Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring

Uses

Risks & contraindications

Comparisons

Evidence quality

Highlighted claims

• CEFM produces a continuous printed or digital trace, unlike IA. — Facilitators and barriers to the practice of intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring in UK maternity services: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
• IA is associated with fewer labour interventions than CEFM while producing similar perinatal outcomes. — Facilitators and barriers to the practice of intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring in UK maternity services: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
• CEFM has a perceived relative advantage because its visible trace appears measurable and self-documenting. — Facilitators and barriers to the practice of intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring in UK maternity services: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
• CEFM itself lacks strong comparative outcome data. — Facilitators and barriers to the practice of intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring in UK maternity services: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
• CEFM is often applied as the default for higher-risk pregnancies. — Facilitators and barriers to the practice of intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring in UK maternity services: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
• Some conversations with women framed CTG as safer, and return to IA after a reassuring trace was uncommon. — Facilitators and barriers to the practice of intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring in UK maternity services: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)