These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Objective structured assessment of technical skills evaluation of theoretical compared with hands-on training of shoulder dystocia management: a randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Buerkle B, Pueth J, Hefler LA, Tempfer-Bentz EK, Tempfer CB.
    Journal: Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Oct; 120(4):809-14. PubMed ID: 22996098.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the skills of performing a shoulder dystocia management algorithm after hands-on training compared with demonstration. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Two 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. CONCLUSION: Hands-on training helps to achieve a significant improvement of shoulder dystocia management on a pelvic training model. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01618565. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]