Research
ajog.org
EDUCATION
A randomized controlled trial of birth simulation for medical students Christopher C. DeStephano, MD, MPH; Betty Chou, MD; Silka Patel, MD, MPH; Rebecca Slattery, BS; Nancy Hueppchen, MD, MSc OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a high-fidelity birth simulator (Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL) compared with a lower-cost, low-tech, birth simulator (MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in teaching medical students how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD). STUDY DESIGN: Prior to the obstetrics-gynecology clerkship, students were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The MamaNatalie group (MG) completed 45 minutes of SVD simulation using an obstetrical abdominal-pelvic model worn by an obstetrics-gynecology faculty member. The Noelle group (NG) completed 45 minutes of SVD simulation using a high-fidelity, computer-controlled mannequin facilitated by an obstetrics-gynecology faculty member. The primary outcome was student performance during his or her first SVD as rated by supervising preceptors. Surveys were also completed by students on confidence in performing steps of a SVD (secondary outcome). RESULTS: One hundred ten medical students (95% of those eligible) participated in this research study. The final postclerkship survey was completed by 93 students (85% follow-up rate). There were no significant differences in performance of SVD steps between MG and NG
students as rated by preceptors. The SVD step with the least involvement by students was controlling the head (20.5% in MG, 23.3% in NG performed step with hands-off supervision). Delivery of the placenta was the SVD step with the most involvement (65.9% in MG, 52.3% in NG performed step with hands-off supervision). Baseline presimulation confidence levels were similar between MG and NG. On the immediate postsimulation survey of confidence, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to deliver the abdomen and legs and perform fundal massage with hands-off supervision (P < .05) than NG students. Following the clerkship, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to control the head and deliver the abdomen and legs (P < .05) than NG students. CONCLUSION: MamaNatalie is as effective as Noelle in training
medical students how to perform a SVD and may be a useful, lowercost alternative in teaching labor and delivery skills to novice learners. Because birth simulation interventions involve both a simulation model and facilitator, research is required to further determine the effect of human interaction on learning outcomes. Key words: medical student education, obstetric simulation
Cite this article as: DeStephano CC, Chou B, Patel S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of birth simulation for medical students. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:91.e1-7.
O
ver the past 2 decades, several models of undergraduate medical education have been introduced to promote self-directed, active learning. These include problem-based learning, discovery From the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Received Jan. 19, 2015; revised Feb. 3, 2015; accepted March 1, 2015. The authors report no conflict of interest. Presented in poster format at the joint annual meeting of the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, GA, Feb. 26 through March 1, 2014. Corresponding author: Christopher C. DeStephano, MD, MPH. [email protected] 0002-9378/$36.00 ª 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.024
learning, experiential learning, task-based learning, and peer evaluation.1 The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics has recommended these learning strategies to augment the clinical experiences and skill acquisition because traditional learning utilizing laboring patients “may lead to poor or incomplete skill acquisition . in a fast-paced, highstress learning environment without standardization of knowledge expectations.”2,3 Simulation is a promising approach to meet Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics’s recommendations because it offers the opportunity for students to make mistakes in a safe, controlled setting, participate in a variety of simulated experiences, and use repetition to aid learning.4,5 Literature supports the use of the Noelle (Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL) birth simulator for teaching novice
medical students how to clinically monitor the stages of labor and manage a normal vaginal delivery prior to the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship (Figure 1). Jude et al6 reported that medical students who practiced deliveries on a simulator reported higher levels of confidence in their skills to perform vaginal deliveries compared to lecture alone. Deering et al7 showed that additional training with an obstetric simulator improved student self-reported comfort with basic procedures performed on labor and delivery (fundal height measurements, Leopold maneuvers, fetal scalp electrode placement, intrauterine pressure catheter placement, and artificial rupture of membranes) compared with resident and staff-directed instruction. In the largest study comparing traditional lecture to lecture plus hands-on vaginal delivery simulation, Holmstrom
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e1
Research
ajog.org
Education
FIGURE 1
Image of facilitator teaching vaginal delivery steps using MamaNatalie
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
et al8 again showed improved confidence in ability to perform a vaginal delivery and also showed higher scores on oral and written examinations in the group of students who received simulation training. Previous studies predominantly evaluate learner confidence following simulation. However, reports of student performance as rated by preceptors while students are on labor and delivery are sparse. This limits the conclusions that can be made about simulation training for teaching novice medical students prior to the obstetrics and gynecology rotation. If adequate teaching and feedback occurs during simulation, confidence is expected to follow. However, it is unclear whether this results in improved student performance on labor and delivery. An unskilled, overly confident medical student is potentially dangerous. The cost of Noelle and other high fidelity models ($4000e50,000) and lack of easy portability has limited the use of birthing simulation in limited resource settings and during the clerkship. A lower-cost ($750), portable birth simulator, MamaNatalie (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) was designed to address these issues (Figure 2). The simulator is worn by an instructor who acts as the patient, thus providing
person-to-person communication and fidelity to replicate real patient interactions. The portable simulator eliminates the mechanical barriers of other simulators, can be carried in a backpack, and can simulate normal vaginal deliveries, delivery of the placenta, and postpartum hemorrhage. Although a theoretically promising model for teaching labor and delivery skills, previous studies have not evaluated the effectiveness of MamaNatalie for teaching novice learners how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a high-fidelity birth simulator (Noelle) compared with a lower-cost, low-tech, lower-fidelity birth simulation model (MamaNatalie) in teaching medical students how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery.
