Leader and Team Performance During PPH Simulated Scenario
Condition: Obstetric Anesthesia Problems
Study type: Observational

Summary: 
      The primary aim of this study is the progress of the performance of the leader and of the
      team for the postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) before and after four high-fidelity standardized
      scenarios of severe PPH (1500 mL blood loss) due to refractory uterine atony with anesthesia
      trainees.
    

Detailed description: 
      8 teams were studied: each team consisted of six participants, all anesthesia trainees, who
      were given the following roles for the scenario: senior anesthesiologist, anesthesia trainee,
      obstetrician, midwife, and nurse. The teams encountered the same scenario of a patient with
      atonic PPH following vaginal delivery. The scenario was repeated four times and the assigned
      roles to the participants, except that one of the senior anesthesiologists, rotated every
      each scenario.For the design of the PPH checklist, the authors reviewed PPH guidelines from
      recognized obstetric bodies (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and
      the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists), relevant papers from the literature
      and the investigator's institutional PPH protocol. The final action items for the checklist
      were selected by consensus by all authors. A standardized, 23 key tasks were identified for
      inclusion on the PPH checklist (non-behavioral skills) and this checklist worked as the
      reference guide for pre and post-workshop evaluation of the trainees.

      For the design of the non-technical skills evaluation scores, the authors reviewed the
      non-technical skills evaluation instruments, such as the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills
      (ANTS) behavioural marker system and the Ottawa Global Rating Scale (GRS). The final action
      items for the checklist were selected by consensus by all authors. Standardized, evaluation
      and self-evaluation questionnaires were developed .

      No educational training was performed before the performance of the first scenario and
      participants were naïve to the scenario before performing each simulation.

      All the teams underwent standardized educational training immediately before the second,
      third, and fourth scenarios. Every standardized educational training consisted of a 30
      minutes session. At the beginning of the session, each participant was invited to write, in
      three minutes, on a piece of paper, what they would do in case of postpartum bleeding.
      Afterward each participant was invited to share and to write on the blackboard, one by one,
      on turn, the clinical procedures that he had previously reported in his personal paper. After
      this session the instructor, after having asked to all the participant whether there were
      something else to add, integrated, if necessary, the missing elements by using the 23 key
      tasks and reconfirmed the agreement with the group itself in order to have a shared
      check-list of the postpartum hemorrhage treatment.

      The scenario consisted of a severe PPH (1500 mL blood loss) due to refractory uterine atony
      in a multiparous 28-year-old patient who had undergone a spontaneous vaginal delivery. The
      patient became tachycardic and hypotensive consistent with hemorrhagic shock. All simulations
      were performed in the simulation room using a high-fidelity mannequin (SinMom Maternal and
      Neonatal Birthing Simulator, Laerdal, Norway). All simulations were videotaped. The
      simulation was stopped when each team completed all 23 tasks of the checklist, or when 15 min
      had elapsed.

      A study investigator, expert in both PPH and simulation debriefing, not involved in the
      simulation, observed each scenario to record and check the team's technical skills according
      to the established 23 PPH key tasks. The behavioral scores were assigned by two independent
      observers, experts in communication and evaluation in simulation, who reviewed the videos of
      each simulation. After each simulation all participants were asked to complete a survey
      related to the leader and the team behaviors. Questions required a yes/no answer or an answer
      based on an ordinal scale (1=poor, 5=excellent). Survey questions are presented in the
      Appendix
    

Intervention name(s): behavior of the leader
Intervention type(s): Behavioral
Intervention description(s): A study investigator, expert in both PPH and simulation debriefing, not involved in the simulation, observed each scenario to record and check the team's technical skills according to the established 23 PPH key tasks. The behavioral scores were assigned by two independent observers, experts in communication and evaluation in simulation, who reviewed the videos of each simulation each simulation all participants were asked to complete a survey related to the leader and the team behaviors. Questions required a yes/no answer or an answer based on an ordinal scale (1=poor, 5=excellent).
Other intervention name(s): non technical skills performed by the team
Observational model: Cohort
Time perspective: Prospective
Sampling method: Non-Probability Sample
Study population: 
        anesthesia trainees