Developing the TeamOBS-vacuum-assisted delivery checklist to assess clinical performance in a vacuum-assisted delivery: a Delphi study with initial validation

IntroductionIn Northern Europe, vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD) accounts for 6–15% of all deliveries; VAD is considered safe when conducted by adequately trained personnel. However, failed vacuum extraction can be harmful to both the mother and child. Therefore, the clinical performance in VAD must be assessed to guide learning, determine a performance benchmark, and evaluate the quality to achieve an overall high performance. We were unable to identify a pre-existing tool for evaluating the clinical performance in real-life vacuum-assisted births.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop and validate a checklist for assessing the clinical performance in VAD.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi process, described as an interactive process where experts answer questions until answers converge toward a “joint opinion” (consensus). We invited international experts as Delphi panelists and reached a consensus after four Delphi rounds, described as follows: (1) the panelists were asked to add, remove, or suggest corrections to the preliminary list of items essential for evaluating clinical performance in VAD; (2) the panelists applied weights of clinical importance on a Likert scale of 1–5 for each item; (3) each panelist revised their original scores after reviewing a summary of the other panelists’ scores and arguments; and (4) the TeamOBS-VAD was tested using videos of real-life VADs, and the Delphi panel made final adjustments and approved the checklist.ResultsTwelve Delphi panelists from the UK (n = 3), Norway (n = 2), Sweden (n = 3), Denmark (n = 3), and Iceland (n = 1) were included. After four Delphi rounds, the Delphi panel reached a consensus on the checklist items and scores. The TeamOBS-VAD checklist was tested using 60 videos of real-life vacuum extractions. The inter-rater agreement had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.73; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of [0.58, 0.83], and that for the average of two raters was ICC 0.84 95% CI [0.73, 0.91]. The TeamOBS-VAD score was not associated with difficulties in delivery, such as the number of contractions during vacuum extraction delivery, cephalic level, rotation, and position. Failed vacuum extraction occurred in 6% of the video deliveries, but none were associated with the teams with low clinical performance scores.ConclusionThe TeamOBS-VAD checklist provides a valid and reliable evaluation of the clinical performance of vaginal-assisted vacuum extraction

Teamwork and Adherence to Guideline on Newborn Resuscitation-Video Review of Neonatal Interdisciplinary Teams

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the importance of non-technical skills for the adherence to guidelines, when teams of midwives, obstetricians, anesthesiologists, and pediatricians resuscitate and support the transition of newborns. Non-technical skills are competences underpinning successful teamwork in healthcare. These are usually referred to as leadership, situational awareness, communication, teamwork, decision making, and coping with stress and fatigue. OBJECTIVE: By review of videos of teams managing newborns with difficult transition, we aimed to investigate whether the level of the teams' non-technical skills was associated with the degree of adherence to guidelines for newborn resuscitation and transitional support at birth. METHODS: Four expert raters independently assessed 43 real-life videos of teams managing newborns with transitional difficulties, two assessed the non-technical score and two assessed the clinical performance. Exposure was the non-technical score, obtained by the Global Assessment Of Team Performance checklist (GAOTP). GAOTP was rated on a Likert Scale 1–5 (1 = poor, 3 = average and 5 = excellent). The outcome was the clinical performance score of the team assessed according to adherence of the European Resuscitation Counsel (ERC) guideline for neonatal resuscitation and transitional support. The ERC guideline was adapted into the checklist TeamOBS-Newborn to facilitate a structured and simple performance assessment (low score 0–60, average 60–84, high 85–100). Interrater agreement was analyzed by intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and Cohen's kappa weighted. The risk of high and low clinical performance was analyzed on the logit scale to meet the assumptions of normality and constant standard deviation. RESULTS: Teams with an excellent non-technical score had a relative risk 5.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4–22.5] of high clinical performance score compared to teams with average non-technical score. In addition, we found a dose response like association. The specific non-technical skills associated with the highest degree of adherence to guidelines were leadership and teamwork, coping with stress and fatigue, and communication with parents. Inter-rater agreement was high; raters assessing non-technical skills had an interclass coefficient (ICC) 0.88 (95% CI 0.79–0.94); the neonatologists assessing clinical performance had an ICC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.66–0.89). CONCLUSION: Teams with an excellent non-technical score had five times the chance of high clinical performance compared to teams with average non-technical skills. High performance teams were characterized by good leadership and teamwork, coping with stress, and fatigue and communication with parents