M ATERIALS
AND
Image of the Noelle birth simulator
Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
M ETHODS
This was a randomized controlled trial comparing two birth simulators (MamaNatalie and Noelle) when teaching medical students a normal vaginal delivery. Students rotating on the Women’s Health Clerkship from March 2013 to March 2014 were invited to participate in the research study. On the front page of the survey students received prior to the birth simulation experience, students were informed that “completion of this anonymous survey or questionnaire will serve as your consent to be in the research study.” This study enrolled every medical student who completed the survey during the 1 year study. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved the study (protocol NA 00074248). During their women’s health clerkship orientation, students participate in various active learning modules to prepare them for the obstetrics portion of the clerkship. These modules include a lecture on normal/abnormal labor and evidence-based prenatal care, discussion and evaluation of electronic fetal monitoring cases, simulation of infant resuscitation, and simulation of normal vaginal delivery. Prior to initiation of the research study in March 2013, students in the
91.e2 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology JULY 2015
FIGURE 2
clerkship were divided into groups of 6 and allotted 45 minutes for birth simulation using Noelle following a 1 hour lecture on normal/abnormal labor. Upon initiation of the study, students continued to receive the same labor lecture followed by the birth simulation experience using either the Noelle (Noelle group [NG]) or the MamaNatalie (MamaNatalie group [MG]), still in groups of 6. All students rotating on the women’s health clerkship from March 2013 to March 2014 were enrolled by the program coordinator, assigned a random number, and randomly assigned to NG or MG. For the allocation of the participants, the program coordinator (investigator R.S., who did not teach students during orientation) used Microsoft Access to generate a random number for each student prior to each rotation. Following simple randomization procedures, the program coordinator randomly assigned the deidentified numbers to either NG or MG in a spreadsheet. The allocation sequence was concealed from her during the assignment of numbers to groups because only the deidentified numbers were assigned to NG or MG (she was blinded to all student names up to this point in the process). Once the
ajog.org
Education
Research
FIGURE 3
Disposition of participants in the MG vs the NG Assessed for Eligibility n=116 Excluded: n=6 Declined to participate: 3 Not present at orientation: 3
Randomized: n=110
Allocation
st
Allocated to MamaNatalie® n=55
Allocated to NOELLE®: n=55
Turned-in baseline survey n=55
Turned-in baseline survey n=53
Participated in simulation n=55
Participated in simulation n=55
Completed post-sim survey n=51
Completed post-sim survey n=51
Student 1 delivery survey n=47
Supervisor 1
st
delivery survey n=45
Completed post-clerkship survey n=46
st
Student 1 delivery survey n=46
Supervisor 1st delivery survey n=44
Completed post-clerkship survey n=47
Flow diagram showing disposition of participants in the NG vs the MG during the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; NG, Noelle group. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
deidentified numbers were allocated to NG or MG, she paired the names with the numbers. Based on which group the students were allocated to, the students were either scheduled to complete the MamaNatalie birth simulation or the NOELLE birth simulation. On the day of orientation, the program coordinator provided an itinerary of the learning modules and whether they would complete the MamaNatalie birth simulation or the NOELLE birth
simulation. A flow chart of eligibility and randomization is presented in Figure 3. The facilitators (investigators B.C. and S.P.) of the birth simulations were unaware of which students would be in which simulation group until the students arrived in the room for the simulation. Once the group of 6 students was present, a birth was simulated by the obstetrics-gynecology faculty member using either Noelle or MamaNatalie
providing feedback and reminders for each step of the delivery. This feedback included teaching student hand positioning, fetal head control, perineum support, checking for a nuchal cord, delivery of anterior shoulder, delivery of posterior shoulder, delivery of the abdomen and legs, clamping/cutting the cord, how to hold the delivered neonate (to assuage students’ fears of dropping the neonate), placenta delivery, fundal massage, and placenta inspection.
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e3
Research
ajog.org
Education
TABLE 1
Demographics of students in MG and NG Characteristic
MamaNatalie
Noelle
P value
Age, y, median (range)
25 (23e38)
25 (23e34)
.47
(n ¼ 52)
(n ¼ 52)
(n ¼ 52)
(n ¼ 52)
Male
24 (46.15%)
23 (44.2%)
Female
28 (53.85%)
29 (55.8%)
(n ¼ 53)
(n ¼ 53)
Sex
Year of medical school MSII
8 (15.1%)
13 (24.5%)
MSIII
34 (64.15%)
30 (56.6%)
MSIV
11 (20.75)
10 (18.9%)
(n ¼ 55)
(n ¼ 53)
Quarter of year Third quarter (2013)
11 (20%)
11 (20.7%)
Fourth quarter (2013)
12 (21.8%)
13 (24.5%)
Summer quarter
12 (21.8%)
10 (18.9%)
8 (14.6%)
9 (17.0%)
12 (21.8%)
10 (18.9%)
(n ¼ 44)
(n ¼ 40)
Plan to pursue or strongly considering it
10 (22.7%)
14 (35.0%)
Do not plan to pursue
34 (77.3%)
26 (65.0%)
Second quarter (2013) Third quarter (2014) Interest in obstetrics-gynecology
.84
.48
.98
.21
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; MS, medical school year; NG, Noelle group. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
Each student performed at least 1 simulated delivery with faculty supervision and guidance. For the MG, 1 facilitator (nurse or physician) would play the patient and wear the delivery simulator while the second faculty facilitator would give instruction to the student during the procedure. For the NG, a nurse facilitator would control the manikin while a faculty facilitator would give instruction to the student during the simulated delivery. The facilitator provided the same feedback and teaching to students using both simulators. Similar to the study by Holmstrom et al,8 approximately 110e120 medical students rotate through the Johns Hopkins women’s health clerkship over a 1 year time frame. Because the Holmstrom study had sufficient power to show significant differences in confidence and examination scores, our goal was to recruit a similar sample size to compare
MG and NG. We hypothesized that students in the MG and NG would perform similarly during their first vaginal deliveries on labor and delivery as rated by preceptors (primary outcome). Because the majority of previous studies have evaluated student confidence levels after simulation using Noelle,6-8 we also hypothesized that student confidence would be similar in the MG and NG groups at different times during the women’s health clerkship (secondary outcome). Confidence levels also provide a historic control to establish concurrent validity for the study and whether the use of the Noelle increased confidence similarly to previous studies. Prior to the simulation, students completed a presimulation questionnaire that ascertained demographic information (sex, age, year of medical school, interest in obstetrics and gynecology, and confidence level in performing each step
91.e4 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology JULY 2015
of a vaginal delivery. Following the simulation, students completed a postsimulation questionnaire on the simulator used during the training session, number of simulated deliveries performed, utility of the simulator in establishing confidence, interest in the future use of the simulator, and the confidence level in performing each step of a vaginal delivery. Students remained anonymous on the questionnaire and all data were linked using the randomly assigned number. During the course of the women’s health clerkship, residents and faculty completed the Women’s Health Clerkship Learning Passport to provide formative feedback to students on their performance during the clerkship. Feedback topics included evaluations of history taking, physical examination, and procedural skills. After the initiation of the study, a more detailed, skills checklist was added to the procedural skills section of the learning passport that evaluates the student’s performance during his or her first spontaneous vaginal delivery. The skills assessment is an instrument previously used by 3 other studies that evaluated simulation prior to the obstetrics-gynecology clerkship.6,8,9 The resident, midwife, or attending physician who supervised the student completed the checklist as an evaluation of the student’s performance. The evaluating preceptors were blinded to the stimulator type used by each student during their orientation training. The student also completed the checklist as a selfevaluation of performance. Following the inpatient obstetrics block of the clerkship, students completed a questionnaire about their experience on labor and delivery with items including: simulator used during PRECEDE (Pre-Clerkship Education Exercises), year of medical school, interest in obstetrics-gynecology, number of deliveries (defined as delivering the baby or delivering the baby and placenta, not delivering the placenta alone) performed during the rotation, utility of the simulation experience in establishing confidence, realism of the simulation experience, and level of
ajog.org confidence in performing each step of a vaginal delivery. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare continuous variables. A c2 or Fisher exact test were used to compare categorical variables.
R ESULTS One hundred ten medical students (95% of those eligible) participated in this research study (Figure 3). Preceptor evaluations were completed for 45 of 55 students in MG who participated in the simulation (81.8%) compared with 44 of 55 students in NG (80.0%). The final postclerkship survey was completed by 93 students (85% follow-up rate). Demographics of students in the MG vs NG are presented in Table 1. Age, sex, medical school year, quarter of the year, and interest in obstetrics and gynecology did not differ between the 2 groups. The primary outcome of student performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers with only hands-off supervision during their first vaginal delivery as rated by preceptors is presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the MG and NG student groups as rated by preceptors. As expected, the step performed most frequently with only hands-off supervision as reported by the preceptors was the delivery of the placenta (65.9% of MG, 52.3% of NG). The spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) step with the least involvement by the students was controlling the head (20.5% in MG, 23.3% in NG performed step with hands-off supervision). Similar results were seen in the student selfevaluations of their performance during the first vaginal delivery. There were no significant differences between the MG and NG student self-evaluations. Table 3 demonstrates student confidence in performing vaginal delivery maneuvers with hands-off supervision. Baseline presimulation confidence levels were similar between MG and NG. The median number of simulated deliveries performed by the students during the training session was 1 for both MG and NG (P ¼ .56). The simulation was rated as extremely helpful in establishing
Education
Research
TABLE 2
Performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers with hands-off supervision Preceptor evaluation Variable
MG (n [ 45)
NG (n [ 44)
c2 P value
9 (20.5%) (n ¼ 44)
10 (23.3%) (n ¼ 43)
.75
Supports perineum
13 (29.6%) (n ¼ 44)
15 (34.9%) (n ¼ 43)
.59
Checks for nuchal cord
19 (42.2%)
10 (23.3%) (n ¼ 43)
.06
Delivers anterior shoulder
11 (24.4%)
12 (27.9%) (n ¼ 43)
.71
Delivers posterior shoulder
11 (24.4%)
9 (20.9%) (n ¼ 43)
.69
Delivers the abdomen and legs
19 (43.2%) (n ¼ 44)
17 (39.5%) (n ¼ 43)
.45
Clamps, cuts the cord
17 (37.8%)
13 (29.6%)
.41
Delivers placenta
29 (65.9%) (n ¼ 44)
23 (52.3%)
.19
Fundal massage
28 (62.2%)
22 (50.0%)
.25
Placenta inspection
24 (53.3%)
19 (43.2%)
.34
Inspection of perineum
20 (44.4%)
16 (36.4%)
.44
Controls head
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; NG, Noelle group. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
confidence by 29 of 53 MG students (54.7%) vs 31 of 53 NG students (58.5%) (P ¼ .845). The other 24 MG students (45.3%) and 22 NG students (41.5%) rated the simulation experience as helpful. Of 53 MG students, 100% marked that the simulator used should continue to be used for the medical student simulation experience vs 52 of 53 NG students (99.1%) (P ¼ 1.00). Of 50 MG students who responded, 49 (98%) felt comfortable delivering from a pelvic model worn by a facilitator, 44 (88%) would feel comfortable if the pelvic model was worn by a classmate, and 41 (82%) would feel comfortable wearing the model. On the immediate postsimulation survey of confidence, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to deliver the abdomen and legs and perform fundal massage with handsoff supervision compared with NG students (P < .05). Following the clerkship, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to control the head and deliver the abdomen and legs (P < .05) compared with NG students. Following the clerkship, 45.8% of 48 MG students rated the simulation prior to the rotation as extremely helpful
compared with 38.3% of 47 NG students (P ¼.41). The simulation experience was rated as helpful by 25 of MG students (52.1%) and 29 of NG students (61.7%). The simulator was rated as realistic or extremely realistic by 29 of 48 MG students (60.4%) vs 26 (56.5%) of 46 NG students (P ¼ .85). The median (range) number of vaginal deliveries performed during the clerkship was 4 (0e12) in the MG (n ¼ 44) vs 3 (0e9) in the NG (P ¼ .73). Of 47 MG students, 37 (78.7%) reported they could perform a normal vaginal delivery with hands-off supervision or independently with back-up for problems compared with 29 of 44 NG students (65.9%) (P ¼ .17).
