature by about 1970s, where people are talking about comparing monitored and unmonitored labors, because suddenly intermittent noscleotation, which is the form of monitoring that had existed for about 150 years, was seen as unmonitoring, even though it's actually a form of fetal monitoring.
It creates this impression that it's not enough or it's nothing.
And I think language is a bit worrying, particularly when you're going to cover the research in a minute, particularly when you know what the research says when you compare the two in terms of how well they work against each other.
So when that was introduced, what research was it based on to introduce the CTG monitoring in hospitals?
Not much.
In the first five years or so, people would tend to publish, you know, we're at this hospital and we have X number of births each year.
And two years ago, where we didn't have CTG machines, you know, the death rate for babies was such and such.
And then we introduced it, and now we've had it for two years, and now the death rate is this, and it's less.
And so, woohoo, they must work.
And there's a really good example of this in a paper from, I think it was 1973, where they did precisely that.
But then they actually happened to mention that at the same time that they introduced the new Whizbang CTGs into this hospital, but the other thing that happened was they also introduced a neonatal intensive care unit.
Now, do you think that might have had a difference on whether babies survived or not?
You know, unless you do really well designed research that removes other things that might possibly explain what you're seeing from the picture, then you can get tricked into thinking that something's working better than it might actually be the case.
So it wasn't until 1976 that somebody did what we call a randomized control trial, which is considered the best way to answer these kinds of questions.
They actually had quite a lot of trouble getting it started because people were already so convinced that CTGs were the bee's knees, that it was considered unethical to not have all women monitored by CTG at the time.
So they did a really interesting thing.
They're the only trial that ever used this particular approach.
And once women had agreed that they were part of the research, everyone got CTG monitoring and they used internal monitoring.
So they used an electrode attached to the baby's head to monitor the heart rate, the electrical signal maybe.
And they also put a pressure catheter inside the uterus to measure the strength of the contractions.
And then they randomly chose which people were going to get intermittent auscultation or not.
And the ones who got intermittent auscultation had the CTG machine locked in a box and pushed out into the corridor.
So it was in use and a tracing was being recorded so you could look back at it afterwards, but you weren't allowed to look at it until the baby was born.
And those women then also had a study nurse, it was called, it was in America, who came and did intermittent auscultation.
And they, much to their surprise, and you can kind of judge the tone of it when you read through the original paper in the discussion section, much to their surprise, didn't actually prove anything when you were allowed to look at the CTG.
It was just as good when you did the intermittent auscultation and didn't look at the CTG.
And there was a slightly higher rate of abnormal heart rate patterns in Leima when people were looking at the CTG machine.
And the only way that came up was because of this particular approach to doing the research where everyone had a CTG, but you only got to look at them afterwards so that you could actually compare the two.
And the authors wondered whether it was the reassuring presence of the study nurse on a regular basis going in and physically laying hands on the woman that somehow calmed her down and made her less anxious, and that improved blood flow to the fetus and therefore reduced the incidence of abnormal heart rate patterns.
And look, we don't know the end of that story because that was 1976, and nobody has ever thought to do anything that looks like that ever again to try and answer that question.
And that's kind of been my experience when I read through the literature, that you see these aha kind of moments going, oh, that's an interesting thing, but then no one really follows up on it because they're already so convinced that they know the answer and the answer that they've convinced themselves is that CTGs are fabulous and they work and we should do it for everyone, which is not the case.
And in the UK, it isn't for everyone in the same way that it is in some countries like the US where it's quite standard.
In the UK, I suppose we take like a risk approach to whether or not to offer somebody CTG monitoring in labor.
So if you're listening to this and you're in the UK, the kind of situations where this might come up would be if you had an epidural or basically if you had any reason to be on a labor ward other than choice.
So sort of if you were having a VBAC, if you were over 42 weeks of pregnancy, twins, like the list is quite endless and seems to be getting longer and longer.
Or if a concern arose in labor through intermittent auscultation and you hadn't had continuous monitoring up until that point.
So the list of reasons why can feel quite endless.
It is.
The Australian guideline is, of all of the international guidelines, ours has the longest written list of reasons why people should end up on a CTG.
And it's actually really hard to get good quality data about how often CTGs are in use in Australia.
So one of the things I did when I was collecting data for the PhD was every time I went into birth suite while doing observations, they had two lots of information in that room.
They had what was called the Journey Board, which was the list of everybody who was in labour.
And then there was the Central Fetal Monitoring Bank with the actual CTG traces, or there would be what we call the partogram.
So record of cervical dilatation over time when CTG monitoring wasn't in use.
So I made note of how many women there were, how many CTGs there were, so that then over the course of the nine month period I was collecting data, I could work out how many people had CTG monitoring.
It was 90%.
So the vast majority of people in Australia, and I believe this is the same pretty much everywhere, actually get hopped into this high-risk category.
So you're actually not that special if someone calls you high-risk because it's most people, and you have to be a bit of a unicorn to manage to have all of the stars align correctly for you to not end up in a high-risk category, which is kind of a bit nuts because the things that we're trying to prevent through fetal heart rate monitoring, whichever time we're using, still birth during labor, so the baby's alive when labor starts, but isn't by the time it's born, death in the first week of life due to low oxygen levels, or brain damage due to low oxygen levels, measured either in the short term through things like seizures, or in the long term because it causes cerebral palsy and other causes of neurodevelopmental delay.
