Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of training programme uptake in an attempt to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries: the SUPPORT programme

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to assess the feedback from a quality improvement training programme to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS).

Methods

Training sessions were organised that included evidence-based information on OASIS risk factors and training on models to measure perineal body length (PBL), perform episiotomies with standard and 60° fixed angle scissors (EPISCISSORS-60®), and measure post-delivery episiotomy suture angles with protractor transparencies. Feedback forms using a Likert scale (1–4) were completed and analysed. The setting was an evidence-based quality improvement programme (Strategy for Using Practical aids for Prevention of OASIS, Recording episiotomies and clinician Training [SUPPORT]) at two National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. The participants were midwives and doctors attending the SUPPORT training programme

Results

All of the participants (100 %) would recommend the training programme to a friend or colleague. 92 % felt that the training session improved their knowledge of the impact of PBL and perineal distension and their knowledge of the relationship between episiotomy angle and OASIS “a lot” or “somewhat”.

Conclusion

Based on this feedback, we recommend the addition of the knowledge content of the SUPPORT programme to other centres providing perineal assessment and repair courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: IOM; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ovretveit J. Does improving quality save money? A review of the evidence of which improvements to quality reduce costs to health service providers. London: Health Foundation; 2009. p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ismail KM, Kettle C, Macdonald SE, Tohill S, Thomas PW, Bick D. Perineal Assessment and Repair Longitudinal Study (PEARLS): a matched-pair cluster randomized trial. BMC Med. 2013;11:209. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mahmud A, Morris E, Johnson S, Ismail KM. Developing core patient-reported outcomes in maternity: PRO-Maternity. BJOG. 2014;121 Suppl 4:15–9. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears, management (Green-top Guideline No. 29). London: RCOG; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Silf K, Woodhead N, Kelly J, Fryer A, Kettle C, Ismail KMK. Evaluation of accuracy of mediolateral episiotomy incisions using a training model. Midwife. 2014;31:197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aytan H, Tapisiz OL, Tuncay G, Avsar FA. Severe perineal lacerations in nulliparous women and episiotomy type. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121:46–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dua A, Whitworth M, Dugdale A, Hill S. Perineal length: norms in gravid women in the first stage of labour. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:1361–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Geller EJ. Perineal body length as a risk factor for ultrasound-diagnosed anal sphincter tear at first delivery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:631–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lai CY, Cheung HW, His Lao TT, Lau TK, Leung TY. Is the policy of restrictive episiotomy generalizable? A prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22:1116–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rizk DEE, Abadir MN, Thomas LB, Abu-Zidan F. Determinants of the length of episiotomy or spontaneous perineal lacerations during vaginal birth. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16:395–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai PS, Oyama IA, Hiraoka M, Minaglia S, Thomas J, Kaneshiro B. Perineal body length among different racial groups in the first stage of labour. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:165–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Walfisch A, Hallak M, Harley S, Mazor M, Shoham-Vardi I. Association of spontaneous perineal stretching during delivery with perineal lacerations. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:23–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sandvik L, et al. Incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries after training to protect the perineum: cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001649. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001649.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Naidu M, Kapoor DS, Evans S, Vinayakarao L, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Cutting an episiotomy at 60 degrees: how good are we? Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:813–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Institute for Health Care and Excellence. Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies; NICE guidelines [CG190]. London: NICE; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  17. East CE, Lau R, Biro MA. Midwives’ and doctors’ perceptions of their preparation for and practice in managing the perineum in the second stage of labour: a cross-sectional survey. Midwifery. 2015;31:122–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bick DE, Ismail KM, Macdonald S, Thomas P, Tohill S, Kettle C. How good are we at implementing evidence to support the management of birth related perineal trauma? A UK wide survey of midwifery practice. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Löwenstein L, Drugan A, Gonen R, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Bardicef M, Jakobi P. Episiotomy: beliefs, practice and the impact of educational intervention. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123:179–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK

    Nadia Rahman & A Pradhan

  2. Poole Hospital NHS Trust, Poole, UK

    Latha Vinayakarao, Dawn Minden & Louise Melson

  3. Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon, UK

    Sangeeta Pathak & Ella Vitue

Authors
  1. Nadia Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Latha Vinayakarao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sangeeta Pathak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dawn Minden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Louise Melson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ella Vitue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A Pradhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadia Rahman.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahman, N., Vinayakarao, L., Pathak, S. et al. Evaluation of training programme uptake in an attempt to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries: the SUPPORT programme. Int Urogynecol J 28, 403–407 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3158-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3158-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation