Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-8cb25 Total loading time: 1.987 Render date: 2022-11-27T06:33:54.780Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Section 9 - Setting-Up Skills and Drills Training in Maternity Services and Reducing Avoidable Harm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2021

Edwin Chandraharan
Affiliation:
St George's University of London
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's University of London
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Obstetric and Intrapartum Emergencies
A Practical Guide to Management
, pp. 297 - 326
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Rosenorn-Lanng, D. Human Factors in Healthcare, Level 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
CHFG Clinical Human Factors Group. Key human factors messages when working under pressure. https://chfg.org.Google Scholar
Knight, M, Bunch, K, Tuffnell, D, et al. (eds.) on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care: Lessons Learned to Inform Maternity Care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2014–16. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, 2018.Google Scholar
Weindling, AM. The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Arch Dis Childhd. 2003;88(12):1034–7.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Each Baby Counts: 2018 Progress Report. London: RCOG; 2018.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Each Baby Counts: Themed report on anaesthetic care, including lessons identified from Each Baby Counts babies born 2015 to 2017. London: RCOG; 2018.Google Scholar
Coroyannakis, C, Chandraharan, E, Matiluko, A. Comparative analysis of the human ‘WORM’: role of human factors on adverse incidents in two adjacent obstetric units in London. BJOG. 2013;120(1):413.Google Scholar
Vosper, H, Hignett, S, Bowie, P. () Twelve tips for embedding human factors and ergonomics principles in healthcare education. Med Teacher. 2018;40(4):357–63, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1387240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russ, AL, Fairbanks, RJ, Karsh, B-T, Militello, LG, Saleem, JJ, Wears, RL. The science of human factors: separating facts from fiction. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:802–8.Google Scholar
Jackson, K, Hayes, K, Hinshaw, K. The relevance of non-technical skills in obstetrics and gynaecology. TOG. 2013;15:269–74.Google Scholar
Endsley, M. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37(1):3264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flin, R, O’Connor, P, Crichton, M. Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Non-Technical Skills. Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2008.Google Scholar
Chabris, C, Simons, D. The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuition Deceives Us. London: HarperCollins; 2011.Google Scholar
Nzelu, O, Chandraharan, E, Pereira, S. Human factors: the dirty dozen in CTG misinterpretation. Glob J Reprod Med. 2018;6(2):GJORM.MS.ID.555683.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Non-technical skills for obstetricians conducting forceps and vacuum deliveries: qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(2):147–51.Google ScholarPubMed
NICE. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth; 2014. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG190Google Scholar
Quality, Service Improvement and Redesign Tools: SBAR communication tool- situation, background, assessment, recommendation. ACT academy- Online library of Quality, Service Improvement and Redesign tools. NHS Improvement. https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/2162/sbar-communication-tool.pdfGoogle Scholar
Francis, R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationary Office; 2013.Google Scholar
West, M, Eckert, R, Steward, K, Pasmore, B. Developing collective leadership for healthcare. King’s Fund, 2014. www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/developing-collective-leadership-kingsfund-may14.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hasson, G. Emotional Intelligence. Chichester: Capstone; 2014.Google Scholar
Yule, S, Flin, R, Maran, N, et al. Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behaviour rating system. World J Surg. 2008;32:548–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S, Brackley, K, Landau, A, Hayes, K. Assessing non-technical skills on the delivery suite: a pilot study. Clin Teach. 2014;11(5):375–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Easterbrook, JA. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychol Rev. 1959;66(3):183201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanoch, Y, Vitouch, O. When less is more: information, emotional arousal and the ecological reframing of the Yerkes–Dodson Law. Theory Psychol. 2004;14(4): 427–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nzelu, O, Chandraharan, E, Pereira, S. Human factors: the dirty dozen in CTG misinterpretation. Glob J Reprod Med. 2018;6(2):555683.Google Scholar

