Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Midwives’ ability during third stage of childbirth to estimate postpartum haemorrhage
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Centre for Cultural Evolution.
2022 (English)In: European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X, ISSN 2590-1613, Vol. 15, article id 100158Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: Correctly assessing the amount of blood loss is crucial in order to adequately treat postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) at an early stage and diminish any related symptoms and/or complications. The aim of our study is to analyse correctness in visually estimated blood loss during labour and to measure the differences between subjectively measured and weighted blood losses (ml).

Design: Cross-sectional study

Setting: A Swedish maternity unit with 6000 annual births Participants: Midwives employed at a big maternity unit at a hospital in northern Stockholm, Sweden. Intervention: Midwives assisting 192 vaginal births were asked to visually estimate the blood loss from the assisted delivery. Coasters and sanitary pads were weighed following the birth. We analysed if there were any differences between subjective measured blood loss (ml) and weighted blood loss. These two methods were also compared to quantify concordance between estimated blood volume and the actual volume.

Findings: The number of overestimates of blood loss was 45.3 % (n=87) with an average of 72.9 ml; the number of underestimates was 49.4 % (n=95) with an average of 73.8 ml. Exact correct estimations of blood loss were done in 5.2 % of the cases (n=10). The largest overestimation of a postpartum bleeding was by 520 ml; the largest underestimation was by 745 ml.

Conclusion: There was both underestimation and overestimation of blood loss. We found small but significant overestimates in PPH < 300 ml (16 ml). In PPH > 300 ml, there was a small but not significant underestimates (34 ml). Based upon our findings, we conclude that it is reasonable to start weighing blood loss when it exceeds 300 ml. © 2022 The Authors

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2022. Vol. 15, article id 100158
Keywords [en]
Birth, Estimation of blood loss, Postpartum haemorrhage, aptitude, Article, blood volume, childbirth, clinical assessment, comparative study, cross-sectional study, female, human, major clinical study, midwife, postpartum hemorrhage, quantitative analysis, Sweden, systematic error, vaginal delivery, vision
National Category
Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-212086DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2022.100158Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85133941230OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-212086DiVA, id: diva2:1715113
Available from: 2022-12-01 Created: 2022-12-01 Last updated: 2025-02-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Jonsson, Markus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jonsson, Markus
By organisation
Centre for Cultural Evolution
Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 56 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf