Improving Interprofessional Consistency in Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation

Abstract

Objective To determine if mandatory online training in electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) improved agreement in documentation between obstetric care providers and nurses on labor and delivery.

Methods Health care professionals working in obstetrics at our institution were required to complete a course on EFM interpretation. We performed a retrospective chart review of 701 charts including patients delivered before and after the introduction of the course to evaluate agreement among providers in their documentation of their interpretations of the EFM tracings.

Results Agreement between provider and nurse documentation at the time of admission improved for variability and accelerations (variability: 91.1 vs. 98.3%, p < 0.001; and accelerations: 75.2 vs. 87.7%, p < 0.001). Similarly, agreement improved at the time of the last note prior to delivery for documentation of variability and accelerations (variability: 82.1 vs. 90.6%, p = 0.001; and accelerations: 56.7 vs. 68.6%, p = 0.0012). Agreement in interpretation of decelerations both at the time of admission and at the time of delivery increased (86.3 vs. 90.6%, p = 0.0787, and 56.7 vs. 61.1%, p = 0.2314, respectively) but was not significant.

Conclusion An online EFM course can significantly improve consistency in multidisciplinary documentation of fetal heart rate tracing interpretation.

Keywords

electronic fetal monitoring - consistency - variability - accelerations - decelerations

This work has been presented at the SMFM meeting in New Orleans, LA, in February 2014.

• References

• 1 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
• 2 Stout MJ, Cahill AG. Electronic fetal monitoring: past, present, and future. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38 (1) 127-142 , vii
• 3 Renou P, Chang A, Anderson I, Wood C. Controlled trial of fetal intensive care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 126 (4) 470-476
• 4 Haverkamp AD, Thompson HE, McFee JG, Cetrulo C. The evaluation of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in high-risk pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 125 (3) 310-320
• 5 Kelso IM, Parsons RJ, Lawrence GF, Arora SS, Edmonds DK, Cooke ID. An assessment of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labor. A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 131 (5) 526-532
• 6 Haverkamp AD, Orleans M, Langendoerfer S, McFee J, Murphy J, Thompson HE. A controlled trial of the differential effects of intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 134 (4) 399-412
• 7 MacDonald D, Grant A, Sheridan-Pereira M, Boylan P, Chalmers I. The Dublin randomized controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152 (5) 524-539
• 8 Vintzileos AM, Antsaklis A, Varvarigos I, Papas C, Sofatzis I, Montgomery JT. A randomized trial of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81 (6) 899-907
• 9 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: research guidelines for interpretation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (6) 1385-1390
• 10 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 70, December 2005 (replaces practice bulletin number 62, May 2005). Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (6) 1453-1460
• 11 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (1) 192-202
• 12 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. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008; 37 (5) 510-515
• 13 Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005; 37 (5) 360-363
• 14 Murphy AA, Halamek LP, Lyell DJ, Druzin ML. Training and competency assessment in electronic fetal monitoring: a national survey. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (6) 1243-1248
• 15 MacEachin SR, Lopez CM, Powell KJ, Corbett NL. The fetal heart rate collaborative practice project: situational awareness in electronic fetal monitoring-a Kaiser Permanente Perinatal Patient Safety Program Initiative. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2009; 23 (4) 314-323 , quiz 324–325
• 16 Beckley S, Stenhouse E, Greene K. The development and evaluation of a computer-assisted teaching programme for intrapartum fetal monitoring. BJOG 2000; 107 (9) 1138-1144