C OMMENT The results show that a lower-cost, portable birth simulator is equivalent in teaching novice learners how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery as evaluated by performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers during the student’s first vaginal delivery. Similar to previous studies, our results demonstrate increased confidence in performing vaginal delivery maneuvers following simulation training using the Noelle birth simulator. The helpfulness and
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e5
Research
ajog.org
Education
TABLE 3
Confidence to perform, with hands-off supervision, vaginal delivery maneuvers Responses
Before simulation
After simulation
MG (n [ 52)
MG (n [ 51)
NG (n [ 53)
After clerkship NG (n [ 51)
MG (n [ 46) a
NG (n [ 47) 63.0%
Controls head
0
1.89%
33.3%
29.4%
84.8%
Supports perineum
0
3.77%
45.1%
31.4%
84.8%
72.3%
Checks for nuchal cord
0
3.77%
41.2%
25.5%
69.6%
53.2%
Delivers anterior shoulder
0
3.77%
35.3%
25.5%
63.0%
48.9%
Delivers posterior shoulder
0
3.77%
33.3%
25.5%
67.4%
Delivers the abdomen and legs
0
3.77%
52.9%
Clamps, cuts the cord
1.92%
3.77%
58.8%
Delivers placenta
0
3.77%
47.1%
a
a
55.3% a
31.4%
82.6%
47.1%
78.3%
78.7%
63.8%
38.0%
84.8%
87.2%
23.5%
80.4%
72.3%
Fundal massage
0
3.77%
45.1%
Placenta inspection
0
1.89%
45.1%
29.4%
84.8%
80.9%
Inspection of perineum
0
5.67%
39.2%
29.4%
62.2% (n ¼ 45)
51.1%
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; NG, Noelle group. a
P < .05, comparing MG with NG.
DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
realism of the simulation experience and confidence levels following simulation were rated similarly by students in the MG and NG groups. Importantly, students in the MG group felt comfortable with delivering a simulated newborn from a pelvic model worn by a facilitator. The strength of this study is the randomized design and preceptor ratings of student performance during a spontaneous vaginal delivery. Because student confidence often does not translate into performance, this study is the first to evaluate student performance during his or her first vaginal delivery during the inpatient obstetrics block of the clerkship. Although confidence levels were significantly higher in the MG compared with NG on some vaginal delivery steps, the performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers were similar between the 2 groups, supporting the conclusion that a lower-cost, portable birth simulator is equivalent in teaching learners how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery. The most important limitation of this study is loss to follow-up and variable completion rates of surveys by students. However, similar rates of loss to followup were seen in both the MG and NG
groups. In addition, the confidence levels reported at different points of time during the clerkship (before simulation, after simulation, and after clerkship) are similar to previous studies evaluating the Noelle birth simulator.6,8 This supports the validity of the study design and confidence levels reported in both groups. Another important limitation is that the study uses questionnaires completed by preceptors to evaluate student performance. The results may be biased by the preceptor’s overall impression of the student (Halo effect). Our recruitment targets were based on the study by Holmstrom et al8 because it had adequate power to show differences in the confidence and examination scores. However, the performance of first vaginal delivery has not been studied in previous studies, limiting the ability to perform an adequate prestudy power analysis for the primary outcome. Simulations using MamaNatalie and Noelle involve human interaction between students and the facilitators. The birth simulation intervention therefore involves both the model and the facilitator. Similar feedback and teaching of vaginal delivery steps is required for both
91.e6 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology JULY 2015
simulators. Therefore, an attending, midwife, resident, or nurse knowledgeable of vaginal delivery steps is required for teaching medical students using both simulators. One of the differences in simulating a SVD with MamaNatalie is that the student is looking at the facilitator wearing the model. With Noelle, the student is looking at a manikin. This may have affected MG students’ overall perception of the simulation and influenced confidence levels more than the NG students. Performing a simulated birth while looking at the human facilitator (instead of a manikin) may have made the experience more similar to an actual vaginal delivery. Because MamaNatalie involves direct interaction between facilitator and student, this model can be used in followup studies regarding whether simulated scenarios using MamaNatalie improve provider-patient interaction during complicated (higher stress) and uncomplicated (lower stress) vaginal deliveries. In conclusion, the low-tech, portable MamaNatalie is as effective as the highfidelity Noelle in training medical students how to perform an uncomplicated spontaneous vaginal delivery and is a
ajog.org useful, lower-cost alternative in teaching labor and delivery skills to novice learners. Further studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of using the MamaNatalie birth simulator for other levels of learners, teaching complex obstetric skills, and improving providerpatient interactions. REFERENCES 1. Spencer JA, Jordan RK. Learner centered approaches in medical education. BMJ 1999;318:1280-3. 2. Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. APGO clinical skills curriculum.
Education Crofton, MD: Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 2008. 3. Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. APGO medical student educational objectives, 8th ed. Crofton, MD: Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 2004. 4. Macedonia CR, Gherman RB, Satin AJ. Simulation laboratories for training in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102: 388-92. 5. Deering S, Auguste T, Lockrow E. Obstetric simulation for medical student, resident, and fellow education. Semin Perinatol 2013;37: 143-5. 6. Jude DC, Gilbert GG, Magrane D. Simulation training in the obstetrics and gynecology
Research
clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195: 1489-92. 7. Deering SH, Hodor JG, Wylen M, Poggi S, Nielsen PE, Satin AJ. Additional training with an obstetric simulator improves medical student comfort with basic procedures. Simul Healthc 2006. Spring;1:32-4. 8. Holmstrom SW, Downes K, Mayer JC, Learman LA. Simulation training in an obstetric clerkship: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:649-54. 9. Dayal AK, Fisher N, Magrane D, Goffman D, Bernstein PS, Katz NT. Simulation training improves medical students’ learning experiences when performing real vaginal deliveries. Simul Healthc 2009. Fall;4: 155-9.
