Author
Listed:
- Matt M Kurrek
- Pamela Morgan
- Steven Howard
- Peter Kranke
- Aaron Calhoun
- Joshua Hui
- Alex Kiss
Abstract
Background: There are not enough clinical data from rare critical events to calculate statistics to decide if the management of actual events might be below what could reasonably be expected (i.e. was an outlier). Objectives: In this project we used simulation to describe the distribution of management times as an approach to decide if the management of a simulated obstetrical crisis scenario could be considered an outlier. Design: Twelve obstetrical teams managed 4 scenarios that were previously developed. Relevant outcome variables were defined by expert consensus. The distribution of the response times from the teams who performed the respective intervention was graphically displayed and median and quartiles calculated using rank order statistics. Results: Only 7 of the 12 teams performed chest compressions during the arrest following the ‘cannot intubate/cannot ventilate’ scenario. All other outcome measures were performed by at least 11 of the 12 teams. Calculation of medians and quartiles with 95% CI was possible for all outcomes. Confidence intervals, given the small sample size, were large. Conclusion: We demonstrated the use of simulation to calculate quantiles for management times of critical event. This approach could assist in deciding if a given performance could be considered normal and also point to aspects of care that seem to pose particular challenges as evidenced by a large number of teams not performing the expected maneuver. However sufficiently large sample sizes (i.e. from a national data base) will be required to calculate acceptable confidence intervals and to establish actual tolerance limits.
Suggested Citation
Matt M Kurrek & Pamela Morgan & Steven Howard & Peter Kranke & Aaron Calhoun & Joshua Hui & Alex Kiss, 2015.
"Simulation as a New Tool to Establish Benchmark Outcome Measures in Obstetrics,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-9, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0131064
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131064
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0131064. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.