And when you add all of those things up in a modern data set, so like the birthplace data, both Australia and the UK had a birthplace study, and if you look across all places of birth, across both low risk and high risk, and admittedly, they still excluded multiple pregnancies and a few other things that would have increased the number slightly, the chance of you having one of those outcomes is 0.41%.
So 90% of women are at risk for an outcome that actually happens less than one half of a percent of the time.
So there's a bit of weakness goes on around that whole risk assessment thing.
There's been 12 randomized control trials that have been added together that form the evidence base about intermittent auscultation versus CTGs.
And they started being done, that first one in 1976, and the most recent one was 2006.
So it's now coming up for 20 years since we've had any new research and the world's changed obviously.
And so you've got to wonder whether any of it actually applies anymore.
Some of the trials were done in exclusively low risk populations.
Some were done in exclusively high risk populations.
Several were done in what they call mixed risk.
So a mixture of both low and high risk.
And sometimes they report the data separately for those two so that they ended up, you know, analysed one or the other, or they don't and you've got them all smooshed up.
If you look at all of the trials all squished in at once, regardless of the risk category, whether you use CTGs or intermittent auscultation, the death rates are the same.
Death rate during labour and the death rate in the first week of life, there's no difference at all.
There's a slight increase in neonatal seizures.
So seizures or fits in the first couple of days after birth, when intermittent auscultation is used rather than CTG monitoring.
There's no difference in the long-term brain injury stuff.
Those cerebral palsy, neurodevelopmental delays, the same regardless of which method you use.
There are higher rates of caesarean section and instrumental birth when you have CTG monitoring rather than intermittent auscultations.
So that's when you lump all of them in together.
And there's kind of a myth that floats around maternity services that that's the evidence for low-risk women and that somehow there's this magical pile of research somewhere else that people kind of wave their hands and go, oh, but there's all this other research that women that are having increased risk, it shows that it actually works.
So if you actually go to the Cochrane Review and you split it down by risk, and they actually do this in the Cochrane Library, which in your country and mine is free to access.
So people can just go and Google, the name of the first author is Al Firovich, A-L-F-I-R-E-V-I-C, it was 2017.
If you put in CTG Labour, you'll find it.
You could read the entire 100 page thing yourself, knock yourself out.
It is fitting in the fine print a bit, but it is there.
So if you split it down by risk category, if you're low risk, there still is that benefit in terms of fewer neonatal seizures, but you need to do an awful lot of CTGs to prevent one seizure.
And the trade-off for that is that a whole bunch of extra women are gonna end up with cesarean sections or instrumental birth forceps or vacuums that they would not have otherwise had if they'd used intermittent auscultation.
And again, no difference in terms of death rates and that no one's looked at the cerebral palsy data at all in the low-risk population.
So we just don't know the answer to that question.
If you look at the high-risk population though, surprise, surprise, there's no difference in death rates at all.
The statistical difference in neonatal seizures disappears.
So there's no difference in the seizure rate at all.
And if you look at the high-risk stuff around cerebral palsy, there's only been one trial that looked in an exclusively high-risk population, and that population were all women who were in preterm labor.
So this doesn't apply to the couple with the twins or the woman who's got diabetes or whatever.
This was women who were in labor between 26 and 32 weeks of pregnancy.
And in that group, if you were monitored by CTG, the chance of your baby ending up with cerebral palsy was 2.5 times higher than if you were monitored by intermittent auscultation and it was statistically significant.
That's another one of those things that you kind of go, but that's interesting.
And that was 1983 or six, if I remember correctly.
And again, no one's kind of gone, we should really look into that.
And so we're still going around recommending CTG is for women in preterm labor without actually really being honest about the fact that we don't know whether it might make things worse, which worries me a little bit.
So this practice of splitting people up into these two blumps, and this lot are called low risk, and this lot are called high risk.
And if you're low risk, what happens is you might not get much of a choice.
You're going to be told, well, we just need to listen in with the Doppler every 15 minutes, or whatever the local guidelines says, that's all you need.
And someone isn't necessarily going to sit down and have a talk to you about CTG use.
But if you went in and said, I'd really rather have a CTG, you're probably not going to get any pushback and people will just do it.
On the other hand, if you have a risk factor, having the V-back, you're overdue, you've got meconium stains, fluid, you've had the epidural, then you're going to be told that you quote unquote, need a CTG.
And if you said, I'm not having one, you're going to get some resistance against that idea.
And yet that practice of splitting people up into the two groups, first of all, has a whole pile of stuff that's wrong with it.
We won't go into that.
But that offering people a completely different approach to monitoring, which, if there was really good evidence behind it, you could justify it.
Well, there just isn't really good evidence behind it to be able to justify this really radically different approach to the two groups.
So, I really think, and this is why the blog exists and why I'm doing courses and why I've written the book.