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e7
ajog.org
EDUCATION
A randomized controlled trial of birth simulation for medical students Christopher C. DeStephano, MD, MPH; Betty Chou, MD; Silka Patel, MD, MPH; Rebecca Slattery, BS; Nancy Hueppchen, MD, MSc OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a high-fidelity birth simulator (Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL) compared with a lower-cost, low-tech, birth simulator (MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in teaching medical students how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD). STUDY DESIGN: Prior to the obstetrics-gynecology clerkship, students were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The MamaNatalie group (MG) completed 45 minutes of SVD simulation using an obstetrical abdominal-pelvic model worn by an obstetrics-gynecology faculty member. The Noelle group (NG) completed 45 minutes of SVD simulation using a high-fidelity, computer-controlled mannequin facilitated by an obstetrics-gynecology faculty member. The primary outcome was student performance during his or her first SVD as rated by supervising preceptors. Surveys were also completed by students on confidence in performing steps of a SVD (secondary outcome). RESULTS: One hundred ten medical students (95% of those eligible) participated in this research study. The final postclerkship survey was completed by 93 students (85% follow-up rate). There were no significant differences in performance of SVD steps between MG and NG
students as rated by preceptors. The SVD step with the least involvement by students was controlling the head (20.5% in MG, 23.3% in NG performed step with hands-off supervision). Delivery of the placenta was the SVD step with the most involvement (65.9% in MG, 52.3% in NG performed step with hands-off supervision). Baseline presimulation confidence levels were similar between MG and NG. On the immediate postsimulation survey of confidence, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to deliver the abdomen and legs and perform fundal massage with hands-off supervision (P < .05) than NG students. Following the clerkship, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to control the head and deliver the abdomen and legs (P < .05) than NG students. CONCLUSION: MamaNatalie is as effective as Noelle in training
medical students how to perform a SVD and may be a useful, lowercost alternative in teaching labor and delivery skills to novice learners. Because birth simulation interventions involve both a simulation model and facilitator, research is required to further determine the effect of human interaction on learning outcomes. Key words: medical student education, obstetric simulation
Cite this article as: DeStephano CC, Chou B, Patel S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of birth simulation for medical students. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:91.e1-7.
O
ver the past 2 decades, several models of undergraduate medical education have been introduced to promote self-directed, active learning. These include problem-based learning, discovery From the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Received Jan. 19, 2015; revised Feb. 3, 2015; accepted March 1, 2015. The authors report no conflict of interest. Presented in poster format at the joint annual meeting of the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, GA, Feb. 26 through March 1, 2014. Corresponding author: Christopher C. DeStephano, MD, MPH. [email protected] 0002-9378/$36.00 ª 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.024
learning, experiential learning, task-based learning, and peer evaluation.1 The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics has recommended these learning strategies to augment the clinical experiences and skill acquisition because traditional learning utilizing laboring patients “may lead to poor or incomplete skill acquisition . in a fast-paced, highstress learning environment without standardization of knowledge expectations.”2,3 Simulation is a promising approach to meet Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics’s recommendations because it offers the opportunity for students to make mistakes in a safe, controlled setting, participate in a variety of simulated experiences, and use repetition to aid learning.4,5 Literature supports the use of the Noelle (Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL) birth simulator for teaching novice
medical students how to clinically monitor the stages of labor and manage a normal vaginal delivery prior to the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship (Figure 1). Jude et al6 reported that medical students who practiced deliveries on a simulator reported higher levels of confidence in their skills to perform vaginal deliveries compared to lecture alone. Deering et al7 showed that additional training with an obstetric simulator improved student self-reported comfort with basic procedures performed on labor and delivery (fundal height measurements, Leopold maneuvers, fetal scalp electrode placement, intrauterine pressure catheter placement, and artificial rupture of membranes) compared with resident and staff-directed instruction. In the largest study comparing traditional lecture to lecture plus hands-on vaginal delivery simulation, Holmstrom
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e1
Research
ajog.org
Education
FIGURE 1
Image of facilitator teaching vaginal delivery steps using MamaNatalie
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
et al8 again showed improved confidence in ability to perform a vaginal delivery and also showed higher scores on oral and written examinations in the group of students who received simulation training. Previous studies predominantly evaluate learner confidence following simulation. However, reports of student performance as rated by preceptors while students are on labor and delivery are sparse. This limits the conclusions that can be made about simulation training for teaching novice medical students prior to the obstetrics and gynecology rotation. If adequate teaching and feedback occurs during simulation, confidence is expected to follow. However, it is unclear whether this results in improved student performance on labor and delivery. An unskilled, overly confident medical student is potentially dangerous. The cost of Noelle and other high fidelity models ($4000e50,000) and lack of easy portability has limited the use of birthing simulation in limited resource settings and during the clerkship. A lower-cost ($750), portable birth simulator, MamaNatalie (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) was designed to address these issues (Figure 2). The simulator is worn by an instructor who acts as the patient, thus providing
person-to-person communication and fidelity to replicate real patient interactions. The portable simulator eliminates the mechanical barriers of other simulators, can be carried in a backpack, and can simulate normal vaginal deliveries, delivery of the placenta, and postpartum hemorrhage. Although a theoretically promising model for teaching labor and delivery skills, previous studies have not evaluated the effectiveness of MamaNatalie for teaching novice learners how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a high-fidelity birth simulator (Noelle) compared with a lower-cost, low-tech, lower-fidelity birth simulation model (MamaNatalie) in teaching medical students how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery.