Association of serum and fecal microRNA profiles in cats with gastrointestinal cancer and chronic inflammatory enteropathy

Background: Differentiation of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) from chronic inflammatory enteropathies (CIE) in cats can be challenging and often requires extensive diagnostic testing. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have promise as non‐invasive biomarkers in serum and feces for diagnosis of GIC. Hypothesis/Objectives: Cats with GIC will have serum and fecal miRNA profiles that differ significantly from healthy cats and cats with CIE. Identify serum and fecal miRNAs with diagnostic potential for differentiation between cats with GIC and CIE as compared to healthy cats. Animals: Ten healthy cats, 9 cats with CIE, and 10 cats with GIC; all client‐owned. Methods: Cats were recruited for an international multicenter observational prospective case‐control study. Serum and feces were screened using small RNA sequencing for miRNAs that differed in abundance between cats with GIC and CIE, and healthy cats. Diagnostic biomarker potential of relevant miRNAs from small RNA sequencing and the literature was confirmed using reverse transcription quantitative real‐time PCR (RT‐qPCR). Results: Serum miR‐223‐3p was found to distinguish between cats with GIC and CIE with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.760‐1.0), sensitivity of 90% (95% CI, 59.6‐99.5%), and specificity of 77.8% (95% CI, 45.3‐96.1%). Serum miR‐223‐3p likewise showed promise in differentiating a subgroup of cats with small cell lymphoma (SCL) from those with CIE. No fecal miRNAs could distinguish between cats with GIC and CIE. Conclusion and Clinical Importance: Serum miR‐223‐3p potentially may serve as a noninvasive diagnostic biomarker of GIC in cats, in addition to providing a much needed tool for the differentiation of CIE and SCL

Association of fecal and serum microRNA profiles with gastrointestinal cancer and chronic inflammatory enteropathy in dogs

Background: Reliable biomarkers to differentiate gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) from chronic inflammatory enteropathy (CIE) in dogs are needed. Fecal and serum microRNAs (miRNAs) have been proposed as diagnostic and prognostic markers of GI disease in humans and dogs. Hypothesis/Objectives: Dogs with GIC have fecal and serum miRNA profiles that differ from those of dogs with CIE. Aims: (a) identify miRNAs that differentiate GIC from CIE, (b) use high‐throughput reverse transcription quantitative real‐time PCR (RT‐qPCR) to establish fecal and serum miRNA panels to distinguish GIC from CIE in dogs. Animals: Twenty‐four dogs with GIC, 10 dogs with CIE, and 10 healthy dogs, all client‐owned. Methods: An international multicenter observational prospective case‐control study. Small RNA sequencing was used to identify fecal and serum miRNAs, and RT‐qPCR was used to establish fecal and serum miRNA panels with the potential to distinguish GIC from CIE. Results: The best diagnostic performance for distinguishing GIC from CIE was fecal miR‐451 (AUC: 0.955, sensitivity: 86.4%, specificity: 100%), miR‐223 (AUC: 0.918, sensitivity: 90.9%, specificity: 80%), and miR‐27a (AUC: 0.868, sensitivity: 81.8%, specificity: 90%) and serum miR‐20b (AUC: 0.905, sensitivity: 90.5%, specificity: 90%), miR‐148a‐3p (AUC: 0.924, sensitivity: 85.7%, specificity: 90%), and miR‐652 (AUC: 0.943, sensitivity: 90.5%, specificity: 90%). Slightly improved diagnostic performance was achieved when combining fecal miR‐451 and miR‐223 (AUC: 0.973, sensitivity: 95.5%, specificity: 90%). Conclusions and Clinical Importance: When used as part of a diagnostic RT‐qPCR panel, the abovementioned miRNAs have the potential to function as noninvasive biomarkers for the differentiation of GIC and CIE in dogs

Noise as a risk factor in the delivery room: A clinical study.

