 |
 |
Perfectly happy to have my name on that letter. Linda > On 25 Feb 2020, at 12:22, Claire Feeley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > hello again, > > I've drafted a letter to forward to Kathryn Gutteridge regarding fresh ears, attached here, I've kept this focused on the fresh ears issue rather than the wider issues to keep the letter focused. > > Please let me know if you're happy to be named as a contributor/supporter of its contents, so far I've included: > > Professor Soo Downe > Professor Jane Sandall > Dr Jenny Hall > Dr Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho > Margaret Jowitt (consumer) > Dr Sheena Bryom OBE > Associate Professor Ank de Jonge > Linda Wylie (ARM) > >30 clinical midwives from the social media discussion which I’ve opted to keep anonymous. > > > I've not done this before, so am hoping it reads alright! > > Thanks for your time > Dr Claire Feeley > > > On Sunday, 23 February 2020, 17:36:00 GMT, Katherine Hales <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Thank you Claire this is very helpful. > > Katherine > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 11:17 Claire Feeley, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear All, > > I have been engaged in a conversation of Facebook about the Saving Babies Lives v2 regarding the introduction of 'fresh ears' for IA- found here https://www.facebook.com/groups/MUNet/permalink/2064124127067440/. > It was also in V1, but I recall the language was more caveated in the previous version. > > This idea that midwives require a second midwife to listen to the FH during IA once an hour appears to have taken traction in some trusts, without any evidence to support its use. Concerning enough...I was particularly alarmed by the report from one midwife who reported that at a home birth, they are 'required' to phone the labour ward coordinator for them to listen to the FH over the phone! > > While I appreciate there have been some poor outcomes during uncomplicated labours due to errors using IA (audit attached here from one trust), I am concerned that once again we're in a position of what 'seems like a good idea' may have unintended (negative) consequences. I understand that the Consultant Midwives group are in the process of writing a position statement on this which is awaiting publication. However, I do not know how other concerns can be raised- hence my desire to flag it to this group for advice of what to do/what can be done to challenge this? > > Also from the fb conversation, one person said their trust was operating a 'trial' basis, yet that comes under service improvement/auditing cycles, and not 'official' research. Therefore, I am also concerned that such an intervention hasn't gone through the usual ethics procedures that we would be obliged to do, raising ethical issues all of its own. > > > Any advice on what to do next would be gratefully received! > > Best wishes, > Dr Claire Feeley > Midwife/Researcher > > To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1 > > > To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1 > > > To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1 > > <Fresh ears.docx> ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1