This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent unpredictability of physiological responses during labor and the critical need for timely, evidence-based intervention while respecting the birthing person’s autonomy and the principles of Nordic midwifery care. The midwife must balance the expectation of a normal physiological birth with the potential for complications, requiring astute observation, accurate assessment, and decisive action within the established regulatory and ethical framework. The best approach involves continuous, non-intrusive monitoring of both maternal and fetal well-being, coupled with open communication and shared decision-making with the birthing person and their partner. This aligns with the Nordic model of midwifery, which emphasizes physiological birth, minimal intervention, and strong client relationships. Specifically, it adheres to the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the best interest of the mother and baby), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), autonomy (respecting the birthing person’s choices), and justice (providing equitable care). Regulatory guidelines in Nordic countries typically support this approach, promoting continuity of care and empowering midwives to manage normal births while recognizing the threshold for escalation to obstetric services. An incorrect approach would be to delay essential interventions due to a reluctance to deviate from a perceived “normal” progression, potentially leading to adverse outcomes for the fetus or mother. This fails to uphold the principle of beneficence and could breach professional duty of care. Another incorrect approach would be to prematurely escalate care based on minor deviations from an idealized physiological curve without a thorough assessment of the overall clinical picture and the birthing person’s status. This undermines the principles of evidence-based practice and can lead to unnecessary medicalization of birth, infringing on the birthing person’s autonomy and potentially causing iatrogenic harm. Finally, failing to adequately document observations and decisions, or not clearly communicating the rationale for interventions or non-interventions to the birthing person, represents a failure in professional accountability and transparency, potentially violating regulatory requirements for record-keeping and informed consent. Professional decision-making in such situations requires a systematic process: continuous assessment of physiological parameters, interpretation of findings within the context of the individual’s labor, consideration of the birthing person’s preferences and values, consultation with colleagues or escalation pathways when indicated, and clear, empathetic communication throughout.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between a birthing person’s expressed wishes and the midwife’s professional judgment regarding safety and best practice, particularly in a water birth setting where specific protocols and monitoring are crucial. The midwife must navigate this delicate balance while adhering to the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification standards, which prioritize maternal and neonatal well-being within the context of a supportive and informed birthing environment. The challenge lies in upholding the principles of autonomy and informed consent without compromising the safety standards established by the Board. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough, calm, and evidence-based discussion with the birthing person and their partner, clearly articulating the specific concerns related to the proposed deviation from standard water birth monitoring protocols. This approach prioritizes open communication, shared decision-making, and the provision of comprehensive information about potential risks and benefits. It acknowledges the birthing person’s autonomy while fulfilling the midwife’s ethical and professional obligation to ensure safety. The Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification implicitly mandates that midwives act in the best interest of both mother and baby, which includes informed consent and the right to refuse interventions, but also the responsibility to clearly communicate risks associated with such refusals. This approach directly addresses the conflict by seeking a resolution through dialogue and education, aiming to reach a mutually agreeable plan that respects the birthing person’s wishes as much as possible while maintaining safety standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately overriding the birthing person’s wishes and insisting on the standard monitoring protocol without further discussion or exploration of their concerns. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent and autonomy, potentially creating a coercive environment and eroding trust. It disregards the birthing person’s right to make decisions about their own body and birth experience, even if those decisions differ from standard practice, provided risks are understood. Another incorrect approach is to acquiesce to the birthing person’s request without adequately explaining the potential risks or exploring alternative, less intrusive monitoring methods that might still meet safety requirements. This approach abdicates the midwife’s professional responsibility to provide expert guidance and ensure the highest possible standard of care, potentially exposing the mother and baby to preventable harm. It prioritizes compliance over safety and professional judgment. A further incorrect approach would be to become defensive or dismissive of the birthing person’s concerns, framing their request as unreasonable or uninformed. This creates an adversarial relationship, hindering effective communication and collaboration. It fails to recognize that birthing individuals may have valid reasons for their preferences, and a skilled midwife’s role is to understand and address these, not to invalidate them. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such a situation should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening to understand the birthing person’s perspective and concerns. This should be followed by a clear, non-judgmental explanation of the midwife’s professional concerns, grounded in evidence and the specific guidelines of the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification. The midwife should then collaboratively explore options, seeking to find a compromise that respects the birthing person’s autonomy while ensuring safety. If a mutually agreeable plan cannot be reached, the midwife must clearly articulate the risks of proceeding against professional advice and document the discussion and decision-making process thoroughly. The ultimate goal is to support a safe and empowering birth experience, even when navigating complex ethical and clinical considerations.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a midwife to navigate the specific, often nuanced, eligibility criteria for advanced certification while also considering the practical implications of their current practice and future aspirations. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the chosen path aligns with the purpose of the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification and demonstrates the necessary foundational experience and advanced competencies. The best approach involves a thorough self-assessment against the published eligibility requirements for the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification, focusing on the documented experience in water birth settings, the completion of any prerequisite advanced training modules, and the submission of a comprehensive portfolio demonstrating advanced clinical skills and theoretical knowledge specific to Nordic water birth practices. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the stated purpose of the certification, which is to recognize and advance expertise in this specialized area of midwifery. Adherence to these documented requirements ensures that candidates possess the requisite skills and knowledge, thereby upholding the integrity and standards of the certification. It also aligns with the ethical obligation of midwives to maintain professional competence and to seek certification only when they meet established criteria. An incorrect approach would be to assume that extensive general midwifery experience, even if including some water birth exposure, automatically qualifies one for advanced certification without meeting the specific documented requirements. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the explicit criteria set by the Board, potentially leading to a certification that does not accurately reflect advanced expertise in Nordic water birth. It undermines the purpose of the certification, which is to identify practitioners with specialized, advanced skills beyond general midwifery. Another incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal endorsements from colleagues or supervisors without providing the required documented evidence of experience and training. This is professionally unacceptable as it substitutes informal validation for the formal, objective assessment mandated by the certification body. The Board’s purpose is to establish clear, verifiable standards, and informal endorsements do not fulfill this requirement, potentially leading to the certification of individuals who do not meet the advanced competency levels. A further incorrect approach would be to focus on the desire for career advancement or increased professional standing as the primary driver for pursuing certification, without a rigorous evaluation of whether one’s current practice and qualifications genuinely meet the advanced eligibility criteria. This is professionally unacceptable because it prioritizes personal ambition over the established standards and the core purpose of the certification, which is to validate advanced skills and knowledge in Nordic water birth. It risks misrepresenting one’s qualifications and devaluing the certification itself. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the certification’s purpose and published eligibility criteria. This involves meticulous review of all requirements, honest self-assessment of one’s experience and training against these criteria, and proactive engagement with the certification body for clarification if needed. The focus should always be on meeting the established standards through verifiable evidence, ensuring that the pursuit of advanced certification is grounded in genuine competence and aligns with the ethical commitment to providing high-quality, specialized care.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the midwife to navigate complex personal beliefs, evolving family structures, and the legal and ethical obligations surrounding reproductive autonomy within the specific context of Nordic healthcare. Balancing a client’s right to make informed decisions about their reproductive health with the midwife’s professional responsibilities, while respecting diverse family configurations, demands a nuanced and ethically grounded approach. The best professional practice involves actively supporting the client’s autonomy and providing comprehensive, unbiased information about all available family planning and reproductive health options, irrespective of the midwife’s personal views or the perceived non-traditional nature of the family unit. This approach aligns with the core ethical principles of midwifery, emphasizing