4.6 Article

Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01018.x

Keywords

guideline; haemorrhage; obstetric

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives Following the results of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths report, which claims two maternal deaths annually in the UK from postpartum haemorrhage, our aim was to assess the accuracy of 'visual estimation of blood loss' and produce suitable pictorial and written algorithms to aid in the recognition and management of massive obstetric haemorrhage. Design Observational study to determine discrepancy between actual blood loss (ABL) and estimated blood loss (EBL). Setting Teaching hospital. Population Hundred and three obstetricians, anaesthetists, midwives, nurses and healthcare assistants. Methods Clinical scenarios were reproduced in the form of 12 Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) style stations augmented with known volumes of whole blood. Individual staff estimated the blood loss visually and recorded their results. Digital photographs were used to produce a pictorial 'algorithm' suitable for use as a teaching tool in labour ward. Main outcome meaures Areas of greatest discrepancy between EBL and ABL. Results Significant underestimation of the ABL occurred in 5 of the 12 OSCE stations: 500-ml (50-cm diameter) floor spill, 1000-ml (75-cm diameter) floor spill, 1500-ml (100-cm diameter) floor spill, 350-ml capacity of soaked 45- x 45-cm large swab and the 2-l vaginal postpartum haemorrhage on bed/floor. Conclusions Accurate visual estimation of blood loss is known to facilitate timely resuscitation, minimising the risk of disseminated intravascular coagulation and reducing the severity of haemorrhagic shock. Participation in clinical reconstructions may encourage early diagnosis and prompt treatment of postpartum haemorrhage. Written and pictorial guidelines may help all staff working in labour wards.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available