I really think that we should treat women like the intelligent, sensible, decision-making human beings that they actually are, and tell them the pros and cons of each of the options and let them make up their own mind about it instead of telling them that they need to have a CTG because of insert risk factor here.
And then on actually telling them, it won't actually make any difference, but I have to do it because that's what the rules are at my hospital.
I remember choosing a pram for my first baby almost eight years ago, and honestly, it required as much research as giving birth.
Is it gonna fit in my boot?
Will it convert to a double one day?
Will it last in past 18 months old?
Can I attach a car seat?
Will it roll in mud?
Can I put it down with one hand?
And eventually, I found the answer to all my questions.
For me, it was the iCandy Peach, which by the way, fits into the back of a Fiat 500 car, which sounds unbelievable for a push chair that's sturdy, but seriously, it does.
We knew then that we hope to have more than one baby.
So choosing something that was gonna stand the test of time and not end up in landfill in a year was really important.
iCandy push chairs come with a five year warranty, and believe me, we've put it through its paces.
It's been up mountains and whales, it's been on and off the escalators and the tubes of London Underground.
It's been in and out of my car boot every day on the school run.
It's flown all over Europe, and yet still seven years on, aside from being completely filthy, it's going strong.
If you're looking for a push chair or travel system that's really gonna see you through the early years with this baby and maybe any future babies, nieces, nephews, best friends, children that might join your family, for me, iCandy has been an investment worth making.
Follow the link in the show notes to find the perfect pram or travel system for you.
I'm actually so excited to be sharing with you our sponsor for this episode, The Bump Plan Pregnancy.
So The Bump Plan is a Pilates, strength and cardio based prenatal fitness plan.
And you move through your whole journey alongside Hollie, the founder of The Bump Plan, who is actually pregnant too in all the videos.
And he's exactly the kind of knowledgeable, empowering and understanding person you'd want by your side throughout pregnancy.
I've worked through one of The Bump Plans myself, and it feels so safe, inclusive and accessible.
So whether you're looking for a gentle introduction to movement in pregnancy, so you feel stronger, more energized and more comfortable in your swiftly changing body, or you've exercised for years, but need support in adapting your training to suit your changing pregnant body, you're in such safe hands with Hollie at The Bump Plan.
Hollie and the team at The Bump Plan have been kind enough to share with the BirthEd podcast listeners, a free 45 minute workout and 20% off their plans.
You can sign up for this via the link in the show notes or visiting thebumpplan.com/birthed, or one word, dash pregnancy.
I promise I'm not just saying this.
The whole plan, whether you're trying to conceive pregnant or postpartum is actually brilliant, and I really hope you guys enjoy it.
In your opinion, what place, if any, does CTG monitoring have in modern maternity care?
Well, I think women are entitled to choose to use it if they want.
And many women will find the constant audio track of the heart rate or in the background, they find it reassuring, and then it can reduce their anxiety, and that's fabulous.
Some women find that being poked at every 15 minutes, and possibly if you're in a birth pool, having to rearrange yourself so that somebody can get to you to poke at you, might find that actually quite disturbing and might prefer if you can get a good quality trace with straps or with a scalpel electrode or whatever in place, to just to be left alone and have continuous monitoring, and that's fine.
So women who choose to use a CTG should be entitled to use a CTG.
I'm not trying to ban CTG use despite what people might say about me.
The one spot where we have some maybe evidence, and again, it's one of those, I'm sure you've followed up on this because it's quite interesting, came from the really big research trials which was done in Dublin.
And it's quite famous in obstetric circles.
It's known as the Dublin Trial.
And Dublin had this thing going on at the time called the active management of labour, which is very different to active labour, which involved using lots and lots of oxytocin drips to speed labour up, basically because they wanted to guarantee that women would be in and out of their birth rooms fast enough that they could get another lot in before the sun went down.
And so they have, they've got a table in the paper where they break the data down according to who had an oxytocin infusion and who didn't, what kind of monitoring they had, whether it was CTG monitoring and intermittent auscultation.
And they split the data up for neonatal seizures.
And the Dublin trial was the one that found the biggest benefit from CTG use with neonatal seizures of all of the trials.
So, you know, it's a good place to go to try and understand what's happening around seizures.
If you look at the data where oxytocin was in use, you don't even need to be able to do much in the way of statistics.
The number of seizures in the group who had oxytocin and who had intermittent auscultation, it's really high.
Just eyeballing the numbers is enough to tell you that this is, you know, not great.
When it's oxytocin use and CTG monitoring is in use, then the rate is much, much lower.
It does actually reach statistically significant, but you don't really need the stats to tell you.
It's just completely bleedingly obvious looking at it.
If you look at the next line, when women were not on oxytocin though, the rate of seizures is actually identical between CTG use and intermittent auscultation.
And it's much, much lower than even the group where CTG monitoring was used with oxytocin.
So, you know, key take home number one, oxytocin, dangerous stuff.
Don't use it unless it's a really jolly good reason to, not just because you want to get people through your birth suite faster.
And secondly, wireless was not a study that was designed specifically to answer that question.
It does imply that possibly if oxytocin is in use, then CTG monitoring might actually be effective at reducing seizures for you.
But if oxytocin isn't in use, it's probably not going to make a difference.