client-centered care, informed consent, and respect for individual choices. Nordic healthcare systems, in general, strongly uphold principles of reproductive rights and individual autonomy, which are further reinforced by national legislation and professional guidelines that mandate non-discriminatory care and the provision of accurate, comprehensive information. The midwife’s role is to facilitate the client’s decision-making process, not to influence or impose personal beliefs. An approach that prioritizes the midwife’s personal interpretation of family structure over the client’s stated wishes and right to reproductive autonomy is ethically flawed. It violates the principle of client autonomy and can lead to discriminatory practices. Furthermore, withholding or selectively presenting information based on personal bias undermines the client’s ability to make a truly informed decision, which is a fundamental right. Another unacceptable approach involves assuming the client’s needs or desires based on stereotypes or generalizations about their family structure. This paternalistic stance disregards the individual’s agency and their right to define their own reproductive journey. It fails to acknowledge the diversity of modern families and the unique circumstances of each individual or couple. A professional decision-making process in such situations should begin with a thorough understanding of the client’s expressed needs and desires. The midwife must then access and provide accurate, up-to-date information on all relevant family planning and reproductive health services, ensuring it is presented in a clear, accessible, and unbiased manner. This information should cover a range of options, including contraception, fertility treatments, and prenatal care, tailored to the client’s specific situation. Throughout the process, the midwife must maintain a non-judgmental attitude, actively listen to the client’s concerns, and respect their ultimate decision-making authority, all within the framework of applicable Nordic healthcare regulations and ethical guidelines.

This scenario presents a professional challenge rooted in the inherent tension between established community midwifery practices and the evolving need to integrate culturally safe care for a diverse population. The challenge lies in ensuring that continuity of care models, a cornerstone of Nordic midwifery, are not only maintained but also adapted to respect and incorporate the unique cultural beliefs and practices of all birthing individuals, particularly those from minority groups. Careful judgment is required to balance tradition with inclusivity, ensuring that no individual feels marginalized or misunderstood during a vulnerable period. The best professional approach involves actively engaging with the community to understand their specific cultural needs and preferences regarding birth. This includes seeking out and incorporating traditional practices, communication styles, and family involvement norms into the existing continuity of care model. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the principles of cultural safety, which mandate that healthcare providers create an environment where individuals from diverse backgrounds feel respected, empowered, and safe. Regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines for Nordic midwifery emphasize person-centered care and the importance of respecting individual autonomy and cultural identity. By proactively seeking community input, the midwife demonstrates a commitment to understanding and respecting these diverse needs, thereby fostering trust and ensuring equitable care. An incorrect approach would be to assume that existing community midwifery practices are universally applicable and sufficient for all cultural groups. This fails to acknowledge that cultural norms around birth can vary significantly and that a one-size-fits-all model can inadvertently perpetuate cultural insensitivity or even harm. Ethically, this approach violates the principle of justice by not providing equitable care and disrespects the autonomy of individuals whose cultural needs are not being met. Another incorrect approach would be to implement a superficial “add-on” cultural awareness training for midwives without genuine integration into the continuity of care model or community engagement. While training can be a component, it is insufficient if it does not lead to tangible changes in practice that are informed by the community itself. This approach risks tokenism and does not address the systemic need for culturally safe care within the established midwifery framework. It fails to achieve true cultural safety, which requires ongoing dialogue and adaptation, not just one-off education. A further incorrect approach would be to prioritize the midwife’s established practices over the expressed cultural needs of the birthing individual, citing efficiency or tradition as justification. This is ethically unacceptable as it places the provider’s convenience or ingrained habits above the well-being and cultural rights of the person receiving care. It directly contradicts the core tenets of midwifery, which are to support and empower birthing individuals, and fails to uphold the principles of respect and dignity. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation. Midwives should actively seek out opportunities to understand the cultural landscape of the communities they serve. This includes fostering open communication, being receptive to feedback, and being willing to modify established practices to ensure that care is not only clinically sound but also culturally congruent and safe. A framework of collaborative practice, where community members are seen as partners in defining and delivering care, is essential.

