• Obstetrics and gynecology · Oct 2012

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Objective structured assessment of technical skills evaluation of theoretical compared with hands-on training of shoulder dystocia management: a randomized controlled trial.

    • Bernd Buerkle, Julia Pueth, Lukas A Hefler, Eva-Katrin Tempfer-Bentz, and Clemens B Tempfer.
    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
    • Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Oct 1; 120 (4): 809-14.

    ObjectiveTo compare the skills of performing a shoulder dystocia management algorithm after hands-on training compared with demonstration.MethodsWe randomized medical students to a 30-minute hands-on (group 1) and a 30-minute demonstration (group 2) training session teaching a standardized shoulder dystocia management scheme on a pelvic training model. Participants were tested with a 22-item Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scoring system after training and 72 hours thereafter. Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores were the primary outcome. Performance time, self-assessment, confidence, and global rating scale were the secondary outcomes. Statistics were performed using Mann-Whitney U test, χ test, and multiple linear regression analysis.ResultsTwo hundred three participants were randomized. Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores were significantly higher in group 1 (n=103) compared with group 2 (n=100) (17.95±3.14 compared with 15.67±3.18, respectively; P<.001). The secondary outcomes global rating scale (GRS; 10.94±2.71 compared with 8.57±2.61, respectively; P<.001), self-assessment (3.15±0.94 compared with 2.72±1.01; P=.002), and confidence (3.72±0.98 compared with 3.34±0.90, respectively; P=.005), but not performance time (3:19±0:48 minutes compared with 3:31±1:05 minutes; P=.1), were also significantly different, favoring group 1. After 72 hours, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores were still significantly higher in group 1 (n=67) compared with group 2 (n=60) (18.17±2.76 compared with 14.98±3.03, respectively; P<.001) as were GRS (10.80±2.62 compared with 8.15±2.59; P<.001) and self assessment (SA; 3.44±0.87 compared with 2.95±0.94; P=.003). In a multiple linear regression analysis, group assignment (group 1 compared with 2; P<.001) and sex (P=.002) independently influenced Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores.ConclusionHands-on training helps to achieve a significant improvement of shoulder dystocia management on a pelvic training model.Clinical Trial Registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01618565.Level Of EvidenceI.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.