Amazing.
Yeah, so whether it's to speed up labor or because labor is being induced, you know, if I was still wearing my, I'm practicing as an obstetrician and somebody's now made me supreme ruler of the universe and I can rewrite the guidelines, that's the one that I'd still keep.
Okay, I think that's really helpful for people to kind of hear because when we hear, when you get this high risk label, you're just kind of jumbled in with everybody, even though the potential risk actors might be absolutely nothing to do with each other.
And when we just get this kind of blanket, well, you're high risk now, so, and when research doesn't break things down into actually what is the health condition.
And again, that's the problem with the trials that we've got is most of them, like the Dublin trial, smooshed everybody up together.
So there were women with pre-eclampsia, women in preterm labour, women who are overdue, women who had oxytocin running, women who had epidurals, women who had meconium stain-like, or women who had bleeding, you name it.
And so it might, you know, maybe, maybe CTG monitoring is like fabulous for women with diabetes, but it's really dangerous for women with preeclampsia.
And when you put them both into the same research trial, maybe it cancels itself out.
We just don't know, because no one's ever done that stuff.
There's only three trials that have looked around a single risk factor.
One was the preterm birth trial that I just mentioned.
The 2006 trial, the most recent one, was women who'd had one in previous caesarean section.
It was a tiny trial.
There were 50 women in both arms of the study.
And given that the risk of uterine rupture is probably no more than one in 1,000, if you've got a trial that's only got 50 women having CTGs and 50 women having intermittent auscultation, it's just too small to be useful.
And not surprisingly, they found it made no difference.
And there was a slight tendency towards higher caesarean section rate when CTGs were used, but again, the trial was too small to actually reach statistical significance for that.
The remaining, one of what I call the single risk trial, so just one risk factor was done in Pakistan, and it was women who had meconium stained lycor during labor.
Again, quite small and no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of outcomes for the babies.
So one of the questions that I get asked all the time is I'm having a VBAC, what does the evidence say?
And there really, apart from that one pretty ordinary trial, it doesn't actually help all that much.
There's actually no evidence that anyone can pull out to go, you will do so much better while you're attempting your vaginal birth after caesarean section, if you have CTG monitoring, and not having it would represent a material risk to you or your baby.
There's just, there is no evidence at all to be able to back that statement up.
I mean, this is going to be mind blowing for people that have been told they have to have continuous monitoring in labour.
We really need a revolution around language when it comes to all things related to fetal monitoring, you know, like...
Or maternity care in general.
Yeah, or maternity care.
You know, like, is she being monitored?
Well, no.
No, no, there's no one in there.
We're all standing outside having a cup of tea.
Exactly.
I mean, she's got a midwife who's physically present the entire time, who's doing intermittent auscultation, who's also, you know, monitoring her blood pressure and the rest of her vital signs and noticing the changes in the sounds that she's making and whether she looks hot and flustered or whether there's bleeding on her pet, you know, there's constant monitoring going on.
But because the CTG is not on, no, no, she's not being monitored.
And I hear nonsense with people, you know, let's just pop this CTG on.
It'll tell us if your baby's happy.
It's not like the Edinburgh Depression score, you know, it's not designed to tell us if your baby's happy.
Please choose a smiley face to see how you're feeling.
It's designed to tell us whether the heart rate is giving us some clues that the oxygen levels might be low.
And could we like actually tell people that?
And then to tell people that, or to use language that implies that people don't have a choice, just it really, it gets them a goat.
You know, the whole you need to, you require, because you are having, you will have, it's not just the midwives, obstetricians, or obstetrician nurses, if you're in the UK, that are working directly with women.
It's in the guidelines as well.
And this was, when I did the PhD, I was looking at how is it happening that women are being excluded from this decision-making process?
When, you know, everyone knows what informed decision-making means, and they go around sprouting the fact that it's important and we should be doing it, and the professional colleges, you know, the hospital had a static policy about it.
And yet when it comes to fetal heart rate monitoring, no one was actually being given a choice, and they weren't being given information about the evidence.
They were being told what it was and what would happen if it was abnormal, but not whether it worked.
So I went and looked at local hospitals, state and national guidelines, and the language comes from there.
So the hospital guidelines said that it was the care provider's responsibility to decide that when there were risk factors, that the woman would have a CTG.
If you're operating under a mandatory hospital policy, which if you don't follow, you risk losing your job, and it says, this woman will have a CTG, you're not gonna say, right, so we've got these two options.
Which one would you like?
It's just professional and safer for you to direct people down a particular path.
And as a clinician, this impacted on me as well.
You know, even going back into clinical practice, having finished the PhD, knowing everything that I knew, my options as an obstetrician were limited.
And I know people think that obstetricians are kind of, you know, they can, we can do whatever we want, but it's actually not true.
We're held to the same policies as everybody else.
And so, you know, these bizarre moments when I'd be on the phone to a midwife going, so if you put the CTG on, well, Kirsten, the researcher is sitting in my other shoulder going, really?
Are we really going to be having this conversation right now?
But what we really need is we need structural change.
We need change at the level of national guidance.
We need change in the way that researchers think about this because it pops up in research papers all the time.
