G Hilton1, K Daniels2, S N Goldhaber-Fiebert3, S Lipman3, B Carvalho3, A Butwick3. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: ghilton@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Checklists can optimize team performance during medical crises. However, there has been limited examination of checklist use during obstetric crises. In this simulation study we exposed multidisciplinary teams to checklist training to evaluate checklist use and team performance during a severe postpartum hemorrhage. METHODS: Fourteen multidisciplinary teams participated in a postpartum hemorrhage simulation occurring after vaginal delivery. Before participating, each team received checklist training. The primary study outcome was whether each team used the checklist during the simulation. Secondary outcomes were the times taken to activate our institution-specific massive transfusion protocol and commence red blood cell transfusion, and whether a designated checklist reader was used. RESULTS: The majority of teams (12/14 (86%)) used the checklist. Red blood cell transfusion was administered by all teams. The median [IQR] times taken to activate the massive transfusion protocol and transfuse red blood cells were 5min 14s [3:23-6:43] and 14min 40s [12:56-17:28], respectively. A designated checklist reader was used by 7/12 (58%) teams that used the checklist. Among teams that used a checklist with versus without a designated reader, we observed no differences in the times to activate the massive transfusion protocol or to commence red blood cell transfusion (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although checklist training was effective in promoting checklist use, multidisciplinary teams varied in their scope of checklist use during a postpartum hemorrhage simulation. Future studies are required to determine whether structured checklist training can result in more standardized checklist use during a postpartum hemorrhage.
BACKGROUND: Checklists can optimize team performance during medical crises. However, there has been limited examination of checklist use during obstetric crises. In this simulation study we exposed multidisciplinary teams to checklist training to evaluate checklist use and team performance during a severe postpartum hemorrhage. METHODS: Fourteen multidisciplinary teams participated in a postpartum hemorrhage simulation occurring after vaginal delivery. Before participating, each team received checklist training. The primary study outcome was whether each team used the checklist during the simulation. Secondary outcomes were the times taken to activate our institution-specific massive transfusion protocol and commence red blood cell transfusion, and whether a designated checklist reader was used. RESULTS: The majority of teams (12/14 (86%)) used the checklist. Red blood cell transfusion was administered by all teams. The median [IQR] times taken to activate the massive transfusion protocol and transfuse red blood cells were 5min 14s [3:23-6:43] and 14min 40s [12:56-17:28], respectively. A designated checklist reader was used by 7/12 (58%) teams that used the checklist. Among teams that used a checklist with versus without a designated reader, we observed no differences in the times to activate the massive transfusion protocol or to commence red blood cell transfusion (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although checklist training was effective in promoting checklist use, multidisciplinary teams varied in their scope of checklist use during a postpartum hemorrhage simulation. Future studies are required to determine whether structured checklist training can result in more standardized checklist use during a postpartum hemorrhage.
Authors: Andreea A Creanga; Cynthia J Berg; Carla Syverson; Kristi Seed; F Carol Bruce; William M Callaghan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jeannie L Callum; Calvin H Yeh; Andrew Petrosoniak; Mark J McVey; Stephanie Cope; Troy Thompson; Victoria Chin; Keyvan Karkouti; Avery B Nathens; Kimmo Murto; Suzanne Beno; Jacob Pendergrast; Andrew McDonald; Russell MacDonald; Neill K J Adhikari; Asim Alam; Donald Arnold; Lee Barratt; Andrew Beckett; Sue Brenneman; Hina Razzaq Chaudhry; Allison Collins; Margaret Harvey; Jacinthe Lampron; Clarita Margarido; Amanda McFarlan; Barto Nascimento; Wendy Owens; Menaka Pai; Sandro Rizoli; Theodora Ruijs; Robert Skeate; Teresa Skelton; Michelle Sholzberg; Kelly Syer; Jami-Lynn Viveiros; Josee Theriault; Alan Tinmouth; Rardi Van Heest; Susan White; Michelle Zeller; Katerina Pavenski Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-09-03
Authors: David Peran; Jiri Kodet; Jaroslav Pekara; Lucie Mala; Anatolij Truhlar; Patrik Christian Cmorej; Kasper Glerup Lauridsen; Ferenc Sari; Roman Sykora Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2020-12-04
Authors: Pooja S Parameshwar; Katherine Bianco; Elizabeth B Sherwin; Pamela K Meza; Alisha Tolani; Paige Bates; Lillian Sie; Andrea Sofía López Enríquez; Diana E Sanchez; Edgar R Herrarte; Kay Daniels Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Shehnaz Alidina; Sara N Goldhaber-Fiebert; Alexander A Hannenberg; David L Hepner; Sara J Singer; Bridget A Neville; James R Sachetta; Stuart R Lipsitz; William R Berry Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 7.327