References

Kimmich, N, Zimmermann, R, Kreft, M. Video analysis for the evaluation of vaginal births: a prospective observational study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2018;148:w14634.Google ScholarPubMed
Gavin, NR, Satin, AJ. Simulation training in obstetrics. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;60(4):802–10.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE). Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer – 2006–2008. The Eighth Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118 (Suppl. 1):1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crofts, JF, Bartlett, C, Ellis, D, et al. Training for shoulder dystocia: a trial of simulation using low-fidelity and high-fidelity mannequins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108 (6):1477–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Siassakos, D, Fox, R, Bristowe, K, Angouri, J, Hambly, H, Robson, L, Draycott, TJ. What makes maternity teams effective and safe? Lessons from a series of research on teamwork, leadership and team training. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(11):1239–43.Google ScholarPubMed
van de Ven, J, Fransen, AF, Schuit, E, van Runnard Heimel, PJ, Mol, BW, Oei, SG. Does the effect of one-day simulation team training in obstetric emergencies decline within one year? A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;216:7984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Fernandez, R, Shah, S, Rosenman, R, et al. Developing team cognition: a role for simulation. Simulat Healthcare 2017;12(2)96103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, A, Eppich, W, Grant, V, et al. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Med Educ. 2014;48(7):657–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, T, Eppich, W, Brett- Fleegler, M, et al. More than one way to debrief: a critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simulat Healthcare. 2016;11(3):209–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siassakos, D, Crofts, J, Winter, C, Draycott, T. Multiprofessional ‘fire-drill’ training in the labour ward. Obstet Gynaecologist. 2009;11:5560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, T, Sibanda, T, Owen, L, et al. Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113(2):177–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draycott, TJ, Crofts, JF, Ash, JP, et al. Improving neonatal outcome through practical shoulder dystocia training. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(1):1420.Google ScholarPubMed
Crofts, JF, Enguerrand, E, Bentham, GL, et al. Prevention of brachial injury: 12 years of shoulder dystocia training – an interrupted time-series study. BJOG. 2016;123: 111–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gossett, DR, Gilchrist-Scott, D, Wayne, DB, et al. Simulation training for forceps-assisted vaginal delivery and rates of maternal perineal trauma. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:429–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Nelissen, E, Ersdl, H, Mduma, E, et al. Clinical performance and patient outcome after simulation-based training in prevention and management of postpartum haemorrhage: an educational intervention study in a low resource setting. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenguerrand, E, Winter, C, Innes, K, et al. THISTLE: trial of hands-on Interprofessional simulation training for local emergencies: a research protocol for a stepped-wedge clustered randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:294.Google Scholar
Illston, JD, Ballard, AC, Ellington, DR, et al. Modified beef tongue for fourth- degree laceration repair simulation. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:491–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, JF, Brost, BC. Obstetric ultrasound simulation. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37:199204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Alkema, L, Chou, D, Hogan, D, Zhang, S, Moller, AB, Gemmill, A. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group., et al. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):462–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Say, L, Chou, D, Gemmill, Alison, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2:e323–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Knight, M, Callaghan, WM, Berg, C., S. et al. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage in high resource countries: a review and recommendations from the International Postpartum Hemorrhage Collaborative Group. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9:55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, M, Nair, M, Tuffnell, D, Shakespeare, J, Kenyon, S, Kurinczuk, JJ (eds.) on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care: Lessons Learned to Inform Maternity Care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2013–15. Oxford: National Perinatal. Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2017.Google Scholar
MBRRACE-UK. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care: Surveillance of Maternal Deaths in the UK 2012–14 and Lessons Learned to Inform Maternity Care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2009–14. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2016.Google Scholar
Draper, ES, Gallimore, ID, Kurinczuk, JJ, Smith, PW, Boby, T, Smith, LK, Manktelow, BN, on behalf of the MBRRACE-UK Collaboration. MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report, UK Perinatal Deaths for Births from January to December 2016: Summary Report. Leicester: The Infant Mortality and Morbidity Studies, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester; 2018.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Each Baby Counts: 2018 Progress Report. London: RCOG; 2018.Google Scholar
Nzelu, O, Chandraharan, E, Pereira, S. Human factors: the dirty dozen in CTG misinterpretation. Glob J Reprod Med. 2018;6(2):555683.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Each Baby Counts: 2019 Progress Report. London: RCOG; 2020. www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/research--audit/each-baby-counts/each-baby-counts-2019-progress-report.pdfGoogle Scholar

References

Department of Health. An organisation with a memory: Report of an Expert Advisory Group on learning from Adverse Events in the NHS. London: The Stationary Office; 2000.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Midwives and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Safer Childbirth: Minimum Standards for the Organisation and Delivery of Care in Labour. London: RCOG Press; 2007.Google Scholar
Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Standards for Maternity Care. Report of a Working Party. London: RCOG Press; 2008.Google Scholar
NHS Litigation Authority. Annual Report and Accounts 2017/18. NHS Resolution. https://resolution.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NHS-Resolution-Annual-Report-2017-2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
NHS Resolution. Five years of cerebral palsy claims. A thematic review of NHS resolution data. September 2017. https://resolution.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Five-years-of-cerebral-palsy-claims_A-thematic-review-of-NHS-Resolution-data.pdfGoogle Scholar
Neilson, PE, Goldman, MB, Mann, S, et al. Effects of teamwork training on adverse outcomes and process of care in labour and delivery: a randomised control trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:4855.Google Scholar
Schofield, H. Embedding quality improvement and patient safety at Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 21(4):593607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Improving Patient Safety: Risk Management for Maternity and Gynaecology. Clinical Governance Advice No. 2. London: RCOG; 2009.Google Scholar
Draper, ES, Gallimore, ID, Kurinczuk, JJ, Smith, PW, Boby, T, Smith, LK, Manktelow, BN, on behalf of the MBRRACE-UK Collaboration. MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report, UK Perinatal Deaths for Births from January to December 2016. Leicester: The Infant Mortality and Morbidity Studies, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester. 2018.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Midwives, National Patient Safety Agency. Safer Practice in Intrapartum Care Project Care Bundles. London: RCOG Press; 2010.Google Scholar
Chandraharan, E, Arulkumaran, S. Serious untoward incident. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2007;17(5):163–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peerally, MF, Carr, S, Waring, J, Dixon-Woods, M. The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;0:16.Google Scholar
ACT Academy of NHS Improvement. Root cause analysis using five whys. https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/root-cause-analysis-using-five-whys/Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Maternity Dashboard: Clinical Performance and Governance Scorecard. Good Practice No. 7. London: RCOG; 2008.Google Scholar
Chandraharan, E, Arulkumaran, S. The role of clinical dashboards in improving patient care: experience with the ‘Maternity Dashboard’. Ceylon Med J. 2016;61(2):83–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandraharan, E, Arulkumaran, S. Clinical governance. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2007;17(7):222–4.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×