I see intelligent researchers who should know better saying, making statements that intermittent nonsultation is appropriate for women with no risk factors.
Yeah, and you know what?
It's also appropriate for women who've got risk factors who make an informed choice to use it.
We're not going to say that bit out loud.
Yeah.
And so it creates this impression that there really is no option.
And it's got to stop, but it's, I want people to get an understanding that blaming your midwife is not appropriate because it's not their fault.
They're operating under a system of policies and guidelines and quality improvement and lots of eyes on their work to make sure that they're dotting the I's and crossing the T's and doing as they're told.
They don't really have a lot of power to be able to do anything different.
And it is also the sort of culture, isn't it?
That you said that even 20 years of practice, you just didn't know.
And we cannot expect every midwife and every doctor to have read every research paper about absolutely everything there is to do with maternity care.
So if that has been the way that you've trained and then the way that you've practiced, you can see how you get to a point of being like, well, of course it's safer.
And you got it.
Why else would I be doing it?
But CTG education is typically mandatory when other bits of the work that we do isn't.
Like no one's ever made me go to a mandatory course on how to perform a safe caesarean section.
But every year I had to go to a CTG training course.
And they just don't teach the evidence base.
It's all about the big long list of these are the reasons why you should use it.
And then it's about how to read the wiggly lines and make sense of them.
That the question of whether we should be generating the wiggly line in the first place just isn't covered, which is why it was such a surprise for me after 20 years of practice to realize that there wasn't any actual evidence behind so many of the recommendations at all.
The first paper that I published out of the PhD was, in answer to the conversations I was having with other obstetricians and busing in the literature as well, which was, you know, well, that's what the randomized control trials say, but there's this big body of evidence that isn't randomized control trials.
It's research that's been done in other ways, and it's really convincing, and it really proves that CCG's work.
And I went, I can't read all of it.
There was a bit, quite a lot.
In fact, most of it was pretty awful.
And so we scratched through, you know, with the first paper being 1973 and through till 2019, which is when I published it.
So the most recent paper was actually in 2018.
Of all of the research that was not a randomized control trial, that was done in a population that included women with risk factors, and we then quality assessed it for starters.
And so this thing that's called the Robbins Eye tool that researchers use to know whether the kind of research approach that was used can reasonably be expected to tell you something useful or not.
And out of the 26 papers that we started with, five made the cut.
And of that five, do you wanna know how many of them showed that CTG monitoring was better than intermittent auscultation?
That'd be zero.
None of them showed any difference between intermittent auscultation and CTG monitoring.
So the idea that there's this big body of convincing research out there that shows that it works, when you actually go looking for it, it's just not true.
And as I said, me, the clinician in that moment with that husband asking me for evidence about using it for twins would have been really, really shocked to discover that all through my training, nobody had actually thought to mention it.
And I think, a lot of the focus in my PhD was about understanding kind of high level social forces that are responsible for that and obstetrics.
And I don't mean obstetricians, I mean obstetrics as a way of knowing about the world, about thinking about pregnant women and about birth and about babies and about midwives, and therefore of how you act in the world when you're an obstetrician, or when you're working within obstetric ways of knowing and doing.
It creates these situations where the fetus is seen as really, really, really special and precious, and it's always perfect, even if it's not, and it has to be protected at all costs.
And women who are pregnant, they're actually the problem, they're the ones that the fetus is at risk from.
They can't really be trusted to tell you whether the fetus is okay or not.
Somebody smart outside of the woman has to do that.
And we don't really, as obstetrics says, you can't trust midwives because they'll try and run you out of town.
And obstetricians are the ones that have to be in charge.
So CTG monitoring, it works really effectively to reinforce obstetric dominance in maternity services because it provides this system where obstetricians are the experts.
If there's a problem with the CTG and there's a midwife and an obstetrician talking about it, whose opinion counts?
What's always going to be the obstetrician?
Unless the obstetrician is in a first year obstetric registrar, and the midwife is somebody who's been doing it for 35 years, and that obstetric registrar recognises that.
The chances are that the obstetrician will just put their hands on their hips and go, because I said so, and therefore my interpretation is the valid one.
So there's really good reasons why obstetrics doesn't really want obstetricians to know the truth about it either, or midwives or women, because it risks upsetting the whole balance of the authority that obstetrics has within maternity services in high-income countries around the world.
There's something that you just said there that I know we have kind of mentioned, but I've realized we might have mentioned it with the kind of understanding that both you and I understand what CTG monitoring is, and if you're listening, you might not quite understand.
When you're talking about two people having a conversation about interpreting the CTG, it doesn't print out with like a little alert on it being like, ah, issue, perform a caesarean section.
It is for somebody to look at and to interpret and decide what they think that it means.
Kind of like reading tea leaves.
So, you know, two different people can look at the same pattern, and one can go, oh, no, this is fine.
It's okay.
The other one can go, oh, no, that's not okay.
Quick, you know, call theater, I'm coming.
And it's well recognized in the research that people have looked at inter-observer variability.
So they were given 50 CTGs out to four different people to interpret, and all four of them agreed with the, you know, this particular one CTG was the same thing less than 50% of the time.
