The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving Neonatal Outcome Through Practical Shoulder Dystocia Training
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the management of and neonatal injury associated with shoulder dystocia before and after introduction of mandatory shoulder dystocia simulation training. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing the management and neonatal outcome of births complicated by shoulder dystocia before (January 1996 to December 1999) and after (January 2001 to December 2004) the introduction of shoulder dystocia training at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom. The management of shoulder dystocia and associated neonatal injuries were compared pretraining and posttraining through a review of intrapartum and postpartum records of term, cephalic, singleton births in which difficulty with the shoulders was recorded during the two study periods. RESULTS: There were 15,908 and 13,117 eligible births pretraining and posttraining, respectively. The shoulder dystocia rates were similar: pretraining 324 (2.04%) and posttraining 262 (2.00%) (P=.813). After training was introduced, clinical management improved: McRoberts' position, pretraining 95/324 (29.3%) to 229/262 (87.4%) posttraining (P<.001); suprapubic pressure 90/324 (27.8%) to 119/262 (45.4%) (P<.001); internal rotational maneuver 22/324 (6.8%) to 29/262 (11.1%) (P=.020); delivery of posterior arm 24/324 (7.4%) to 52/262 (19.8%) (P<.001); no recognized maneuvers performed 174/324 (50.9%) to 21/262 (8.0%) (P<.001); documented excessive traction 54/324 (16.7%) to 24/262 (9.2%) (P=.010). There was a significant reduction in neonatal injury at birth after shoulder dystocia: 30/324 (9.3%) to 6/262 (2.3%) (relative risk 0.25 [confidence interval 0.11-0.57]). CONCLUSION: The introduction of shoulder dystocia training for all maternity staff was associated with improved management and neonatal outcomes of births complicated by shoulder dystocia. 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
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318217e119 · Cited by 1,866
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
Patient Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review
Zendejas, B., Brydges, R., Wang, A. T., & Cook, D. A. (2013) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2264-5 · Cited by 384
Evaluating the impact of simulation on translational patient outcomes
McGaghie, W. C., Draycott, T. J., Dunn, W. F., Lopez, C. M., & Stefanidis, D. (2011) · Simulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e318222fde9 · Cited by 336
Self-citationObstetric care in low-resource settings: what, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up?
Hofmeyr, G. J., Haws, R. A., Bergström, S., Lee, A. C., Okong, P., Darmstadt, G. L., Mullany, L. C., Oo, E. K. S., & Lawn, J. E. (2009) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.017 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- Authors
- Draycott, T. J., Crofts, J. F., Ash, J. P., Wilson, L. V., Yard, E., Sibanda, T., & Whitelaw, A.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-20
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150775523
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.66
- 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: Improving Neonatal Outcome Through Practical Shoulder Dystocia Training. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0b013e31817bbc61
- The paper
- Draycott, T. J., Crofts, J. F., Ash, J. P., Wilson, L. V., Yard, E., Sibanda, T., & Whitelaw, A. (2008). Improving Neonatal Outcome Through Practical Shoulder Dystocia Training. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31817bbc61
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.