Breech presentation: An audit project as means of pursuing clinical excellence

References

• Backe B, Nakling K. Effectiveness of antenatal care: a population based study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993; 100: 727–732
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boucher M, Bujold E, Marquette G P, Vezina Y. The relationship between amniotic fluid index and successful external cephalic version: a 14-year experience. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003; 189: 751–754
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burr R, Helyer P, Robson S C. A training model for external cephalic version. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2001; 99: 199–200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan L Y, Leung T Y, Fok W Y, Chan L W, Lau T K. Prediction of successful vaginal delivery in women undergoing external cephalic version at term for breech presentation. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2004; 116: 39–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng M, Hannah M. Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993; 82: 605–618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coltart T, Edmonds D K, al-Mufti R. External cephalic version at term: a survey of consultant obstetricians practice in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1997; 104: 544–547
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Department of Health. Good practice in consent implementation guide, et al. Department of Health, London 2001
   Google Scholar
• Flamm B L, Fried M W, Lonky N M, Giles W S. External cephalic version after previous caesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991; 165: 370–372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah M E, Hannah W J, Hewson S A, Hodnett E D, Saigal S, Willan A R, for the Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375–1383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellstrom A C, Nilsson B, Stange L, Nylund L. When does external cephalic version succeed?. Acta Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavica 1990; 69: 281–285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr G J. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. Issue 2, et al. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester 2004
   Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr G J, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. Issue 2, et al. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester 2004
   Google Scholar
• Hutton E K, Kaufman K, Hodnett E, Amankwah K, Hewson S A, Mckay D, , for the Early External Cephalic Version Trial Group, et al. External cephalic version beginning at 34 weeks' gestation versus 37 weeks gestation: A randomized multicenter trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003; 189: 245–254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James M, Hunt K, Burr R, Johanson R. A decision analytical cost analysis of offering ECV in a UK district general hospital. BMC Health Services Research 2001; 1: 6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johanson R B. The management of breech presentation. Clinical green top guidelines (20), et al. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London 2001
   Google Scholar
• Lau T K, Lo K W, Wan D, Rogers M S. The implementation of external cephalic version at term for singleton breech presentation-how can we further increase its impact?. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1997; 37: 393–396
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung T Y, Lau T K, Lo K W, Rogers M S. A survey of pregnant women's attitude towards breech delivery and external cephalic version. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000; 40: 253–259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Meeus J B, Ellia F, Magnin G. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: a series of 38 cases. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1998; 81: 65–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), Commission for Health Improvement, Royal College of Nursing, University of Leicester. Principles for best practice in clinical audit, et al. Radcliff Medical Press, Oxford 2002
   Google Scholar
• NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA). Informed Consent. NHSLA Risk alert 2004, 4, Available at: http://www.nhsla.com/News (Accessed 28 January 2005).
   Google Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Antenatal care, routine care for the healthy pregnant woman, et al. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London 2003
   Google Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Caesarean section, et al. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London 2004
   Google Scholar
• Paranjothy S, Thomas J M. Understanding audit. Clinical governance advice. No. 5, et al. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London 2003
   Google Scholar
• Raynes-Greenow C H, Roberts C L, Barratt A, Brodrick B, Peat B. Pregnant women's preferences and knowledge of term breech management, in an Australian setting. Midwifery 2004; 20: 181–187
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts C L, Cameron C A, Nassar N, Raynes-Greenow C H. A simple patient-initiated intervention to increase antenatal detection of breech presentation at term. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2004; 18: 371–376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalev E, Battino S, Giladi Y, Edelstein S. External cephalic version at term-using tocolysis. Acta Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavica 1993; 72: 455–457
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su M, Hannah W J, Willan A, Ross S, Hannah M E, for the Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section decreases the risk of adverse perinatal outcome due to both labour and delivery complication in the Term Breech Trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004; 111: 1065–1074
   Google Scholar
• Teoh T G. Effect of learning curve on the outcome of external cephalic version. Singapore Medical Journal 1997; 38: 323–325
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National sentinel caesarean section audit report, et al. RCOG Press, London 2001
   Google Scholar
• Watson W J, Welter S, Day D. Antepartum identification of breech presentation. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2004; 49: 294–296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong W M, Lao T T, Liu K L. Predicting the success of external cephalic version with a scoring system. A prospective, two-phase study. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2000; 45: 201–206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yogev Y, Horowitz E, Ben-Haroush A, Chen R, Kaplan B. Changing attitudes towards mode of delivery and external cephalic version in breech presentations. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2002; 79: 221–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar