Electronic fetal monitoring produces continuous heart rate tracings interpreted using standardized categories. Claims allege failure to recognize non-reassuring patterns or to intervene timely.
Interpretation reliability between reviewers is limited.
Alternative Names:
Electronic Fetal Monitoring, EFM
Why it Matters?
Interobserver variability in tracing interpretation is documented in the literature and is central to the defense, since experienced clinicians reviewing the same strip frequently categorize it differently. That undermines testimony asserting a single correct reading. The literature questioning whether continuous monitoring improves outcomes is separately relevant, as is the low positive predictive value of non-reassuring patterns for actual injury.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What is interobserver variability?
What else supports the defense?