M ATERIALS
AND
Image of the Noelle birth simulator
Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
M ETHODS
This was a randomized controlled trial comparing two birth simulators (MamaNatalie and Noelle) when teaching medical students a normal vaginal delivery. Students rotating on the Women’s Health Clerkship from March 2013 to March 2014 were invited to participate in the research study. On the front page of the survey students received prior to the birth simulation experience, students were informed that “completion of this anonymous survey or questionnaire will serve as your consent to be in the research study.” This study enrolled every medical student who completed the survey during the 1 year study. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved the study (protocol NA 00074248). During their women’s health clerkship orientation, students participate in various active learning modules to prepare them for the obstetrics portion of the clerkship. These modules include a lecture on normal/abnormal labor and evidence-based prenatal care, discussion and evaluation of electronic fetal monitoring cases, simulation of infant resuscitation, and simulation of normal vaginal delivery. Prior to initiation of the research study in March 2013, students in the
91.e2 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology JULY 2015
FIGURE 2
clerkship were divided into groups of 6 and allotted 45 minutes for birth simulation using Noelle following a 1 hour lecture on normal/abnormal labor. Upon initiation of the study, students continued to receive the same labor lecture followed by the birth simulation experience using either the Noelle (Noelle group [NG]) or the MamaNatalie (MamaNatalie group [MG]), still in groups of 6. All students rotating on the women’s health clerkship from March 2013 to March 2014 were enrolled by the program coordinator, assigned a random number, and randomly assigned to NG or MG. For the allocation of the participants, the program coordinator (investigator R.S., who did not teach students during orientation) used Microsoft Access to generate a random number for each student prior to each rotation. Following simple randomization procedures, the program coordinator randomly assigned the deidentified numbers to either NG or MG in a spreadsheet. The allocation sequence was concealed from her during the assignment of numbers to groups because only the deidentified numbers were assigned to NG or MG (she was blinded to all student names up to this point in the process). Once the
ajog.org
Education
Research
FIGURE 3
Disposition of participants in the MG vs the NG Assessed for Eligibility n=116 Excluded: n=6 Declined to participate: 3 Not present at orientation: 3
Randomized: n=110
Allocation
st
Allocated to MamaNatalie® n=55
Allocated to NOELLE®: n=55
Turned-in baseline survey n=55
Turned-in baseline survey n=53
Participated in simulation n=55
Participated in simulation n=55
Completed post-sim survey n=51
Completed post-sim survey n=51
Student 1 delivery survey n=47
Supervisor 1
st
delivery survey n=45
Completed post-clerkship survey n=46
st
Student 1 delivery survey n=46
Supervisor 1st delivery survey n=44
Completed post-clerkship survey n=47
Flow diagram showing disposition of participants in the NG vs the MG during the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; NG, Noelle group. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
deidentified numbers were allocated to NG or MG, she paired the names with the numbers. Based on which group the students were allocated to, the students were either scheduled to complete the MamaNatalie birth simulation or the NOELLE birth simulation. On the day of orientation, the program coordinator provided an itinerary of the learning modules and whether they would complete the MamaNatalie birth simulation or the NOELLE birth
simulation. A flow chart of eligibility and randomization is presented in Figure 3. The facilitators (investigators B.C. and S.P.) of the birth simulations were unaware of which students would be in which simulation group until the students arrived in the room for the simulation. Once the group of 6 students was present, a birth was simulated by the obstetrics-gynecology faculty member using either Noelle or MamaNatalie
providing feedback and reminders for each step of the delivery. This feedback included teaching student hand positioning, fetal head control, perineum support, checking for a nuchal cord, delivery of anterior shoulder, delivery of posterior shoulder, delivery of the abdomen and legs, clamping/cutting the cord, how to hold the delivered neonate (to assuage students’ fears of dropping the neonate), placenta delivery, fundal massage, and placenta inspection.
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e3
Research
ajog.org
Education
TABLE 1
Demographics of students in MG and NG Characteristic
MamaNatalie
Noelle
P value
Age, y, median (range)
25 (23e38)
25 (23e34)
.47
(n ¼ 52)
(n ¼ 52)
(n ¼ 52)
(n ¼ 52)
Male
24 (46.15%)
23 (44.2%)
Female
28 (53.85%)
29 (55.8%)
(n ¼ 53)
(n ¼ 53)
Sex
Year of medical school MSII
8 (15.1%)
13 (24.5%)
MSIII
34 (64.15%)
30 (56.6%)
MSIV
11 (20.75)
10 (18.9%)
(n ¼ 55)
(n ¼ 53)
Quarter of year Third quarter (2013)
11 (20%)
11 (20.7%)
Fourth quarter (2013)
12 (21.8%)
13 (24.5%)
Summer quarter
12 (21.8%)
10 (18.9%)
8 (14.6%)
9 (17.0%)
12 (21.8%)
10 (18.9%)
(n ¼ 44)
(n ¼ 40)
Plan to pursue or strongly considering it
10 (22.7%)
14 (35.0%)
Do not plan to pursue
34 (77.3%)
26 (65.0%)
Second quarter (2013) Third quarter (2014) Interest in obstetrics-gynecology
.84
.48
.98
.21
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; MS, medical school year; NG, Noelle group. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
Each student performed at least 1 simulated delivery with faculty supervision and guidance. For the MG, 1 facilitator (nurse or physician) would play the patient and wear the delivery simulator while the second faculty facilitator would give instruction to the student during the procedure. For the NG, a nurse facilitator would control the manikin while a faculty facilitator would give instruction to the student during the simulated delivery. The facilitator provided the same feedback and teaching to students using both simulators. Similar to the study by Holmstrom et al,8 approximately 110e120 medical students rotate through the Johns Hopkins women’s health clerkship over a 1 year time frame. Because the Holmstrom study had sufficient power to show significant differences in confidence and examination scores, our goal was to recruit a similar sample size to compare
MG and NG. We hypothesized that students in the MG and NG would perform similarly during their first vaginal deliveries on labor and delivery as rated by preceptors (primary outcome). Because the majority of previous studies have evaluated student confidence levels after simulation using Noelle,6-8 we also hypothesized that student confidence would be similar in the MG and NG groups at different times during the women’s health clerkship (secondary outcome). Confidence levels also provide a historic control to establish concurrent validity for the study and whether the use of the Noelle increased confidence similarly to previous studies. Prior to the simulation, students completed a presimulation questionnaire that ascertained demographic information (sex, age, year of medical school, interest in obstetrics and gynecology, and confidence level in performing each step
91.e4 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology JULY 2015
of a vaginal delivery. Following the simulation, students completed a postsimulation questionnaire on the simulator used during the training session, number of simulated deliveries performed, utility of the simulator in establishing confidence, interest in the future use of the simulator, and the confidence level in performing each step of a vaginal delivery. Students remained anonymous on the questionnaire and all data were linked using the randomly assigned number. During the course of the women’s health clerkship, residents and faculty completed the Women’s Health Clerkship Learning Passport to provide formative feedback to students on their performance during the clerkship. Feedback topics included evaluations of history taking, physical examination, and procedural skills. After the initiation of the study, a more detailed, skills checklist was added to the procedural skills section of the learning passport that evaluates the student’s performance during his or her first spontaneous vaginal delivery. The skills assessment is an instrument previously used by 3 other studies that evaluated simulation prior to the obstetrics-gynecology clerkship.6,8,9 The resident, midwife, or attending physician who supervised the student completed the checklist as an evaluation of the student’s performance. The evaluating preceptors were blinded to the stimulator type used by each student during their orientation training. The student also completed the checklist as a selfevaluation of performance. Following the inpatient obstetrics block of the clerkship, students completed a questionnaire about their experience on labor and delivery with items including: simulator used during PRECEDE (Pre-Clerkship Education Exercises), year of medical school, interest in obstetrics-gynecology, number of deliveries (defined as delivering the baby or delivering the baby and placenta, not delivering the placenta alone) performed during the rotation, utility of the simulation experience in establishing confidence, realism of the simulation experience, and level of
ajog.org confidence in performing each step of a vaginal delivery. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare continuous variables. A c2 or Fisher exact test were used to compare categorical variables.
