The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Recurrent Obstetric Management Mistakes Identified by Simulation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a simulation-based curricular unit for labor and delivery teams involved in obstetric emergencies to detect and address common mistakes. METHODS: A simulation-based curricular unit for hands-on training of four obstetric emergency scenarios was developed using high-tech mannequins and low-tech simulators. The scenarios were eclamptic seizure, postpartum hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, and breech extraction. The obstetric teams consisted of at least one resident and two midwives. Checklists of actions expected from the teams were handed out to the course's tutors who observed the "event." All sessions were videotaped and then reviewed and analyzed by the trainees themselves, who were guided by two experienced tutors. We identified the most commonly occurring mistakes by summing up checklists and by watching the recorded sessions. RESULTS: Between February 2004 and April 2006, 60 residents in obstetrics and gynecology and 88 midwives underwent the simulation-based course. Forty-two labor and delivery teams completed all four sessions. The most common management errors were delay in transporting the bleeding patient to the operating room (82%), unfamiliarity with prostaglandin administration to reverse uterine atony (82%), poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques (80%), inadequate documentation of shoulder dystocia (80%), delayed administration of blood products to reverse consumption coagulopathy (66%), and inappropriate avoidance of episiotomy in shoulder dystocia and breech extraction (32%). Eighteen trainees were invited for repeated sessions at least 6 months after the first training day, and their scores were significantly higher in the latter sessions (79.4+/-4.3 versus 70+/-5.3 for the second and first simulated eclampsia sessions). CONCLUSION: A curricular unit based on simulation of obstetric emergencies can identify pitfalls of management in labor and delivery rooms that need to be addressed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Utility of Simulation in Medical Education: What Is the Evidence?
Okuda, Y., Bryson, E. O., DeMaria, S., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., Shen, B., & Levine, A. I. (2009) · Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine · doi:10.1002/msj.20127 · Cited by 1,201
The role of simulation in nurse education
McCaughey, C. S., & Traynor, M. K. (2010) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.03.005 · Cited by 265
Simulation based learning in midwifery education: a systematic review
Cooper, S., Cant, R., Porter, J., Bogossian, F., McKenna, L., Brady, S., & Fox-Young, S. (2012) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2011.03.004 · Cited by 202
The effectiveness of training in emergency obstetric care: a systematic literature review.
Ameh, C. A., Mdegela, M., White, S., & van den Broek, N. (2019) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czz028 · Cited by 147
Effects and Adequacy of High-Fidelity Simulation-Based Training for Obstetrical Nursing
Lee, W. S., & Kim, M. (2011) · Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing · doi:10.4040/jkan.2011.41.4.433 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Maslovitz, S., Barkai, G., Lessing, J. B., Ziv, A., & Many, A.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1295-1300
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2325553352
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recurrent Obstetric Management Mistakes Identified by Simulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000265208.16659.c9
- The paper
- Maslovitz, S., Barkai, G., Lessing, J. B., Ziv, A., & Many, A. (2007). Recurrent Obstetric Management Mistakes Identified by Simulation. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000265208.16659.c9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.