Validation and modification of a cardiotocograph interpretation training programme for midwives in South Africa to address existing interpretation inconsistencies, using the virtual nominal group technique
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Conventional models of cardiotocograph (CTG) interpretation training have focused on adherence to interpretation guidelines. There is a need for training in interpreting CTGs that emphasises integrating the complete clinical picture to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient safety.
Objectives. To develop and validate a CTG interpretation training programme for midwives in South Africa to address the existing inconsistencies in interpretation.
Methods. This study was underpinned by the Analysis, Development, Design, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) theoretical framework. The study followed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design with the aim of exploring and describing midwives’ level of knowledge of CTG interpretation and their learning needs. The learning needs identified informed the development of a training programme. A panel of nine experts participated in a virtual nominal group technique to validate the training programme and prioritise the learning units through anonymous ranking.
Results. CTG interpretation training made up of the following learning units was developed and validated with the assistance of maternal and child health experts: Introduction to CTG interpretation; Technical aspects of CTG monitoring; Factors that affect the fetal heart rate during labour; Diagnosis; Clinician-woman relationship; Effective and timely communication of accurate information; Formulation of a comprehensive management plan after CTG interpretation; Using appropriate guidelines to inform decision-making; and Medicolegal hazards.
Conclusion. This CTG interpretation programme differs from other conventional training programmes in that it focuses on the multifaceted nature of CTG interpretation and does not confine the training to CTG interpretation guidelines.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJCH is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. Ugwumadu A, Steer P, Parer B, et al. Time to optimise and enforce training in interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocograph. BJOG 2016;123(6):866-869. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13846
2. Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong CY, Chandraharan E; FIGO Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;131(1):13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.020
7. Molenda M. In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Perform Improv 2003;42(5):34-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508
8. Gourounti K, Sarantaki A, Diamanti A, Giaxi P, Lykeridou K. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Electronic Fetal Monitoring Knowledge Scale. Acta Inform Med 2020;28(4):254-260. https://doi.org/10.5455/ aim.2020.28.254-260
9. Devane D, Lalor J. Midwives’ visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: Intra- and inter-observer agreement. J Adv Nurs 2005;52(2):133-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03575.x
10. Gray RJ, Grove KS. The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis and Generation of Evidence. 9th ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2021.
11. LoBiondo-Wood G, Haber J. Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. 9th ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2018.
12. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
13. Johnson RE, Grove AL, Clarke A. Pillar Integration Process: A joint display technique to integrate data in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res 2019;13(3):301-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817743108
14. Lukhele S, Mulaudzi FM, Gundo R. Midwives’ competence in interpretation of the intrapartum cardiotocograph at public hospitals in Gauteng: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. Int J Africa Nurs Sci 2025;22(1):100825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2025.100825
15. Krau SD. Creating educational objectives for patient education using the new Bloom’s Taxonomy. Nurs Clin North Am 2011;46(3):299-312. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cnur.2011.05.002
16. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London: Longman, Green & Co Ltd, 1956. https://web. archive.org/web/20201212072520id_/https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/ texts/Bloom%20et%20al%20-Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives. pdf (accessed 20 September 2024).
17. Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: Davis McKay Company Inc., 1964.
18. Simpson EJ. The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. 1966. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED010368 (accessed 18 July 2024).
19. Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ. Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research. Med Teach 2017;39(1):14-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/014215 9X.2017.1245856
20. Dang VH. The use of nominal group technique: Case study in Vietnam. World J Educ 2015;5(4):14-25. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v5n4p14
21. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995;311(7001):376-380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
22. Lee SH, ten Cate O, Gottlieb M, et al. The use of virtual nominal groups in healthcare research: An extended scoping review. PLoS ONE 2024;19(6):e0302437. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302437
23. Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract 1996;4(2):67-74. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.1996.tb00844.x
24. McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38(3):655-662. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11096-016-0257-x
25. Logullo P, van Zuuren EJ, Winchester CC, et al. ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods. PLoS Med 2024;21(5):e1004390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004390
26. Delbecq AL, van de Ven AH. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci 1971;7(4):466-492. https://doi. org/10.1177/002188637100700404
27. International Confederation of Midwives. ICM Essential Competencies for Midwifery Practice. The Hague: ICM, 2024. https://internationalmidwives. org/wp-content/uploads/EN_ICM-Essential-Competencies-for-Midwifery- Practice-1.pdf (accessed 23 April 2024).
28. National Department of Health, South Africa. National Integrated Maternal and Perinatal Care Guidelines for South Africa. 5th ed. 2024. https://knowledgehub. health.gov.za/system/files/elibdownloads/2024-10/Integrated%20 Maternal%20and%20Perinatal%20Care%20Guideline_23_10_2024_0.pdf (accessed 30 October 2024).
29. James S, Maduna NE, Morton DG. Knowledge levels of midwives regarding the interpretation of cardiotocographs at labour units in KwaZulu-Natal public hospitals. Curationis 2019;42(1):2007. https://doi.org/10.4102/ curationis.v42i1.2007
30. Goldman B, Naidoo T. Formal training in cardiotocograph interpretation of healthcare practitioners improves interpretation: A prospective descriptive analytical study in a resource constrained setting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021;153(3):527-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13513
31. Zhu L-A, Blanc J, Heckenroth H, et al. Fetal physiology cardiotocography training, a regional evaluation. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021;50(6):102039. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102039
32. Dupuis H, Ghesquière L, Pierache A, Subtil D, Houfflin-Debarge V, Garabedian C. Evaluation and impact of fetal physiology training on fetal heart rate analysis. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021;50(10):102185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jogoh.2021.102185
33. Bailey RE. Intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am Fam Physician 2009;80(12):1388- 1396.
34. Shamoradifar Z, Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Nourizadeh R, Mehrabi E, Areshtanab HN, Shaigan H. The impact of effective communication-based care on the childbirth experience and satisfaction among primiparous women: An experimental study. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2022;97(1):12. https://doi. org/10.1186/s42506-022-00108-2
35. Baranowska B, Pawlicka P, Kiersnowska I, et al. Woman’s needs and satisfaction regarding the communication with doctors and midwives during labour, delivery and early postpartum. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9(4):382. https://doi. org/10.3390/healthcare9040382
36. Watson BM, Heatley ML, Gallois C, Kruske S. The importance of effective communication in interprofessional practice: Perspectives of maternity clinicians. Health Commun 2016;31(4):400-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041 0236.2014.960992
37. Jepsen I, Blix E, Cooke H, Adrian SW, Maude R. The overuse of intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) for low-risk women: An actor-network theory analysis of data from focus groups. Women Birth 2022;35(6):593-601. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2022.01.003
38. Haig KM, Sutton S, Whittington J. SBAR: A shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2006;32(3):167-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(06)32022-3