R ESULTS One hundred ten medical students (95% of those eligible) participated in this research study (Figure 3). Preceptor evaluations were completed for 45 of 55 students in MG who participated in the simulation (81.8%) compared with 44 of 55 students in NG (80.0%). The final postclerkship survey was completed by 93 students (85% follow-up rate). Demographics of students in the MG vs NG are presented in Table 1. Age, sex, medical school year, quarter of the year, and interest in obstetrics and gynecology did not differ between the 2 groups. The primary outcome of student performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers with only hands-off supervision during their first vaginal delivery as rated by preceptors is presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the MG and NG student groups as rated by preceptors. As expected, the step performed most frequently with only hands-off supervision as reported by the preceptors was the delivery of the placenta (65.9% of MG, 52.3% of NG). The spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) step with the least involvement by the students was controlling the head (20.5% in MG, 23.3% in NG performed step with hands-off supervision). Similar results were seen in the student selfevaluations of their performance during the first vaginal delivery. There were no significant differences between the MG and NG student self-evaluations. Table 3 demonstrates student confidence in performing vaginal delivery maneuvers with hands-off supervision. Baseline presimulation confidence levels were similar between MG and NG. The median number of simulated deliveries performed by the students during the training session was 1 for both MG and NG (P ¼ .56). The simulation was rated as extremely helpful in establishing
Education
Research
TABLE 2
Performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers with hands-off supervision Preceptor evaluation Variable
MG (n [ 45)
NG (n [ 44)
c2 P value
9 (20.5%) (n ¼ 44)
10 (23.3%) (n ¼ 43)
.75
Supports perineum
13 (29.6%) (n ¼ 44)
15 (34.9%) (n ¼ 43)
.59
Checks for nuchal cord
19 (42.2%)
10 (23.3%) (n ¼ 43)
.06
Delivers anterior shoulder
11 (24.4%)
12 (27.9%) (n ¼ 43)
.71
Delivers posterior shoulder
11 (24.4%)
9 (20.9%) (n ¼ 43)
.69
Delivers the abdomen and legs
19 (43.2%) (n ¼ 44)
17 (39.5%) (n ¼ 43)
.45
Clamps, cuts the cord
17 (37.8%)
13 (29.6%)
.41
Delivers placenta
29 (65.9%) (n ¼ 44)
23 (52.3%)
.19
Fundal massage
28 (62.2%)
22 (50.0%)
.25
Placenta inspection
24 (53.3%)
19 (43.2%)
.34
Inspection of perineum
20 (44.4%)
16 (36.4%)
.44
Controls head
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; NG, Noelle group. DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
confidence by 29 of 53 MG students (54.7%) vs 31 of 53 NG students (58.5%) (P ¼ .845). The other 24 MG students (45.3%) and 22 NG students (41.5%) rated the simulation experience as helpful. Of 53 MG students, 100% marked that the simulator used should continue to be used for the medical student simulation experience vs 52 of 53 NG students (99.1%) (P ¼ 1.00). Of 50 MG students who responded, 49 (98%) felt comfortable delivering from a pelvic model worn by a facilitator, 44 (88%) would feel comfortable if the pelvic model was worn by a classmate, and 41 (82%) would feel comfortable wearing the model. On the immediate postsimulation survey of confidence, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to deliver the abdomen and legs and perform fundal massage with handsoff supervision compared with NG students (P < .05). Following the clerkship, MG students were significantly more confident in their ability to control the head and deliver the abdomen and legs (P < .05) compared with NG students. Following the clerkship, 45.8% of 48 MG students rated the simulation prior to the rotation as extremely helpful
compared with 38.3% of 47 NG students (P ¼.41). The simulation experience was rated as helpful by 25 of MG students (52.1%) and 29 of NG students (61.7%). The simulator was rated as realistic or extremely realistic by 29 of 48 MG students (60.4%) vs 26 (56.5%) of 46 NG students (P ¼ .85). The median (range) number of vaginal deliveries performed during the clerkship was 4 (0e12) in the MG (n ¼ 44) vs 3 (0e9) in the NG (P ¼ .73). Of 47 MG students, 37 (78.7%) reported they could perform a normal vaginal delivery with hands-off supervision or independently with back-up for problems compared with 29 of 44 NG students (65.9%) (P ¼ .17).