They've also interestingly looked at intra-observer variability, where you give somebody a CTG, and three months later, you give them the CTG again.
You know, you give them 300, so that they don't know which one, you know, there's too many of them to just remember the CTG.
And the chances that you'll call it the same thing the next time, they're not 100%.
They're far lower than that.
And I've had personal experience of that, where I've done a caesarean section at three o'clock in the morning for an awful looking heart rate tracing.
And then in the birth review meeting, the following Monday, someone's pulled out the CTG, and I've gone, well, that's fine.
Who did that?
Well, that was you.
Yeah, so I just think that that's really important to kind of communicate to people, because I think sometimes this reliance that we have on machinery makes us go like, oh, so the machine is going to tell us.
And it's not that clever yet.
It's an exact science.
It's a little bit lying on your back in a field on a summer's day and looking at clouds and working out whether it's a giraffe or a VW.
Yeah.
So the final thing that I'd really like to cover, that I know is certainly something that's kind of banded about, is to do with the different types of CTG monitoring.
So just to kind of loosely cover that, is the sort of the CTG where you can monitor from the outside.
So listening through the kind of, I suppose, ultrasound waves, or one that you have already mentioned, which is the fetal scalp electrode, which is sort of like screw hook that goes just under baby's scalp.
Now, frequently, women will be told that the fetal scalp electrode is more reliable.
Have you got anything to share on, if somebody has decided, despite all of the conversation that we've had, that they've decided, yes, I'm going to accept continuous electronic monitoring in labour?
Compared to CTG monitoring using external dopplers, it is true that a fetal, I call it a fetal spiral electrode, so that people are aware of the fact that it screws into the baby's head.
The tracing is more complete.
There are fewer periods where the woman's moved and the strap slipped, or where the baby's moved and is no longer underneath the sensor.
And so you have a period where it's not being recorded.
There are far fewer gaps.
So is it more reliable?
Well, yes, there is.
Does that translate into better outcomes?
Well, let me summarize the evidence from randomized control trials that have compared fetal spiral electrodes with standard CTG monitoring.
There are none.
No one's ever looked at that.
And again, there's just big holes in what we should know.
So we don't know whether that more continuous monitoring translates through into better outcomes or not.
There's no doubt that it increases infection rates for both mothers and for babies.
And there are some other risks as well.
You know, there's some really awful stories of electrodes being screwed into places where they shouldn't be like an umbilical cord with a breach baby or into an eye.
You should feel where you're putting the thing and not whack it on somewhere that you're not supposed to.
But of course, if you don't use it at all, it's never gonna have that risk.
So like the rest of the CTG story, they have pros and cons.
And I think it's important that we're upfront with people.
And so the whole, let's just pop a clip, not telling people that it actually punctures the skin for starters is not okay.
And that there are some risks associated with it.
It does have, particularly for bigger bodied women, where it can be really tricky to get a reliable tracing.
If you've chosen to use a CTG and then somebody is having to, you know, physically wrangle the equipment on your body for eight hours, it's uncomfortable for you.
It's challenging for them.
It can just be a whole lot less awful to have internal monitoring used instead.
So, you know, that might be a risk benefit equation that you're happy to make use of.
But, you know, it's not so much that they're in use that bothers me.
It's the fact that they're in use without people actually being honest with people and sharing the pros and cons and then supporting them to make their decision about whether they want to use them or not.
Yeah, I think that's just a really important thing to cover because sometimes it sort of solders the better version of CTG.
But as you said, with not any research at all in terms of outcomes for the babies, whether that is more helpful or not.
I think I could keep talking to you for the next three hours, but we're sort of coming to the end of our hour.
Is there anything that you would really like people to know?
See if this makes the chop when you get to the editing or not.
There's another hidden conversation that again, I don't think is happening in maternity services anywhere near as often as it should.
And that's around this thing called central fetal monitoring, which was the main focus of my PhD.
So now that we've moved away from the original CTG machines, just printed directly onto a piece of paper, and as we've got better with technology, they now generate a digital signal, and they send it to a machine that's basically a computer.
And so the trace now appears as an electronic signal on a computer screen, which also means you can move the data.
It doesn't have to stay beside the woman's side in the room that she's in.
And so central fetal monitoring takes the data from individual birth rooms into a central location in the maternity service, hence the name.
And so every woman who is to be having CTG monitoring at the time, her CTG will appear on a bank of monitors.
So if you've got 10 rooms in your birth suite and every one of them is full and 10 women have CTGs, there'll be 10 traces on display so that people can sit out at the central monitoring station and keep an eye on what's happening with the CTGs across the service.
At face value, that seems like a really good idea.
It's an extra set of eyes.
And if the midwife's busy doing something else and her back's turned and doesn't notice a problem, somebody at the central monitoring station might pick it up.
And if you're the midwife and you need to pop out for a wee, somebody else can be looking over your trace while you're not in the room.
But again, no one's actually done any randomized control trials to see whether that versus standard CTGs, where if you want to see the trace, you have to actually go walk into the room to see it, whether it makes a difference in terms of outcomes.
What we do have is three small trials where there had been a central fetal monitoring system in use at a hospital, and then the blue smoke got out and they stopped working.
