References

Aveyard H. Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide, 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2014

British National Formulary. Dinoprostone. 2017. https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/dinoprostone.html (accessed 4 June 2019)

Coates R, Cupples G, Scamell A, McCourt C. Women's experiences of induction of labour: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Midwifery. 2019; 69:17-28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.10.013

Crane JM, Young DC, Butt KD, Bennett KA, Hutchens D. Excessive uterine activity accompanying induced labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97:(6)926-931

Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Agosti M, Serati M, Uccella S, Arlant V, Bolis P. Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204:(4)338.e1-338.e7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.029

Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J A Guide to Effective Care in Childbirth.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000

Entwhistle V. Involving service users in health services research. In: Ebrahim S, Bowling A (eds). Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005

Gibson KS, Mercer BM, Louis JM. Inner thigh taping vs traction for cervical ripening with a Foley catheter: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209:(3)272.e1-272.e7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.05.028

Gilbert ES. Manual of High Risk Pregnancy and Delivery, 5th edn. St Louis (MO): Mosby Elsevier; 2010

Gu N, Ru T, Wang Z Foley catheter for induction of labor at term: an open-label, randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015; 10:(8) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136856

Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis, Health and Social Care Information Centre. Hospital Episode Statistics: NHS Maternity Statistics—England, 2014–15. 2015. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB19127/nhs-mate-eng-2014-15-summ-repo-rep.pdf (accessed 4 June 2019)

Jozwiak M, Rengerink KO, Benthem M Foley catheter versus prostaglandins E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011; 378:(9809)2095-2103 https://doi.org/10:1016/s0140-6736(11)61484-0

Induction of labour.London: RCOG Press; 2008

Inducing labour [CG70].London: NICE; 2008

Inducing labour Quality standard [QS60].London: NICE; 2014a

Induction of labour: misoprostol vaginal delivery system [ESNM38].London: NICE; 2014b

Better Births: Improving Outcomes of Maternity Services in England.London: NHS England; 2016

Ness Evans A, Rooney BJ. Methods in Psychological Research.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2010

NHS Digital. NHS Maternity Statistics 2016-2017. 2017. https://files.digital.nhs.uk/pdf/l/1/hosp-epis-stat-mat-repo-2016-17.pdf (accessed 10 June 2019)

Nirmal D, Fraser D. The first stage of labour. In: Arulkumaran S. Best Practice in Labour and Delivery, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016

Pasero C, McCaffery M. Pain Assessment and Pharmacologic Management.St Louis (MO): Mosby Elsevier; 2011

Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McCleery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009; 116:(11)1443-1452 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02279.x

Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour: Assessing Progress.London: RCM; 2012a

Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-Led Care in Labour: Latent Phase.London: RCM; 2012b

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. RCOG. Induction of labour (NICE clinical guideline 70). 2008. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/induction-of-labour/ (accessed 4 June 2019)

Birth After Previous Caesarean section [Green-top guideline no. 45].London: RCOG; 2015

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidenced based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312:(7023)71-2 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Scamell M, Alaszewski A. Choice, risk and moral judgement. In: Crichton J, Candlin CN, Firkins AS. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016

Stock SJ, Calder AA. Induction of Labour, 12th edn. In: Baskett TF, Calder AA, Arulkumaran S (eds). Edinburgh: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014

Strachan B. The management of intrapartum ‘fetal distress’. In: Warren R, Arulkumaran S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009

Subramanian D, Penna L. Induction of labour. In: Warren R, Arulkumaran S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009

van den Berg MJ, de Boer D, Gijsen R, Heijink R, Limburg LCM, Zwakhals SLN. Dutch Health Care Performance Report 2014.Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); 2015

WHO recommendations for Induction of labour.Geneva: WHO; 2010

Using a transcervical Foley catheter to enhance normality for induction of labour

02 July 2019
19 min read
Volume 27 · Issue 7

Abstract

Background

Vaginal prostaglandins are the most widely used method of labour induction in the UK. The rise in the number of women undergoing induction of labour requires the exploration of alternative, safe and holistically effective methods.

Aim

To determine if a transcervical Foley catheter could enhance normality and improve induction outcomes.

Methods

Four primary peer-reviewed articles were systematically reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and labour outcomes of the transcervical Foley catheter. Key findings were analysed, discussed and summarised.

Findings

There was a lack of publications; however, the transcervical Foley catheter demonstrated favourability of cervical dilatation on a moderate sample, with fewer adverse maternal or neonatal risks, making it a safer alternative to pharmacological methods. The rate of caesarean section was not increased and similar to women using vaginal prostaglandins. However, women using vaginal prostaglandins were more likely to have a caesarean section due to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate.

Conclusion

A transcervical Foley catheter is an effective method of labour induction that provides women with an alternative to pharmacological methods and offers choice. The transcervical Foley catheter will improve women's overall experience of induction and enhance normality of induction of labour.

In 2016–2017, 29.4% of women in the UK underwent a medical induction of labour (NHS Digital, 2017). This is an increase from the 14.9% in 2014–2015 (Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis, Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2015). The National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (2008) suggested that 80% of women disliked pharmacological methods of induction, but that women's choices regarding methods of induction were often limited to a standardised pathway, with substantial reliance on pharmacological methods. Therefore, the process is likely to continue to remain medicalised, with an increased risk of developing complications or needing further intervention. In addition, less than two-thirds of women being induced in 2004-2005 went on to give birth without further intervention, with 22% needing an emergency caesarean section (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2008; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), 2008).

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