The review process indicates a potential discrepancy in how the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies are being interpreted and applied by the examination committee. This scenario is professionally challenging because it directly impacts the fairness, validity, and accessibility of the certification process. Misinterpreting or misapplying these policies can lead to undue stress for candidates, questions about the board’s integrity, and potentially inequitable outcomes. Careful judgment is required to ensure adherence to established guidelines and to maintain public trust in the certification. The best approach involves a thorough review of the official Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification handbook, specifically the sections detailing blueprint weighting, scoring methodologies, and retake policies. This handbook serves as the definitive guide for all examination-related procedures. The examination committee must then apply these documented policies consistently and transparently to all candidates. This approach is correct because it ensures adherence to the established regulatory framework and ethical principles of fair assessment. The handbook’s policies are designed to ensure that the examination accurately reflects the required competencies and that the scoring and retake procedures are equitable and clearly communicated. This upholds the integrity of the certification process and provides a predictable pathway for candidates. An incorrect approach would be to rely on informal discussions or past practices that are not explicitly documented in the official handbook. This is professionally unacceptable because it deviates from the established regulatory framework. Without clear, documented policies, there is a high risk of inconsistent application, leading to perceptions of bias or unfairness. This undermines the validity of the certification and can lead to legal or ethical challenges. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize expediency over accuracy in applying the policies, such as making ad-hoc decisions about scoring adjustments or retake eligibility without consulting the official guidelines. This is professionally unacceptable as it bypasses the established procedures designed to ensure fairness and standardization. Such actions can lead to arbitrary outcomes, where candidates are treated differently based on subjective interpretations rather than objective, pre-defined criteria. This erodes trust in the examination process. A third incorrect approach is to interpret the blueprint weighting and scoring in a manner that disproportionately favors certain areas of practice without explicit justification within the official documentation. This is professionally unacceptable because it violates the principle of a balanced and representative assessment. The blueprint weighting is intended to reflect the relative importance of different knowledge and skill domains. Deviating from this without proper amendment to the official documentation compromises the examination’s ability to accurately measure overall competency. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a commitment to transparency, adherence to documented policies, and a willingness to seek clarification from the governing body when ambiguities arise. Professionals should always refer to the most current official documentation, engage in collaborative review with peers to ensure consistent interpretation, and prioritize fairness and equity in all assessment-related decisions. When in doubt, consulting the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification’s official administrative body for clarification is the most responsible course of action.

This scenario presents a common challenge in midwifery practice: balancing the birthing person’s expressed wishes with the midwife’s professional assessment of safety and best practice, particularly when those wishes might deviate from standard protocols. The core of the challenge lies in navigating the ethical imperative of respecting autonomy while upholding the duty of care. The Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification emphasizes a holistic assessment that integrates the birthing person’s values, beliefs, and preferences with clinical evidence and professional expertise. Shared decision-making is not merely about informing the birthing person of options, but actively engaging them in a collaborative process where their input is valued and their choices, within safe parameters, are respected. The best approach involves a comprehensive, person-centered assessment that prioritizes open communication and collaborative goal-setting. This means thoroughly understanding the birthing person’s rationale for their preferences, exploring potential risks and benefits of all options (including their preferred one and alternatives), and jointly developing a care plan that aligns with both their desires and established safety guidelines. This approach respects the birthing person’s autonomy and promotes trust, fostering a positive birth experience. It aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, as well as the professional standards of midwifery care that mandate informed consent and shared decision-making. An approach that dismisses the birthing person’s stated preferences due to a perceived deviation from standard practice without thorough exploration and discussion fails to uphold the principle of autonomy. It risks alienating the birthing person, undermining trust, and potentially leading to a suboptimal birth experience. This approach prioritizes the midwife’s interpretation of “standard” over the individual’s lived experience and informed choices, which is ethically problematic. Another unacceptable approach is to proceed with a plan that the birthing person has not fully understood or consented to, even if it aligns with the midwife’s initial assessment. This bypasses the crucial element of informed consent and shared decision-making, potentially leading to a situation where the birthing person feels disempowered or that their wishes were ignored. This violates the ethical duty to ensure the birthing person is an active participant in their care. Finally, an approach that presents a limited set of options, heavily weighted towards the midwife’s preferred course of action, without genuinely exploring the birthing person’s perspective or the rationale behind their preferences, is also professionally deficient. This can be perceived as persuasive rather than collaborative, failing to achieve true shared decision-making and potentially leaving the birthing person feeling unheard. