The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Management of Shoulder Dystocia: Skill Retention 6 and 12 Months After Training
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess skill retention 6 and 12 months after shoulder dystocia training. METHODS: Midwives and doctors from six United Kingdom hospitals attended a 40-minute workshop on shoulder dystocia management. Participants managed a standardized simulation before and 3 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months afterward. Outcome measures were delivery, head-to-body delivery time, performance of appropriate actions, force applied, and quality of communication. RESULTS: A total of 122 participants were recruited. One hundred eighteen were evaluated 3 weeks posttraining, for whom follow-up was available for 95 (81%) at 6 months and 82 (70%) at 12 months. Before training, 60 of 122 (49%) achieved delivery, 97 of 118 (82%) were able to deliver after initial training, 80 of 95 (84%) were able to deliver at 6 months, and 75 of 82 (85%) were able to deliver at 12 months. Twenty-one (18%) who could not deliver 3 weeks after training were offered additional training; of these, 11 of 14 (79%) achieved delivery at 12 months. Among those who could deliver 3 weeks posttraining, there was no deterioration in the performance of basic actions, delivery interval, force application, and patient communication. Those who were proficient before initial training performed best at follow-up, but skill retention was also good in those who learned to deliver during initial training. Eighteen percent could not deliver after initial training and required additional individualized tuition; the large majority retained their newly acquired skills at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: Overall, training resulted in a sustained improvement in performance. Annual training seems adequate for those already proficient before training, but more frequent rehearsal is advisable for those initially lacking competency until skill acquisition is achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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
A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x · Cited by 1,733
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
Training and simulation for patient safety
Aggarwal, R., Mytton, O. T., Derbrew, M., Hananel, D., Heydenburg, M., Issenberg, B., MacAulay, C., Mancini, M. E., Morimoto, T., Soper, N., et al. (2010) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.038562 · Cited by 739
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Crofts, J. F., Bartlett, C., Ellis, D., Hunt, L. P., Fox, R., & Draycott, T. J.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1069-1074
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014699486
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.90
- 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: Management of Shoulder Dystocia: Skill Retention 6 and 12 Months After Training. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000286779.41037.38
- The paper
- Crofts, J. F., Bartlett, C., Ellis, D., Hunt, L. P., Fox, R., & Draycott, T. J. (2007). Management of Shoulder Dystocia: Skill Retention 6 and 12 Months After Training. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000286779.41037.38
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.