The Journal of reproductive medicine · 2002
Episiotomy and perineal repair. An evaluation of resident education and experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McLennan Mary T, Melick Clifford F, Clancy Stacey L, Artal Raul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe current training practices and experience with episiotomy and perineal repair in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in the United States.
STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire mailed to all directors of accredited programs in the United States for distribution to fourth-year residents in their last four months of training included 30 questions regarding formal teaching, supervision, experience and repair techniques.
RESULTS: A total of 297 of 1,177 (25.2%) residents, representing 47% of programs, responded. The response rates for the various program sizes were: 32.0% for < or = 12 residents, 29.5% for 13-19 residents, 24.6% for 20-24 residents and 18% for > or = 25 residents. Of the residents, 59.9% received no didactics on episiotomy repair techniques; 59.3% had no formal teaching on pelvic floor anatomy; and 27.7% of third-degree repairs were supervised by attending physicians. Of the respondents, 6.8% had repaired > 20 fourth-degree lacerations and 40.3%, > 20 third-degree lacerations. Ten percent of the graduates felt inadequately trained in perineal repair.
CONCLUSION: This survey of fourth-year residents from 47% of obstetric programs indicated that the majority of residents received no formal training in pelvic floor anatomy, episiotomy or perineal repair and, when engaged in such activities, had limited supervision.
STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire mailed to all directors of accredited programs in the United States for distribution to fourth-year residents in their last four months of training included 30 questions regarding formal teaching, supervision, experience and repair techniques.
RESULTS: A total of 297 of 1,177 (25.2%) residents, representing 47% of programs, responded. The response rates for the various program sizes were: 32.0% for < or = 12 residents, 29.5% for 13-19 residents, 24.6% for 20-24 residents and 18% for > or = 25 residents. Of the residents, 59.9% received no didactics on episiotomy repair techniques; 59.3% had no formal teaching on pelvic floor anatomy; and 27.7% of third-degree repairs were supervised by attending physicians. Of the respondents, 6.8% had repaired > 20 fourth-degree lacerations and 40.3%, > 20 third-degree lacerations. Ten percent of the graduates felt inadequately trained in perineal repair.
CONCLUSION: This survey of fourth-year residents from 47% of obstetric programs indicated that the majority of residents received no formal training in pelvic floor anatomy, episiotomy or perineal repair and, when engaged in such activities, had limited supervision.