And it was too expensive for them to be replaced immediately.
And so there was then a period where they didn't have central fetal monitoring.
And then some clever clogs decided, this would make a good research paper.
And so they compared outcomes between the two periods.
And what they found is that there's no difference in outcomes for the baby.
Some of the trials showed that the caesarean section and instrumental birth rates were higher when there was central fetal monitoring in use.
So this is on top of the rise that we see when we move away from intermittent auscultation.
And one of the trials, which was in Australia, asked midwives and obstetricians, when did you spend more time in the room?
Was it when we had the central monitoring station active or was it without?
And they all said they spent more time in the room when there was not central fetal monitoring, which has important safety implications because there's all sorts of stuff other than the CTG that people are gathering information about to tell us whether things are okay for this woman and this baby other than just the heart rate pattern.
And if you're not in the room, you're not going to notice them.
Unless you specifically go asking about it, because this is a hospital-wide initiative, if you walk into a birth room and you go, actually, I'd really like CTG monitoring, unless you have specifically asked about it, you have no way of knowing whether your data is visible outside of that birth room, to whom it's visible.
Some of these systems will let obstetricians log in from at home on their mobile phone so that they can check traces at the hospital without having to go in.
So, who's watching it, where they are, how they're making use of that information.
And I think that raises some genuine concerns about privacy, that a person can wander past and have a bit of a squizzy at your personal CTG tracing and any other information that happens to be written on it.
My research was interested in understanding an event that was happening at a particular hospital where it was in use, and the midwives, they call it being K2ed, which was the name of their central fetal monitoring system, which was when they were in a room with a woman in labour who had a CTG on, and there'd be some kind of a wiggle on the CTG that was not what you would expect to see.
And then suddenly, ka-slam, the doors had fly open, and in had come a barrage of people who are all completely wired going, oh my God, your CTG, oh my God.
And sometimes it was really disrespectful.
And I had stories about midwives ending up in tears and women who were scared and thinking that their baby was about to die.
Sometimes it was really gentle, and it would just be a little gentle knock at the door, and, you know, it's everything I can.
I've just noticed the CTG is not all right.
But even when it's just a little gentle knock at the door, that midwife who was quite probably in the middle of trying to figure out what's going on or what do I need to make this better has to stop what they're doing to go and sort out this other person who now is demanding their attention.
So it's pulling them away from actually addressing the situation.
People would have then adjusted their practice to try and protect women's privacy and to stop this from happening.
And in order to do that, they learned that the best way was to add lots of notes to the CTG.
And so they'd sit there in front of the computer furiously typing, woman vomiting, woman on toilet, straps readjusted, whatever, so that whoever's outside looking at that going, gee, I don't like the look of that, they can go, oh, I was okay, she's on the toilet.
And they've clearly seen it because they're adjusting the straps.
That's okay, I don't need to go in.
But it then meant that midwife kind of back turned to the woman and is busy furiously typing into a computer.
So people talking about, well, I have a choice.
I can be with woman or I can be with CTG.
I can't be both.
So it really kind of put the idea of protecting the woman's birth space and maintaining her privacy and being physically present and mindful of her at odds with one another in a way that we've never really seen before because of the introduction of the technology.
So yeah, if you're expecting and you're going to a hospital, then ask your midwife, do you have central fetal monitoring?
Is there the option for me to have control over whether my information is visible or not at the central monitoring station?
What are you going to do to make sure that my privacy, which is enshrined in legislation, is being protected and that I'm not going to end up with disrespectful care?
There were situations where women were sitting on the toilet having a poo, and suddenly these six people have wandered in, barged into the bathroom, and gawked at her because they wanted to see what was going on with the CTG.
I mean, some of it was really awful.
Yeah, and that actually leads me to probably one of the most important conversations about CTG is, has there been, and I will be surprised if there has been, because this isn't the kind of thing that obstetrics likes to research, has there been any research into women's experience of having CTG?
Like, what do they feel about it?
Do they like having it?
Do they find it helpful?
Do they find it annoying?
It restricts their movement?
Does that exist?
There's been a little bit, but most of it is before 1980s.
So it's really, really old.
I wasn't even born in the 1980s.
So this is like my mum having, even earlier than that, like this is not recent, is it?
Yeah, and some of it was done in the context of randomized control trials.
And it was really about, you can tell from the flavor of the writing that what they were after was information that they could use to help talk women into having CTG monitoring, rather than a genuine appreciation of what the experience was like or not.
And so, for some women, they did describe anxiety about is it gonna electrocute me or the baby, being anxious every time they could hear the heart rate decelerating and not knowing whether that meant the next beat was just not gonna be there and the baby would be dead and they would have heard this baby die in front of them.
They did talk about a change in the atmosphere in the birth room becoming quite technical and how people would walk into the room and ignore them and look at the machine.
And even their husband's partners would spend a lot of time looking at the lines on the machine instead of with them.
There's not a lot of recent stuff.
There has been a little bit just in the last few years, but all around new technological additions to the CTG.
So telemetry, so the wireless version of CTG monitoring, we've got a bit of stuff about women's experiences.
And yes, they are more mobile and spend less time on the bed when that's in use, whether that actually translates into a difference in terms of lowered caesarean section rates, we don't know.
And the other one's a new whiz bang thing called non-invasive fetal ECG, which gets the same information that you're getting from a fetal spiral electrode, but with stick on monitors that go on the woman's abdomen.
So it's been particularly marketed for bigger bodied women, and it avoids having to rupture their membranes and stick things into their vagina in order to be able to tell what's going on, both for contractions and for the fetal heart rate.
And so there's a bit of Australian research about women's experiences of that.
And often those women had regular Common Garden Variety CTG in a previous labor and had something to compare with.
But yeah, that's about it really.
There's none on women's experiences in relation to central fetal monitoring.
Which I suppose just goes away to show that what the focus is that when we're researching CTG, we're not interested in whether you like it or not.
And certainly some of the things that you've said, I know will resonate with women that have had CTG monitoring that suddenly it feels like the focus has gone to the machine.
Even from the person that is in labor, we stare at these numbers.
Bearing in mind it takes obstetricians and midwives years and years and years of mandatory training to be able to even vaguely interpret them.
And we kind of switch our focus to them as they're going to tell us more about what's going on in our labors than actually the sensations that we are actually physically experiencing.
It can limit mobility.
You can find yourself kind of end up on a bed.
And then the kind of loss of contact and stuff that we've mentioned, that can mean that you're kind of put into positions that might be positions that you wouldn't otherwise have adopted.
So those are certainly the kind of...
And told, don't move, because if you move, I'll lose the heart.
And so, you end up kind of cramped on your left hand side with your knees tucked up in an awkward direction for 17 hours because you just can't get up.
I also saw when I was doing data collection, again, is this trying to keep the doctors from coming into the room business of women being told to hurry up and push their baby out harder and faster, because if the midwives get the baby born quickly, then there wouldn't be time for the obstetricians out at the central monitoring station to look at the CTG and think, gee, that's been going on for a while, I should go to that room.
Or they'd cut an episiotomy to get the baby born faster.
Not because they were concerned about the baby, but simply to stop obstetricians from coming into the birth room.
Which, you know, on the list of reasons to do an episiotomy, to stop an obstetrician coming into your birth room, it's not wrong there.
No, it's not.
Oh, my God, we could go, we used to do a whole episode on maternity politics, don't we?
I could go on and on.
Thank you so, so, so much for your huge, enormous insight.
If people still have questions or this has really piqued their interest and they want to learn more, where can people find you?
Where can they find your work?
birthsmalltalk.com is the name of my blog, and I post something most Wednesdays and it's mostly about fetal monitoring, but sometimes I decide to have a rant about something else that's caught my eye.
I'm on Instagram and Facebook and Twitter as at birthsmalltalk.
So people can catch me there.
I'm pretty lazy on social media.
Mostly it's just me posting blog posts and then promoting my courses.
The link to the courses is on the blog page as well.
And there's a course for maternity professionals.
So for midwives and obstetricians who are now having a moment going, oh, I didn't realize I didn't know this stuff.
I should probably go and learn something.
I have a course for you.
There's a course called Fetal Monitoring for Birth Workers, which is for the dualers and the childbirth educators and the maternity activists and all of the people who are working with pregnant and postpartum women to make decisions or to understand what happened.
It goes through the evidence, but they don't necessarily have all the lingo that the medical people have where I can talk about, you know, intrapartum, this and, you know, you've got to use more common plain language in that setting.
And also, you know, those are people who don't have access to a university library or the skills to be able to research evidence.
So I do all of the hard work for you.
I also have a course which is currently in the hands of 20 very, very thorough and enthusiastic testers.
I have to say they're really impressing people.
They've found every single typo that I've made in this course.
It's just quite magnificent, which is called Fetal Monitoring the Basics.
And it will be for women who want the information for themselves, for their own decision making.
So all going well.
And how many more mistakes these guys find and how much tidying up I need to do.
I'm hoping that maybe by the end of March that that one will be available for release.
And it will be a lower price course than the other two because I want it to be accessible to people.
And it will be what we in the online world call an evergreen course.
So you'll sign up, you'll get instant access to it.
There won't be any class start or finish times.
There won't be any webinars at a particular time.
It will be just come learn.
And when you're done, you go again, and you'll have access to it for, I haven't decided yet, probably a month, to be able to go and learn all the stuff that you need to learn.
So yeah, options.
Plenty of places to get education because you can't necessarily rely that you're going to get it in the healthcare system.
And the key take-home message that I really want to leave people with is the idea that it is a choice and it's your decision.
If you're the one who's pregnant, it's your decision to make.
You never need or require or have to have CTG monitoring.
It's a choice.
Amazing.
Thank you so, so much.
Thank you so much for listening to today's episode of The Birth Ed Podcast.
It's my actual life mission to get these conversations in front of as many expectant families as possible, and you can be a part of this mission.
Don't worry, I'm not recruiting you into my cult.
But if you leave a five-star rating and review of the podcast, then we creep up the charts, get in more ears, change more births, change more lives.
And come on, you know you want to be a part of that change.