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathetic inquiry to understand the birthing person’s perspective fully. This should be followed by a clear, evidence-based presentation of all available options, including potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. The midwife should then facilitate a dialogue where the birthing person’s values and preferences are integrated into the care plan, ensuring that the final decisions are made collaboratively and with full informed consent.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge rooted in the inherent tension between a birthing person’s autonomy and the midwife’s professional responsibility to ensure safety and adherence to established protocols. The core difficulty lies in navigating a situation where a client’s expressed wishes, while understandable from their perspective, may diverge from evidence-based practices or established safety guidelines within the Nordic context of water birth. The midwife must balance respecting the client’s agency with their duty of care, which includes informed consent, risk assessment, and the application of professional judgment. This requires a nuanced understanding of both the client’s emotional and physical state, and the potential implications of deviating from standard procedures. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, empathetic, and collaborative discussion with the birthing person and their partner. This entails clearly and calmly explaining the rationale behind the recommended protocol, outlining the potential risks and benefits associated with both adhering to and deviating from it, and actively listening to their concerns and fears. The midwife should explore the underlying reasons for the client’s request, seeking to understand their perspective and address any misconceptions. This approach prioritizes informed consent, ensuring the birthing person can make a decision that is both autonomous and well-informed, within the bounds of safety. It aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for autonomy, all of which are foundational in Nordic midwifery practice and are reinforced by professional guidelines emphasizing shared decision-making and client-centered care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to immediately dismiss the birthing person’s request without thorough discussion or exploration of their reasoning. This fails to uphold the principle of respect for autonomy and can erode trust, potentially leading to the birthing person feeling unheard or disempowered. It also misses an opportunity to identify and address any underlying anxieties or misinformation that might be driving their request. Another incorrect approach is to accede to the request without adequately explaining the potential risks or ensuring the birthing person fully understands the implications of deviating from established safety protocols. This could be construed as a failure in the duty of care, as it may lead to an unsafe situation for both the birthing person and the baby, and would not align with the midwife’s professional responsibility to advocate for evidence-based, safe practices. A further incorrect approach involves becoming overly rigid and authoritarian, insisting on protocol adherence without demonstrating empathy or attempting to find a compromise that respects the birthing person’s wishes while maintaining safety. While safety is paramount, a purely directive approach can be detrimental to the therapeutic relationship and the overall birthing experience. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathetic engagement. This is followed by a thorough assessment of the situation, considering the client’s wishes, their clinical status, and the potential risks and benefits of any proposed course of action. The next step involves clear, transparent communication, explaining the rationale behind recommendations and exploring all available options. Crucially, the process must facilitate informed consent, ensuring the birthing person is empowered to make decisions about their care. If a deviation from standard practice is considered, it must be carefully weighed against established safety guidelines and professional expertise, with a clear understanding of the potential consequences and a robust plan for monitoring.