The importance of quality management in fetal measurement

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate factors contributing to inaccuracy in fetal measurements and to assess the clinical importance of measurement quality. METHODS: One hundred images of biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC) and abdominal circumference (AC) measurements were collected from six centers (1800 measurements); the proportion meeting quality criteria was assessed. Four hundred images of AC were collected from one center, each image measured by ellipse fitting and tracing methods; clinical agreement between the methods was assessed. Fetal weight estimation (EFW) errors were compared between quality controlled and non-quality controlled studies. Images of three ACs on each of 400 fetuses were collected; where one measurement failed to meet quality criteria, it was compared with an optimal measurement on the same fetus. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent, 87% and 60% of BPD, HC and AC, respectively, met all quality criteria. Limits of agreement between ellipse and traced AC were -4.7 mm to 12.5 mm; 22% of sections were non-elliptical. EFW errors were significantly different but were confounded by differences in time to delivery. Limits of agreement between optimal and suboptimal AC measurements were -15.1 mm to 7.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS: AC quality criteria are less easily recognized and obtained than those for head measurements; training, adherence to protocols and audit are important. Differences between ellipse and traced AC may not justify the use of separate charts; the number of non-elliptical sections suggests that ellipse fitting is not appropriate. Comparison between EFW errors is not a suitable tool for audit. Failure to meet quality criteria results in clinically significant errors.