ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Any midwives out there - what's the official guidance on determining due date?(40 Posts)
I have an issue - I am 40+1 today by my dates but according to my 13 week scan I am 40+6. My hospital likes to induce at 40+12. I have already declined induction at that date on the basis the dates are wrong, but my midwife wants me to go into hospital anyway to start monitoring etc on that date (next weds.)
They will not change my dates, and are putting pressure on me re. meeting the consultant next week. But I want to wait - I feel like I want to give this baby a chance to come naturally, and whilst I'm not against monitoring, I feel like it's massive overkill to start at what I know is just 41 weeks.
Btw, I was using ovulation testers when I conceived, so I am pretty certain of my dates.
What I really want to know is what is the official guidance on determining dd? I would be really grateful if any midwives/docs could signpost me to some relevant literature. They won't take my dates into account at all. I have looked at the NICE website but can't find anything.
Of course, I hope I'll have the baby before then, but I feel really stressed about this, which isn't helping!
Fruit, you don't have to have an argument or a battle. You don't have to convince anyone of your reasons. In fact, you don't even have to HAVE a reason.
You will probably develop a better relationship with your caregivers if you DO have a reason but it is your right to refuse intervention or transfer to hospital for no reason.
you don't need to argue, just keep repeating " i believe my dates are wrong" and "nice guidelines state..."
i was homebirth too.
orbis... the fetuses are measured from the beginning onwards.. we work forwards not backwards. hundreds and hundred of fetuses were measured and their gestational ages were calculated and it is from these charts the percentiles were arranged. there is a wide variance of normal from 25th to 75th percentile. At the early stages to almost 20 weeks all babies are approx the same size.. If one shows up very small or very big then this is when problems are highlighted.. with in the first and towards mid trimester heads are the same size also.. if it was a big head at 12 weeks compared to the body then this is highlighting a medical problem and we have to look in to why.. there are lots of syndromes at this stage which could be reasons.
I will just add that the charts used now were calculated from ususing Caucasian babies.. the charts do not fit with babies from some ethnic origins and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
what is really needed is a new study to be done and to take in to account the wide variance of ethnicity in this country now compared to 30 years ago. maybe prof nickolaides will do one..
sorry for typos am on phone..
Worley that is really interesting and helpful.
When I went for what was meant to be my 13 week scan, she said Ooh, the baby looks a bit big - and he was off the scale, for the NT measurement and going by his head, she said he was 14+5, and the the computer altered it to 14+3. I had to have the quad test.
The thing is, my dates can't be what they say - I hadn't had sex for aboput 8-10 days when they reckon I conceived, I was on about day 1-4 of my period, and my temps were low until about a week later when they went up as per usual ovulation pattern - I also didn't have a positive OPK till this time.
So I reckon that they are 9 days out, or at least 6. They said there was a +/- 7 day accuracy.
What I wondered was what else might cause a baby to be so big - he was still on the same trajectory at 20 weeks which makes it look like they are right - but it just seems impossible I could have conceived that early.
I wondered if it might mean I have GD or something, or that he is just huge?
They said he is in proportion, not just a big head or something - everything is about right. So I can't work out if I've had a very weird, almost impossible conception, or if I'm having an enormous baby, or if there could be something wrong with him iyswim. It must be one of those things.
Also I don't know when I'll be 'late' - 9 days is an awful long time difference when they want to induce after 41 weeks or so.
Rooney sometimes there are no answers! sometimes conception is a few days after intercourse. it is bizarre..
I've had people swear blind that it's wrong and it can't be that. (I've seen men get up an walk out as they sit there and work out in their head that they weren't about 12 weeks ago) the dates are only as good as the measurements taken. and it it not the best scan then there is alway a margin of error which is why we give a 5 day scope. when I tell people their edd I always say making you around 12+5 (for example) an delivery will be around ddmm when ever baby is ready.
Oh, thankyou Worley - very good of you to answer me!
I am shocked that people get up and walk out. It must be very awkward!
I guess I won't know ever, when exactly he was conceived or meant to be born. So we'll wing it and try our best to avoid induction...I wouldn't object to daily monitoring, I'm only 5 mins from the hospital. And wouldn't want to put him at risk.
I keep wondering though if I actually conceived the prior cycle though and am due in 2 weeks, not 6! Oh dear. That's what my mum thinks anyway. She was convinced I was pregnant well before I knew I was...
Worley thanks that's really interesting.
Rooney, it sounds like you should stick to your dates. As you say, their dates have to be wrong - no sperm and no egg available = no baby. Have they given you any alternative explanations (other than immaculate conception)? Apparently baby head shape (e.g. due to different ethnic backgrounds) can affect the accuracy of the head diameter measurement.
Thanks, Orbis - no they just said 'strange things happen sometimes'!
I'm white, British, standard issue head I think
Well, I'll just see how it goes.
DS was 4 days out which made conception impossible for me. Early labour started on what I said would be my EDD and DS was born the next day.
I told them it was impossible for their dates to be right and that I would be opting for expectant management to which they hummed and hahed but they can't make you do anything. Obviously if they have a reason for advising otherwise it's different but 'hospital policy' doesn't cut it for me.
No other reason, I'm low risk. Anyway, started having irregular contractions today so hopefully problem will be solved soon!
I've always heard that sonigraphers are most particular how they word things. At my 20 scan for dd I was told she would be a '9lb er' had dates moved, measured big, she was 9lb 6 with z head likd z watermelon . Same lady (sorry can't spell it!!) scanned ds and said same thing and tex he too had huge head - at 2.9 he wears age 6-7 hats!! Wonder what to look forward to at 20 week scan on tue
I don't agree with my scan dates. I think they are a week out. I'm officially due on the 31st January but by my dates I'm due in the 24th. Not that anyone pays the slightest bit of attention.
Being dated a week further on bothers me because when ds3 was born at 40+3 there was some signs of the placenta beginning to become less efficient when it was examined. So if that was to happen again then the extra 7 days would matter. But, I couldn't see anything written in my notes from ds3 even mentioning the placenta so I have nothing to back up my case.
I've had extra growth scans as according to the charts I have small babies - 6lb 14oz has been my smallest and I don't think that's tiny. In every scan I've had with 4 pregnancies the babies have consistently measured on the 9th percentile - it's just the way I grow babies I think. This one is no different, he was on the 9th percentile at my 28 week scan a couple of weeks ago. Because he is a small baby changing my dates isn't even considered as on option. It's hard to be in a position where your opinion is so roundly ignored.
I changed the dates myself on my green notes and in a few weeks will photocopy the scan chart (after my 34 week scan when all scans are finished) and adjust it to my dates before stapling it back in. Probably not the best thing to do but what else can you do when no one will take your concerns seriously.
My scan date put DD's conception at a fortnight after I know I last had sex. TTC was such a chore after a while that I KNOW I didn't have sex (or do anything else involving sperm) after that date. She was born 10 days late according to my dates, and 5 days early according to the hospital. She was clearly overcooked with no vernix, long fingernails... And my family always deliver 10 days late, on both sides.
Don't know how that happened. Don't know if she had an unusually small head - I had it measured a couple of times in her first few months out of curiosity, and it is 25th percentile where her height is 91st, so it is possible.
Unless DH is very very stealthy.......
That article (thank you Worley) says that head shape plays a part, too. DD and I are both dolicephalic (longer front to back than side to side) which gives a falsely "young" age. Problem solved!
So maybe it is down to head shape! Maybe we should be asking about crown-rump length as well, and picking whichever is closest to the dates we think are right!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.