|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: What would you do, new caseFrom: Garry E. Siegel (garrys@atl.mindspring.com)Fri Jan 10 21:53:01 1997
>If you are not diagnosing her as haveing pre-eclampsia, then don't >*treat* her as if she had pre-eclampsis. If you are, then do. (But it >sounds like you shouldn't.) The decision to treat is 100% dependent on >the presence or absence of the diagnosis. > Bob: In the previous discussion about this case, most of agreed by our actions (followup as described that was remarkable similar among the listers) that she was either a mild preeclamptic, or, at least was abnormal enough to be treated like one who had an unfavorable cervix and thus was being followed. Now that her cervix is decent, and she is term, I think the downside of induction is much lower, and that it outweighs the patient risk, downtime, cost of followup, etc. In essence, she has been "sat on" for 2 weeks. I can't see sitting on her into post dates, ie past 41 weeks. I couldn't argue with a stand that said sit until 41 weeks; however, this seems like the right thing to do in the absence of a clearcut evidence based guideline. Garry
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 05:18:24 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.