| Literature DB >> 29159000 |
Chandrew Rajakumar1, Adam Garber2, Purnima M Rao3, Genevieve Rousseau2, George A Dumitrascu3, Glenn D Posner4.
Abstract
This case is one of an eight-case multidisciplinary curriculum designed and implemented at the University of Ottawa by simulation educators with specialty training in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) and anesthesiology. Consultation from a nurse educator maintained quality and relevance of objectives for nursing participants. The curriculum was prepared to train OB/GYN and anesthesiology residents and nurses to hone crisis resource management skills and to recognize and manage rare/critical medical events in an obstetrical setting. Obstetricians, anesthesiologists, and nurses often work together in acute, high-stakes situations, and this curriculum provides a safe environment to practice team-based management of such emergencies. Over an eight-year period, this curriculum has been executed in scenario couplets on a four-year cycle to allow OB/GYN and anesthesiology residents exposure to all scenarios during a five-year residency beginning in their second year. Prospective evaluative data has been positive. For example, over 90% of participants rated these simulations to be 5 out of 5 with comments, such as "Was an effective use of my educational time" and "Will influence/enhance my future practice". In this scenario, participants must recognize and manage fetal distress resulting from umbilical cord prolapse in a labouring patient and respond with urgent operative delivery. This scenario requires adult and fetal mannequins with presenting umbilical cord for pelvic examination as well as equipment for fetal monitoring, general anesthetic, and emergency cesarean section. This simulation case includes a case template, critical actions checklist, debriefing guide, summary of key medical content, and an evaluation form for learners to provide feedback.Entities:
Keywords: anesthesiology; crisis resource management; nursing; obstetrics and gynecology; postgraduate medical education; simulation scenario
Year: 2017 PMID: 29159000 PMCID: PMC5690467 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
OB/GYN Anesthesiology Nursing Simulation Curriculum
MgSO4: magnesium sulfate; OB/GYN: obstetrics/gynecology
| YEAR | TOPIC 1 | TOPIC 2 |
| YEAR 1 | Autonomic Dysreflexia | Twin Breech Delivery |
| YEAR 2 | MgSO4 Toxicity | Difficult Airway, Emergent Delivery |
| YEAR 3 | Thyroid Storm | Amniotic Fluid Embolism |
| YEAR 4 | Cord Prolapse with Abnormal Fetal Heart Rate | Postpartum Hemorrhage |
Initial Parameters
BPM: beats per minute; BID: twice per day; GBS: group B Streptococcus; GU: genitourinary; HEENT: head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat; HPI: history of present illness; HR: heart rate; OB: obstetrics.
| Initial Presentation | |||
| Initial vital signs | Blood Pressure: 130/80; Maternal heart rate: 105 BPM; Respiratory rate: 16; Temperature: 37oC; Fetal heart rate: Electronic fetal monitor showing HR of 130 BPM with no accelerations followed by a sudden decline to 100 BPM and persisting. | ||
| Overall appearance | Obstetrical mannequin will be in semi-reclined labour bed. The patient is awake and alert. She is not distressed but becomes concerned of the status of the fetal heart rate tracing when the nurse recognizes the change or if the alarm sounds. | ||
| Actors and roles in the room at case start | Patient: High fidelity mannequin, being voiced from control room with pregnant abdomen; Partner/support person: Confederate actor (optional); Nurse: Nurse | ||
| HPI | Nurse is privately pre-briefed prior to scenario start (see Learner Preparation). The patient and partner (optional confederate) are aware of her medical history (see below). If asked they will state that she is 33 years-old and has had a previous vaginal delivery. Previously, she had an epidural and this time would like to try to have a more natural birth. She “broke her water” at home about three hours ago and has been having contractions since. | ||
| Past Medical/Surgical History | Medications | Allergies | Family History |
| OB – This pregnancy has been uncomplicated. She developed gastroesophageal reflux at 36 weeks. Swab confirmed GBS-positive status. No history of hypertension or diabetes. Previous spontaneous vaginal delivery at term. She elected for epidural analgesia at 5 cm due to significant discomfort with contractions. She has laboured for 10 hours and pushed for 90 minutes. | Ranitidine, 150 mg BID; Prenatal vitamins | None | None, including no history of problems with anesthetics |
| Physical Examination | |||
| General | Alert, oriented, conversational, concerned about fetal heart rate | ||
| HEENT | Normal | ||
| Neck | Normal | ||
| Lungs | Breath sounds equal bilaterally and clear to auscultation | ||
| Cardiovascular | Normal heart sounds, equal pulses bilaterally | ||
| Abdomen | Pregnant | ||
| Neurological | Normal | ||
| Skin | Normal | ||
| GU | Cervix is 5 cm dilated. The fetal orientation is vertex. There is a cord presentation. | ||
| Psychiatric | Alert, concerned, anxious | ||
Flow of the Scenario
BPM: beats per minute; NICU: neonatal intensive care unit; OB/GYN: obstetrics/gynecology.
