References

Bedwell C, McGowan L, Lavender T. Factors affecting midwives' confidence in intrapartum care: a phenomenological study. Midwifery.. 2015; 31:(1)170-176

Hormonal physiology of childbearing: evidence and implications for women, babies, and maternity care. 2015. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/health-care/maternity/hormonal-physiology-of-childbearing.pdf (accessed 28 June 2020)

Coad J, Dunstall M. Anatomy and physiology for midwives, 3rd edn. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2011

Chodzaza E, Haycock-Stuart E, Holloway A, Mander R. Cue acquisition: a feature of Malawian midwives decision-making process to support normality during the first stage of labour. Midwifery.. 2018; 58:56-63

Davis DL, Homer CSE. Birthplace as the midwife's work place: how does place of birth impact on midwives?.: Woman and Birth; 2016

Downe S, Simpson L, Trafford K. Expert intrapartum maternity care: a mete-synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing.. 2006; 57:(2)127-140

Downe S. The transition and the second stage of labour: physiology and the role of the midwife, 15 edn. In: Fraser DM, Cooper MA (eds). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2009

Downe S, Simpson L. The notion of expertise. In: Downe S, Byrom S, Simpson L. : Leadership, Expertise and Collaborative Working; 2011

Downe S, Marshall JE. Physiology and care during transition and the second stage of labour, 16th edn. In: Marshall JE, Raynor MD (eds). Edinburgh: Elseveir; 2014

Feher J. Hypothalamus and pituitary gland quantitative human physiology. Chapter 8. 2012;

Grigorieva K. Gustav Adolf Michaelis (1798–1848). Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction.. 2020; 13:384-387

Howie L, Watson J. The First stage of labour, 4th edn. In: Rankin J (ed). Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2017

Karaçam Z, Walsh D, Bugg GL. Evolving understanding and treatment of labour dystocia. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology.. 2014; 182:123-127

Masoumeh K, Morvarid I, Fatemeh T, Habibollah E. Diagnostic accuracy of purple line in prediction of labor progress. Red Crescent Medical Journal.. 2014; 16:(11)

Narchi NZ, Camargo DCSC, Salim NR, Menezes MDO, Bertolino MM. The use of the ‘purple line’ as an auxiliary clinical method for evaluating the active phase of delivery. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil.. 2011; 11:(3)313-322

Page M, Mander R. Intrapartum uncertainty: afeature of normal birth as experienced by midwives in Scotland. Midwifery.. 2014; 30:28-35

Roberts J, Hanson L. Best practices in second stage labor care: maternal bearing down and positioning. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health.. 2007; 52:(3)238-245

Reed R, Rowe J, Barnes M. Midwifery practice during birth: ritual companionship. Women and Birth.. 2016; 29:(3)269-278

Shepherd A, Cheyne H, Kennedy S The purple line as a measure of labour progress: a longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010; 10:(54) https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-54

Skogheim G, Hanssen TA. Midwives' experiences of labour care in midwifery units. A qualitative interview study in a Norwegian setting. Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare.. 2015; 6:(4)230-235

Physiology's role in labour assessment

02 September 2020
5 min read
 Midwives need to have a solid understanding of physiology in order to make better use of their observation skills when assessing women in labour
Volume 28 · Issue 9

Abstract

A closer examination of the physiological and behavioural signs exhibited by women to facilitate assessment of labour progress

This article considers the importance of observing the physiological and behavioural cues exhibited by women during advanced labour to facilitate labour assessment. In-depth knowledge of labour physiology is important as it enables midwives to systematically anticipate, gather and interpret these cues while considering possible differential diagnoses. As a clinical midwife and educationalist, I have observed and participated in various care practices over the years within different birth environments. I have reflected upon how we can be instrumental in both supporting and impeding the physiological process of labour through the consequences of our actions.

The detrimental impact that routine intrapartum interventions can have upon the hormonal processes that support labour has been well-documented. Sara Buckley (2015) has written extensively about the importance of protecting the hormonal blueprint of labour through the avoidance of unnecessary intervention (see https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/health-care/maternity/hormonal-physiology-of-childbearing.pdf for an in-depth review).

As midwives, we are presented with a dichotomy within practice where we must endeavour to facilitate the physiological processes that support normal birth while staying alert for the presence of risk factors and instigating timely responses to ensure safe care. It is important we intervene only when clinically indicated. However, making this judgement can be difficult, especially when working in an environment where routine intervention is common. Intervening too soon can disrupt the physiological process of labour predisposing mother and infant to unnecessary risk and morbidities while intervening too late may also have detrimental consequences.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • Unlimited access to the latest news, blogs and video content

  • Monthly email newsletter