IntroductionWe aimed to investigate whether noise in delivery rooms is associated with impaired performance of obstetric teams managing major (≥1000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage.Material and methodsWe included video recordings of 96 obstetric teams managing real-life major postpartum hemorrhage. Exposure was noise defined as the occurrence of sound level pressures (SPL) above 90 dB. The outcome was high clinical performance assessed through expert ratings using the TeamOBS-PPH tool.ResultsThe 23 teams unexposed to noise had a significantly higher chance of high clinical performance than the 73 teams exposed to noise: 91.3% (95% CI; 72.0-98.9) versus 58.9% (95% CI; 46.8-70.3) (p ConclusionNoise in delivery rooms may be an independent source of impaired clinical performance

Healthcare providers’ perceptions and expectations of video-assisted debriefing of real-life obstetrical emergencies: a qualitative study from Denmark

Objectives Video-assisted debriefing (VAD) of real-life obstetrical emergencies provides an opportunity to improve quality of care, but is rarely used in clinical practice. A barrier for implementation is the expected mental reservations among healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers’ perceptions and expectations of VAD of real-life events.Setting Participants were recruited from two Labour and Delivery Units in Denmark. In both units, VAD of real-life obstetrical emergencies had never been conducted.Participants 22 healthcare providers (10 physicians, 9 midwives and 3 nursing assistants). During the study period (August–October 2021), semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measures A qualitative description of healthcare providers’ perceptions and expectations of VAD of real-life events.Results Three major themes were identified: (1) Video-assisted debriefing (VAD) as an opportunity for learning: All participants expected VAD to provide an opportunity for learning and improving patient care. All participants expected the video to provide a ‘bigger picture’, by showing ‘what was actually done’ instead of ‘what we believed was done’. (2) Video-assisted debriefing (VAD) as a cause for concern: The primary concern for all participants was the risk of being exposed as less competent. Participants were concerned that being confronted with every minor detail of their clinical practice would enhance their self-criticalness. (3) Preconditions for video-assisted debriefing (VAD): Participants emphasised the importance of organisational support from management. In addition, creating a safe environment for VAD, for example, by using only expert debriefers was considered an essential precondition for successful implementation.Conclusions The risk of being exposed as less competent was a barrier towards VAD of real-life events. However, the majority found the educational benefits to outweigh the risk of being exposed

Data_Sheet_1_Developing the TeamOBS-vacuum-assisted delivery checklist to assess clinical performance in a vacuum-assisted delivery: a Delphi study with initial validation.docx

IntroductionIn Northern Europe, vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD) accounts for 6–15% of all deliveries; VAD is considered safe when conducted by adequately trained personnel. However, failed vacuum extraction can be harmful to both the mother and child. Therefore, the clinical performance in VAD must be assessed to guide learning, determine a performance benchmark, and evaluate the quality to achieve an overall high performance. We were unable to identify a pre-existing tool for evaluating the clinical performance in real-life vacuum-assisted births.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop and validate a checklist for assessing the clinical performance in VAD.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi process, described as an interactive process where experts answer questions until answers converge toward a “joint opinion” (consensus). We invited international experts as Delphi panelists and reached a consensus after four Delphi rounds, described as follows: (1) the panelists were asked to add, remove, or suggest corrections to the preliminary list of items essential for evaluating clinical performance in VAD; (2) the panelists applied weights of clinical importance on a Likert scale of 1–5 for each item; (3) each panelist revised their original scores after reviewing a summary of the other panelists’ scores and arguments; and (4) the TeamOBS-VAD was tested using videos of real-life VADs, and the Delphi panel made final adjustments and approved the checklist.ResultsTwelve Delphi panelists from the UK (n = 3), Norway (n = 2), Sweden (n = 3), Denmark (n = 3), and Iceland (n = 1) were included. After four Delphi rounds, the Delphi panel reached a consensus on the checklist items and scores. The TeamOBS-VAD checklist was tested using 60 videos of real-life vacuum extractions. The inter-rater agreement had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.73; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of [0.58, 0.83], and that for the average of two raters was ICC 0.84 95% CI [0.73, 0.91]. The TeamOBS-VAD score was not associated with difficulties in delivery, such as the number of contractions during vacuum extraction delivery, cephalic level, rotation, and position. Failed vacuum extraction occurred in 6% of the video deliveries, but none were associated with the teams with low clinical performance scores.ConclusionThe TeamOBS-VAD checklist provides a valid and reliable evaluation of the clinical performance of vaginal-assisted vacuum extraction.</p

Principal component analysis (PCA) of samples profiled by small RNAseq technique

A. PCA of urine samples on the basis of normalized read counts of the known and putative novel miRNAs for the 38 samples initially processed. The red arrows indicate the outlier Control samples (C5, C6 and C7). B. PCA excluding the high outlier samples. CKD: Chronic kidney disease; PN: Pyelonephritis; SB/C: Subclinical bacteriuria/Cystitis; UO: Ureteral obstruction.Peer reviewe