About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Pregnancy
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 640379, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/640379
Clinical Study

Emergency Caesarean Section: Influences on the Decision-to-Delivery Interval

Women's Services, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK

Received 18 February 2011; Accepted 12 May 2011

Academic Editor: Tamas Zakar

Copyright © 2011 Aiste Cerbinskaite et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, Caesarean Section, National Evidence Based Guideline, RCOG Press, London, UK, 2004.
  2. D. N. Lucas, S. M. Yentis, S. M. Kinsella et al., “Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 93, no. 7, pp. 346–350, 2000. View at Scopus
  3. J. Thomas, S. Paranjothy, and D. James, “National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section,” British Medical Journal, vol. 328, no. 7441, pp. 665–668, 2004. View at Scopus
  4. C. W. Schauberger, B. L. Rooney, E. A. Beguin, A. M. Schaper, and J. Spindler, “Evaluating the thirty minute interval in emergency caesarean sections,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons, vol. 179, no. 2, pp. 151–155, 1994. View at Scopus
  5. S. P. Chauhan, H. Roach, R. W. Naef, E. F. Magann, J. C. Morrison, and J. N. Martin Jr., “Cesarean section for suspected fetal distress. Does the decision-incision time make a difference?” Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 347–352, 1997. View at Scopus
  6. B. C. Dunphy, J. N. Robinson, O. M. Sneil, J. S. D. Nicholls, and M. D. G. Gillmer, “Caesarean section for fetal distress, the interval from decision to delivery, and the relative risk of poor neonatal condition,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 241–244, 1991.
  7. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, The Use of Electronic Fetal Monitoring: The Use and Interpretation of Cardiotocography in Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring, vol. 8 of Clinical Guidelien, RCOG Press, London, UK, 2001.
  8. Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts, Clinical risk management standards, Criterion 12; 3; 1, Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts, London, UK, 1999.
  9. J. Thomas and S. Paranjohy, “Royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists: clinical effectiveness support unit,” The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report, RCOG press, London, UK, 2001.
  10. D. J. Tuffnell, K. Wilkinson, and N. Beresford, “Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section—are current standards achievable? Observational case series,” British Medical Journal, vol. 322, no. 7298, pp. 1330–1333, 2001. View at Scopus
  11. Department of Health, National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services: Standard 11, Maternity Services, Department of Health, London, UK, 2004.
  12. Welsh Assembly Children’s Health and Social Care Directorate, National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services in Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff, UK, 2005.
  13. Scottish Executive, A Framework for Maternity Services in Scotland, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, UK, 2001.
  14. Scottish Executive, Expert Group on Acute Maternity Services: Reference Report, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, UK, 2002.
  15. Royal College of Midwives, RCM Annual Survey of UK Heads of Midwifery Service, RCM, London, UK, 2005.
  16. “Childbirth Minimum Standards for the Organisation and Delivery of Care in Labour,” http://www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/clinical-guidance/safer-childbirth-minimum-standards-organisation-and-delivery-care-la.