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a midwife to balance the immediate needs of a client with the long-term commitment to professional development and adherence to board certification standards. The pressure to provide immediate support can sometimes overshadow the necessity of structured, evidence-based preparation, potentially leading to compromised care or an inability to meet certification requirements. Careful judgment is required to integrate personal and professional responsibilities effectively. The best approach involves a proactive and structured timeline for preparation, integrating study materials and practice assessments into a realistic schedule that accounts for clinical duties and personal life. This approach is correct because it aligns with the Advanced Nordic Water Birth Midwifery Board Certification’s emphasis on evidence-based practice and demonstrated competency. By allocating dedicated time for studying, engaging with recommended resources, and practicing with mock examinations, the candidate ensures a comprehensive understanding of the material and develops the confidence to perform well. This methodical preparation minimizes the risk of superficial learning and maximizes the likelihood of successful certification, ultimately benefiting both the midwife and the clients they serve by ensuring they meet the highest standards of care. An approach that relies solely on reviewing notes during clinical downtime is professionally unacceptable. This is because clinical downtime is often unpredictable and insufficient for deep learning. It fails to provide the structured environment necessary to master complex topics and can lead to a superficial understanding of critical concepts, potentially violating the board’s requirement for thorough preparation and evidence-based knowledge. An approach that prioritizes attending every available workshop or seminar without a clear study plan is also professionally unacceptable. While continuous learning is valuable, an unfocused approach can lead to information overload and a lack of integration of knowledge. This can result in a fragmented understanding of the material, failing to meet the board’s expectation of a cohesive and well-rounded preparation that demonstrates mastery of the subject matter. An approach that delays dedicated study until the final month before the examination is professionally unacceptable. This creates undue pressure and significantly increases the risk of burnout and inadequate preparation. It does not allow for sufficient time to process complex information, identify knowledge gaps, or engage in meaningful practice, thereby failing to meet the board’s implicit requirement for diligent and timely preparation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes planning and realistic goal setting. This involves understanding the scope and demands of the certification, assessing personal time constraints, and creating a phased study plan. Regular self-assessment and flexibility to adjust the plan based on progress are crucial. This proactive and organized approach ensures that preparation is comprehensive, sustainable, and aligned with the professional standards expected by the certifying body.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the rapid deterioration of a fetal heart rate during a water birth, a situation demanding immediate, decisive, and coordinated action. The inherent limitations of fetal surveillance in a water environment, coupled with the urgency of potential fetal hypoxia, necessitate a swift and accurate assessment of the situation and the implementation of appropriate interventions. The midwife must balance the woman’s wishes for a continuous water birth with the paramount duty of fetal well-being, requiring expert clinical judgment and adherence to established emergency protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately initiating a structured approach to fetal distress management. This includes discontinuing the water immersion if it impedes effective fetal monitoring or intervention, repositioning the mother to optimize uterine blood flow and fetal descent, administering oxygen to the mother, and ensuring rapid access to emergency obstetric care and neonatal resuscitation teams. This approach is correct because it prioritizes fetal safety by addressing potential causes of distress and preparing for immediate intervention, aligning with the core ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and adhering to established guidelines for managing intrapartum fetal compromise, which mandate prompt assessment and intervention to prevent adverse outcomes. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to continue the water birth without reassessment, relying solely on intermittent auscultation and hoping for spontaneous improvement. This fails to acknowledge the limitations of fetal surveillance in water and delays crucial interventions, potentially leading to irreversible fetal harm. This approach violates the duty of care by not acting with reasonable skill and diligence when faced with clear signs of fetal distress. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately remove the mother from the water and transfer her to a hospital setting without first attempting basic interventions like maternal repositioning and oxygen administration, which can sometimes resolve non-critical decelerations. While transfer may ultimately be necessary, bypassing initial, potentially effective measures is inefficient and may cause unnecessary distress to the mother and fetus. This approach demonstrates a lack of nuanced clinical judgment and adherence to stepwise management protocols. A third incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the mother’s comfort and wishes for an unassisted water birth, neglecting the critical need for continuous and effective fetal surveillance and intervention in the face of concerning fetal heart rate patterns. This prioritizes one aspect of care over the fundamental responsibility to ensure fetal viability and health, which is ethically and professionally unacceptable. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach to obstetric emergencies, often guided by mnemonics or protocols that emphasize rapid assessment, intervention, and escalation. This involves maintaining situational awareness, continuously evaluating the fetal status, and being prepared to deviate from the birth plan when fetal well-being is compromised. A critical element is effective communication with the woman and her partner, explaining the situation and the rationale for interventions, while also ensuring seamless communication with the wider maternity team for timely support and transfer if required.