Comparison of a practice-based versus theory-based training program for conducting vacuum-assisted deliveries: a randomized-controlled trial

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

PurposeVacuum-assisted deliveries (VAD) are complex procedures that require training and experience to be performed proficiently. We aimed to evaluate if a more resource intensive practice-based training program for conducting VAD is more efficient compared to a purely theory-based training program, with respect to immediate training effects and persistence of skills 4–8 weeks after the initial training.MethodsIn this randomized-controlled study conducted in maternity staff, participants performed a simulated low-cavity non-rotational vacuum delivery before (baseline test) and immediately after the training (first post-training test) as well as 4–8 weeks thereafter (second post-training test). The study’s primary endpoint was to compare training effectiveness between the two study groups using a validated objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) rating scale.ResultsSixty-two participants were randomized to either the theory-based group (n = 31) or the practice-based group (n = 31). Total global and specific OSATS scores, as well as distance of cup application to the flexion point improved significantly from baseline test to the first post-training test in both groups (pall < 0.007). Skill deterioration after 4–8 weeks was only found in the theory-based group, whereas skills remained stable in the practice-based group.ConclusionA practice-based training program for conducting VAD results in comparable immediate improvement of skills compared to a theory-based training program, but the retention of skills 4–8 weeks after training is superior in a practice-based program. Future studies need to evaluate, whether VAD simulation training improves maternal and neonatal outcome after VAD.