Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · AJP Rep 2020; 10(01): e93-e100
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705141
Case Report
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Electronic Fetal Monitoring Credentialing Examination: The First 4000

Mark W. Tomlinson
1   Perinatal Quality Foundation, Northwest Perinatal Center/Women's Healthcare Associates, Providence Health and Services, Oregon, Women and Children's Program, Portland, Oregon
,
Sara A. Brumbaugh
2   Perinatal Quality Foundation Consulting Statistician, Ceres Analytics, LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Marin O'Keeffe
1   Perinatal Quality Foundation, Northwest Perinatal Center/Women's Healthcare Associates, Providence Health and Services, Oregon, Women and Children's Program, Portland, Oregon
,
Richard L. Berkowitz
3   Perinatal Quality Foundation, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Mary D'Alton
3   Perinatal Quality Foundation, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Michael Nageotte
4   Perinatal Quality Foundation, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Miller Children's and Women's Hospital, University of California, Irvine, California
,
on behalf of the Perinatal Quality Foundation › Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 October 2019

15 November 2019

Publication Date:
16 March 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Recognized variability in fetal heart rate interpretation led the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) to develop a credentialing exam. We report an evaluation of the 1st 4000 plus PQF Fetal Monitoring Credentialing (FMC) exams.

Study Design The PQF FMC exam is an online assessment for obstetric providers and nurses. The exam contains two question types: traditional multiple-choice evaluating knowledge and Script Concordance Theory (SCT) evaluating judgment. Reliability was measured through McDonald's Total Omega and Cronbach's Alpha. Pearson's correlations between knowledge and judgment were measured.

Results From February 2014 through September 2018, 4,330 different individuals took the exam. A total of 4,057 records were suitable for reliability analysis: 2,105 (52%) physicians, 1,756 (43%) nurses, and 196 (5%) certified nurse midwives (CNMs). As a measure of test reliability, total Omega was 0.80 for obstetric providers and 0.77 for nurses. There was only moderate correlation between the knowledge scores and judgment scores for obstetric providers (0.38) and for nurses (0.43).

Conclusion The PQF FMC exam is a reliable, valid assessment of both Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) knowledge and judgment. It evaluates essential EFM skills for the establishment of practical credentialing. It also reports modest correlation between knowledge and judgment scores, suggesting that knowledge alone does not assure clinical competency.

Keywords

electronic fetal monitoring - Fetal Monitoring Credentialing - interpretation of fetal monitoring

Disclosure

There was no outside financial support or services.


 

  • References

  • 1 Association of Women's Health. Obstetric and neonatal nurses. Fetal heart rate monitoring. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44: 683-686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Curtin SC, Park MM. Trends in the attendant, place, and timing of births, and in the use of obstetric interventions: United States, 1989-97. Natl Vital Stat Rep 1999; 47 (27) 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003; 52 (10) 1-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (03) 661-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 116: Management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (05) 1232-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 The Joint Commission. Preventing infant death and injury during delivery. Sentinel Event Alert 2004; ;(30): 1-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Berkowitz RL, D'Alton ME, Goldberg JD. , et al. The case for an electronic fetal heart rate monitoring credentialing examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 204-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Charlin B, Roy L, Brailovsky C, Goulet F, van der Vleuten C. The Script Concordance test: a tool to assess the reflective clinician. Teach Learn Med 2000; 12 (04) 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fournier JP, Demeester A, Charlin B. Script concordance tests: guidelines for construction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Charlin B, Brailovsky CA, Brazeau-Lamon-tagne L, Samson L, Van der Vleuten CP. Script questionnaires: their use for assessment of diagnostic knowledge in radiology. Med Teach 1998; 20: 567-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Meterissian S, Zabolotny B, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Is the script concordance test a valid instrument for assessment of intraoperative decision-making skills?. Am J Surg 2007; 193 (02) 248-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Park AJ, Barber MD, Bent AE. , et al. Assessment of intraoperative judgment during gynecologic surgery using the Script Concordance Test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (03) 240.e1-240.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sibert L, Darmoni SJ, Dahamna B, Hellot MF, Weber J, Charlin B. On line clinical reasoning assessment with Script Concordance test in urology: results of a French pilot study. BMC Med Educ 2006; 6: 45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hableton RK, Swaminathan H. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Groves M. , Ed. The Diagnostic Process in Medical Practice: The Role of Clinical Reasoning. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Gagnon R, Charlin B, Coletti M, Sauvé E, van der Vleuten C. Assessment in the context of uncertainty: how many members are needed on the panel of reference of a script concordance test?. Med Educ 2005; 39 (03) 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Novick MR, Lewis C. Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika 1967; 32 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sheng Y, Sheng Z. Is coefficient alpha robust to non-normal data?. Front Psychol 2012; 3: 34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bandalos DL, Enders CK. The effects of nonnormality and number of response categories on reliability. Appl Meas Educ 1996; 9 (02) 151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002; 287 (02) 226-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Murphy AA, Halamek LP, Lyell DJ, Druzin ML. Training and competency assessment in electronic fetal monitoring: a national survey. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (06) 1243-1248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pettker CM, Grobman WA. Obstetric safety and quality. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (01) 196-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Grimes DA, Peipert JF. Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (06) 1397-1400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Williams KP, Galerneau F. Intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns in the prediction of neonatal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (03) 820-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cahill AG, Tuuli MG, Stout MJ, López JD, Macones GA. A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (05) 523.e1-523.e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Clark SL, Meyers JA, Frye DK, Perlin JA. Patient safety in obstetrics--the Hospital Corporation of America experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (04) 283-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pettker CM, Thung SF, Lipkind HS. , et al. A comprehensive obstetric patient safety program reduces liability claims and payments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (04) 319-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar