Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981000›Full record

ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2022

Multidisciplinary Programed Learning Simulation to Improve Visual Blood Loss Estimation for Obstetric Trauma Scenarios.

Jane Ponterio, Maleeha Ahmad, Aparna Vancheswaran, Nisha Lakhi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Comparative analysis of bleed volume with visual technique].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023
    Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jane PonterioNew York Medical College, 40 Sunshine Cottage Rd, Valhalla, NY 10591, United States.
Maleeha AhmadRichmond University Medical Center, Department of Trauma Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology, 355 Bard Ave, Staten Island, NY, United States.
Aparna VancheswaranNew York Medical College, 40 Sunshine Cottage Rd, Valhalla, NY 10591, United States.
Nisha LakhiNew York Medical College, 40 Sunshine Cottage Rd, Valhalla, NY 10591, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe designed and implemented a Programmed Learning Simulation (PLS) exercise depicting obstetric scenarios of hemorrhage to train anesthesiologists, ancillary staff, and surgeons to accurately estimate blood loss visually. We then measured the efficacy of this exercise in a clinical setting.

methodsWe conducted a prospective study to assess the effect of implementing a PLS exercise on quantification of blood loss in an operative setting. The PLS exercise consisted of 13 simulation stations of varying quantities of simulated blood loss paired with standardized objects of known volume. Eighty-eight individuals participated including attending physicians, residents, medical students, and ancillary staff participated in this study. The PLS was part of regularly scheduled continuing medical education activities; thus, the sampling used was non-randomized convenience method. The percent error was calculated for each of the 13 stations. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect of the years of experience, size of hemorrhage, and occupation on accuracy. Univariate analyses for continuous variables were compared using a one-way ANOVA test. For the comparison of the three groups (years of experience and size of hemorrhage), a p-value of <0.02 was considered statistically significant and for 5-way comparison (professional grouping) a p <0.01 was considered significant after application of the Bonferroni correction (α=0.05). (Part A). To determine the effect of PLS in a clinical setting, the percent error of blood loss estimation for cesarean deliveries during the two-month period after the PLS exercise was compared to the two-month period immediately prior to using the student's t-test with p<0.05 as significant (Part B). Statistical analysis was performed using International Business Machine, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 26.0 (IBM SPSS).

resultsDuring Part A, the baseline performance of the participants was evaluated during the PLS activity. The PLS data showed no significant difference in absolute value of mean percent error estimation (standard deviation) across professions: student 63.61% (69.74), ob/gyn 56.91% (47.72), ancillary 62.15% (77.90), general/trauma surgeon 66.70% (65.06), anesthesia 61.51% (63.12). (p = 0.681), or levels of experience 0-5: 62.21% (60.06), 6-10 years: 56.22% (52.66), greater than 10 years: 61.89% (71.89) (p = 0.831). However, mean percent error of estimation was higher when participants estimated smaller samples 77.7% (104.73) compared to either medium 56.8% (49.06) or large 57.9% (46.19) samples (p<0.001). For Part B, 179 cesarean deliveries occurred during the pre-intervention period and 193 occurred during the post-intervention period. Mean error in provider estimation of blood loss significantly improved from 47% (68.51) pre-intervention to 31% (32.70) post-intervention (p=0.009).

conclusionWe believe our described PLS activity was effective in teaching techniques for visual blood loss estimation. This was reflected by improved competency in a clinical setting, demonstrated by more accurate visually estimated blood loss during the period immediately following simulation activity compared to a prior time frame. Further research is needed to assess the impact of simulation activities on patient outcomes, such as utilization of blood products and patient morbidity.

Indexed as

Cesarean sectionObstetricSimulation learning

Identifiers

PMID34981000
PMCPMC8720157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.