| Instructor Notes – Changes and Case Branch Points | ||
| Intervention / Time point | Change in Case | Additional Information |
| If the nurse performs a vaginal examination and identifies cord prolapse | Help will only come if she asks the partner to leave the room and find help or if she stops applying pressure to the fetal head and calls for help. | |
| If no vaginal examination is performed | Change fetal heart rate to 80 BPM | The patient and/or partner should become increasingly anxious and vocal about the well-being of the fetus. |
| Any application of pressure to the fetal head | Change fetal heart rate to 100 BPM | |
| Stopping pressure on fetal head | Change fetal heart rate to 60 BPM | |
| Emergency cesarean section is called in to control room |
Control room personnel will:
Notify anesthesiology and OB/GYN attendings Initiate setting change from labour room to operating room. Ask nurse to go step out of the room and that her next role will be to assist the anesthesiologist | Refer to section “Setup: Equipment/Environment” |
| In operating room | Change fetal heart rate to 80 BPM | Adding a sense of urgency after a room change should improve engagement through emotional realism |
|
If at any point verbal consent is not received:
Vaginal examination Prolonged vaginal examination to maintain pressure on fetal head Cesarean section General anesthetic | The patient or partner should respond outraged that they are not being involved | |
| Cesarean section delivery without paging pediatrics or NICU team | Scrub nurse (confederate) will state there is no one here to receive the baby End scenario | |
| Cesarean section delivery with pediatrics or NICU team | End scenario | |
Common Errors and Debriefing Strategies
OR: operating room; SBAR: Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation.
| Error Type | Common Errors Observed | Solutions (Teaching Points) |
| Technical Skills (Medical Knowledge, Clinical Skills) | Does not include umbilical cord prolapse in the differential diagnosis | Directive feedback or group collaborative effort to develop a differential diagnosis for intrapartum fetal heart rate changes. |
| Delay in surgical delivery | Allowing learner to explore and reflect on the ramifications of delay. This is an excellent opportunity to use the advocacy inquiry technique. | |
| Does not provide continued pressure on the fetal head to participate in other activities | Directive feedback with a description of the pathophysiology of fetal heart rate abnormality during umbilical cord prolapse. | |
| Failure to perform surgical safety checklist | Directive feedback and review of an abridged version for use in emergency situations. | |
| Non-Technical Skills (Crisis Resource Management) | Poor communication of the diagnosis to the patient. | Receiving feedback from the voice actor Advocacy inquiry style exploration or role-playing example. |
| Ignoring partner | Allowing the learner to visualize themselves in a partner role to explore those experiences and expectations. | |
| Poor communication between team members | Facilitating team discussion; use of video examples. Description of various handover tools (ie, SBAR). Exemplifying ‘closed-loop communication’. Discuss sharing one’s mental model or cognitive frame with specific examples. | |
| Failure to recognize poor fetal heart rate tracing | Discuss situational awareness – for example, scanning of monitors at critical moments, before/after transfer to the OR, before/after any significant procedure, during any acute change in vital signs. | |
| Failure to manage human resources | Discuss each member’s human resource wants during the scenario and brainstorming hypothetical redistributions. |
Evaluation Data (n = 19 Participants)
CanMEDS: Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists
| 1 (strongly disagree) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 (strongly agree) | |
| The objectives were made clear | 2 | 3 | 14 | ||
| The scenarios were relevant to my practice | 19 | ||||
| The simulation team behaved in an appropriate and believable manner during the scenario | 1 | 2 | 16 | ||
| There was sufficient time allotted for hands-on participation and group interaction | 4 | 15 | |||
| The staff met the stated learning objectives | 3 | 16 | |||
| The staff were knowledgeable and informed | 4 | 15 | |||
| The staff provided adequate and appropriate feedback | 2 | 17 | |||
| The debriefing sessions were logically organized and clarified important issues | 2 | 17 | |||
| The knowledge gained from this session will enhance/influence my practice | 1 | 18 | |||
| The session helped increase my confidence in treating patients when a crisis occurs | 1 | 2 | 16 | ||
| I would like to attend additional simulation sessions | 2 | 17 | |||
| Of the 19 participants, the following identified these standard Canadian Anesthesia Society 2005 monitoring roles as having been addressed during the session | |||||
| Medical Expert | 18 | ||||
| Collaborator | 15 | ||||
| Professional | 6 | ||||
| Health Advocate | 2 | ||||
| Communicator | 19 | ||||
| Manager | 5 | ||||
| Scholar | 0 | ||||
| Please take a moment to reflect on your previous experience in both simulation and clinical practice. Do you think that simulation has helped your clinical practice? | |||||
| Yes | 19 | ||||
| No | 0 | ||||