C OMMENT The results show that a lower-cost, portable birth simulator is equivalent in teaching novice learners how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery as evaluated by performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers during the student’s first vaginal delivery. Similar to previous studies, our results demonstrate increased confidence in performing vaginal delivery maneuvers following simulation training using the Noelle birth simulator. The helpfulness and
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e5
Research
ajog.org
Education
TABLE 3
Confidence to perform, with hands-off supervision, vaginal delivery maneuvers Responses
Before simulation
After simulation
MG (n [ 52)
MG (n [ 51)
NG (n [ 53)
After clerkship NG (n [ 51)
MG (n [ 46) a
NG (n [ 47) 63.0%
Controls head
0
1.89%
33.3%
29.4%
84.8%
Supports perineum
0
3.77%
45.1%
31.4%
84.8%
72.3%
Checks for nuchal cord
0
3.77%
41.2%
25.5%
69.6%
53.2%
Delivers anterior shoulder
0
3.77%
35.3%
25.5%
63.0%
48.9%
Delivers posterior shoulder
0
3.77%
33.3%
25.5%
67.4%
Delivers the abdomen and legs
0
3.77%
52.9%
Clamps, cuts the cord
1.92%
3.77%
58.8%
Delivers placenta
0
3.77%
47.1%
a
a
55.3% a
31.4%
82.6%
47.1%
78.3%
78.7%
63.8%
38.0%
84.8%
87.2%
23.5%
80.4%
72.3%
Fundal massage
0
3.77%
45.1%
Placenta inspection
0
1.89%
45.1%
29.4%
84.8%
80.9%
Inspection of perineum
0
5.67%
39.2%
29.4%
62.2% (n ¼ 45)
51.1%
MamaNatalie; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway. Noelle; Gaumard Scientific, Coral Gables, FL. MG, MamaNatalie group; NG, Noelle group. a
P < .05, comparing MG with NG.
DeStephano. Comparison of birth simulators. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.
realism of the simulation experience and confidence levels following simulation were rated similarly by students in the MG and NG groups. Importantly, students in the MG group felt comfortable with delivering a simulated newborn from a pelvic model worn by a facilitator. The strength of this study is the randomized design and preceptor ratings of student performance during a spontaneous vaginal delivery. Because student confidence often does not translate into performance, this study is the first to evaluate student performance during his or her first vaginal delivery during the inpatient obstetrics block of the clerkship. Although confidence levels were significantly higher in the MG compared with NG on some vaginal delivery steps, the performance of vaginal delivery maneuvers were similar between the 2 groups, supporting the conclusion that a lower-cost, portable birth simulator is equivalent in teaching learners how to perform a spontaneous vaginal delivery. The most important limitation of this study is loss to follow-up and variable completion rates of surveys by students. However, similar rates of loss to followup were seen in both the MG and NG
groups. In addition, the confidence levels reported at different points of time during the clerkship (before simulation, after simulation, and after clerkship) are similar to previous studies evaluating the Noelle birth simulator.6,8 This supports the validity of the study design and confidence levels reported in both groups. Another important limitation is that the study uses questionnaires completed by preceptors to evaluate student performance. The results may be biased by the preceptor’s overall impression of the student (Halo effect). Our recruitment targets were based on the study by Holmstrom et al8 because it had adequate power to show differences in the confidence and examination scores. However, the performance of first vaginal delivery has not been studied in previous studies, limiting the ability to perform an adequate prestudy power analysis for the primary outcome. Simulations using MamaNatalie and Noelle involve human interaction between students and the facilitators. The birth simulation intervention therefore involves both the model and the facilitator. Similar feedback and teaching of vaginal delivery steps is required for both
91.e6 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology JULY 2015
simulators. Therefore, an attending, midwife, resident, or nurse knowledgeable of vaginal delivery steps is required for teaching medical students using both simulators. One of the differences in simulating a SVD with MamaNatalie is that the student is looking at the facilitator wearing the model. With Noelle, the student is looking at a manikin. This may have affected MG students’ overall perception of the simulation and influenced confidence levels more than the NG students. Performing a simulated birth while looking at the human facilitator (instead of a manikin) may have made the experience more similar to an actual vaginal delivery. Because MamaNatalie involves direct interaction between facilitator and student, this model can be used in followup studies regarding whether simulated scenarios using MamaNatalie improve provider-patient interaction during complicated (higher stress) and uncomplicated (lower stress) vaginal deliveries. In conclusion, the low-tech, portable MamaNatalie is as effective as the highfidelity Noelle in training medical students how to perform an uncomplicated spontaneous vaginal delivery and is a
ajog.org useful, lower-cost alternative in teaching labor and delivery skills to novice learners. Further studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of using the MamaNatalie birth simulator for other levels of learners, teaching complex obstetric skills, and improving providerpatient interactions. REFERENCES 1. Spencer JA, Jordan RK. Learner centered approaches in medical education. BMJ 1999;318:1280-3. 2. Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. APGO clinical skills curriculum.
Education Crofton, MD: Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 2008. 3. Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. APGO medical student educational objectives, 8th ed. Crofton, MD: Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 2004. 4. Macedonia CR, Gherman RB, Satin AJ. Simulation laboratories for training in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102: 388-92. 5. Deering S, Auguste T, Lockrow E. Obstetric simulation for medical student, resident, and fellow education. Semin Perinatol 2013;37: 143-5. 6. Jude DC, Gilbert GG, Magrane D. Simulation training in the obstetrics and gynecology
Research
clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195: 1489-92. 7. Deering SH, Hodor JG, Wylen M, Poggi S, Nielsen PE, Satin AJ. Additional training with an obstetric simulator improves medical student comfort with basic procedures. Simul Healthc 2006. Spring;1:32-4. 8. Holmstrom SW, Downes K, Mayer JC, Learman LA. Simulation training in an obstetric clerkship: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:649-54. 9. Dayal AK, Fisher N, Magrane D, Goffman D, Bernstein PS, Katz NT. Simulation training improves medical students’ learning experiences when performing real vaginal deliveries. Simul Healthc 2009. Fall;4: 155-9.
JULY 2015 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
91.e7
