Obstetric team simulation program challenges.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the challenges associated with the development and assessment of an obstetric emergency team simulation program. DESIGN: The goal was to develop a hybrid, in-situ and high fidelity obstetric emergency team simulation program that incorporated weekly simulation sessions on the labor and delivery unit, and quarterly, education protected sessions in the simulation center. All simulation sessions were video-recorded and reviewed. SETTING: Labor and delivery unit and simulation center. PARTICIPANTS: Medical staff covering labor and delivery, anesthesiology and obstetric residents and obstetric nurses. MEASUREMENTS: Assessments included an on-line knowledge multiple-choice questionnaire about the simulation scenarios. This was completed prior to the initial in-situ simulation session and repeated 3 months later, the Clinical Teamwork Scale with inter-rater reliability, participant confidence surveys and subjective participant satisfaction. A web-based curriculum comprising modules on communication skills, team challenges, and team obstetric emergency scenarios was also developed. MAIN RESULTS: Over 4 months, only 6 labor and delivery unit in-situ sessions out of a possible 14 sessions were carried out. Four high-fidelity sessions were performed in 2 quarterly education protected meetings in the simulation center. Information technology difficulties led to the completion of only 18 pre/post web-based multiple-choice questionnaires. These test results showed no significant improvement in raw score performance from pre-test to post-test (P=.27). During Clinical Teamwork Scale live and video assessment, trained raters and program faculty were in agreement only 31% and 28% of the time, respectively (Kendall's W=.31, P<.001 and W=.28, P<.001). Participant confidence surveys overall revealed confidence significantly increased (P<.05), from pre-scenario briefing to after post-scenario debriefing. CONCLUSION: Program feedback indicates a high level of participant satisfaction and improved confidence yet further program refinement is required.

Choice of antenatal testing significantly effects a patient's work obligations.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare two approaches to antenatal testing for their impact on the workforce. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective observational study of women who presented for antenatal testing. All women were given a survey upon presentation. As per hospital protocol, nonstress testing (NST) was performed semiweekly and biophysical profile (BPP) was performed weekly. The choice of testing was determined by the attending physician. chi2- and Student's t-tests were performed where appropriate. A P-value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULT: A total of 195 women were surveyed. Among them, 94 women had an NST and 101 had a BPP. Overall, 59.2% were multiparous, 33.1% had to arrange for child care and 97.2% felt reassured by the testing. There were no differences in demographic characteristics, education, type of insurance or employment status between the groups. Women who had NSTs were more likely to lose time from work than those who had BPPs (218.4 versus 68.9 min; P<0.001). Of the women who had semiweekly NSTs, 80.6% would have preferred weekly testing. If the 94 women who received semiweekly testing had weekly testing, a total of 534.4 h would have been available for the workforce. CONCLUSION: Twice-weekly NST results in a significant increase in time lost from the workforce compared with weekly BPP.

Neonatal hearing assessment in very low birth weight infants exposed to antenatal steroids.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate neonatal hearing assessment by the otoacoustic emission (OAE) test in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants exposed to antenatal steroids. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of infants <1500 g delivered between July 1998 and July 2004 who completed hearing screens on discharge. All screens were performed by the OAE. Only infants who failed or passed the exam were included in the analysis. Infants with a partial or an inadequate exam were excluded. Neonates exposed to antenatal steroids were then compared to unexposed infants for the results of their OAE. RESULT: A total of 68,000 deliveries were performed during the study period. There were 703 VLBW infants who had hearing exams, of which 548 (78%) passed the screen, 95 (14%) failed and 59 (8%) were indeterminate. Gestational age, birth weight, score for neonatal acute physiology and severe intraventricular hemorrhage were associated with a failed screen (P<0.01). Antenatal steroid exposure was not associated with a failed screen (odds ratio: 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.5-1.4), P=0.43). CONCLUSION: In our population, antenatal steroids were not associated with a positive or negative effect on hearing assessment of VLBW infants.