Objective To identify potential risk or mishap in the system of intrapartum care, relating to the deployment of midwives. Design Prospective semistructured observational study. Setting Labour wards of seven maternity units in the north west of England. Participants All midwives working on the labour ward during the observation period in 2000. Main outcome measure "Latent failures" within the system relating to midwifery staffing levels, deployment, and training or updating opportunities. Results Despite the exemplary dedication of midwives, potential risk of mishap due to their deployment occurred within the system of care. A shortfall of midwives existed in all seven maternity units and was most acute in the largest units. Six units relied on bank midwives to maintain minimum staffing levels. High risk practices (oxytocin administration and epidural blockades) continued during midwifery shortfalls in all units. Some adverse events and "near misses" were attributable to midwifery shortages in all units, and near misses remained unreported in all units. Uptake of opportunities for training or updating in interpretation of cardiotocographs and obstetric emergency management remained low owing to midwifery shortages in all units. A poor skill mix of midwives occurred at times in all units. In six units midwives spent time away from clinical areas performing clerical duties. In three units team midwifery systems were reported to erode labour ward skills and confidence. Conclusion Midwives are fundamental components in the system of intrapartum care, and the system cannot operate safely and effectively when the number of midwives is inadequate, midwives are poorly deployed, and they are unable to engage in opportunities for training and updating.

This paper provides an insight into the underlying factors involved in potential cerebral palsy and/or shoulder dystocia claims. The research was undertaken to identify the root causes of 37 cases of birth asphyxia in term infants severe enough to warrant admission to neonatal care units in the north-west of England between 2001 and 2002. All available staff (n ¼ 93) providing care during critical periods were interviewed by the author using the cognitive interviewing technique. These included 81 midwives, two consultant obstetricians, eight registrars and two senior house officers. An expert panel consisting of consultant obstetricians, midwives, a consultant neonatologist and the researcher applied the Bolam test to identify instances where care had been substandard and injury caused as a result. Although the cases were often complex, covering more than one shift and over more than one stage of labour, the most dangerous time appeared to be during the night shift (19 cases, 51%), followed by the evening shift (13 cases, 35%) and then the day shift (five cases, 14%). The main problems include: failure to respond appropriately to signs of fetal hypoxia (26 cases, 70%); undiagnosed obstruction (22 cases, 59%), which was broken down into failure to identify cephalopelvic disproportion (13 cases, 35%); and shoulder dystocia (nine cases, 24%). Delayed resuscitation of the infant occurred in 26 cases (80%), and in 18 cases (49%) there was excessive and inappropriate use of Syntocinon. All cases involved human error, either through a delay or failure to take action, or taking inappropriate action. However, these were all underpinned and perpetuated by system and cultural errors present in the labour wards, such as allowing unsupported and inexperienced personnel to work in a position for which they lacked the necessary skill and experience. This was perpetuated by the customary practice of using unsupervised junior medical staff in a first on-call position for complications, and also of failing to sustain safe midwifery staffing levels. This in turn prevented support for more inexperienced staff. Consequently, when inexperienced midwives and obstetricians were left unsupervised in charge of complicated cases, it created accidents waiting to happen. When unsupervised and inexperienced paediatricians attended the birth of an asphyxiated infant, the child's condition deteriorated further when they were unable to resuscitate it. If such system and cultural errors as these are not rectified, the current high rate of damaged babies is likely to continue.

This article gives an overview of the situation regarding court-ordered caesarean sections in the last five years and provides an up-to-date summary of the current situation. It also discusses the implications for midwives caught up in these and other situations involving non-consensual treatment and gives clear guidlines for practice. It is imperative that midwives are aware of the legal and professional issues involved, to protect them from the threat of litigation and professional misconduct.

Since the introduction of Changing Childbirth (Department of Health, 1993), it has generally been assumed that a woman has the right to choose the kind of treatment that is most suitable for her. However, the type of care she may in fact choose and the extent to which she may claim this as her right has been unclear and caused much confusion. The choices which may be open to her have therefore been explored in the light of the recommendations made by the Changing Childbirth report, together with the requirements of the UKCC. In addition to this, relevant and legal constraints have also been examined, as possible requests or demands for care in the future need to be considered. It is hoped that the end result will provide a comprehensive and working guide for women's rights to choose their care in childbirth.

The study, first published in 2003, looks at the root causes of adverse events and near misses in obstetrics at seven hospital maternity units by interviewing 93 members of staff, identifying the areas of mismanagement in each case and thematically analysing them.