Electronic Fetal Monitoring Credentialing Examination: The First 4000

Abstract

Objective Recognized variability in fetal heart rate interpretation led the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) to develop a credentialing exam. We report an evaluation of the 1st 4000 plus PQF Fetal Monitoring Credentialing (FMC) exams.

Study Design The PQF FMC exam is an online assessment for obstetric providers and nurses. The exam contains two question types: traditional multiple-choice evaluating knowledge and Script Concordance Theory (SCT) evaluating judgment. Reliability was measured through McDonald's Total Omega and Cronbach's Alpha. Pearson's correlations between knowledge and judgment were measured.

Results From February 2014 through September 2018, 4,330 different individuals took the exam. A total of 4,057 records were suitable for reliability analysis: 2,105 (52%) physicians, 1,756 (43%) nurses, and 196 (5%) certified nurse midwives (CNMs). As a measure of test reliability, total Omega was 0.80 for obstetric providers and 0.77 for nurses. There was only moderate correlation between the knowledge scores and judgment scores for obstetric providers (0.38) and for nurses (0.43).

Conclusion The PQF FMC exam is a reliable, valid assessment of both Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) knowledge and judgment. It evaluates essential EFM skills for the establishment of practical credentialing. It also reports modest correlation between knowledge and judgment scores, suggesting that knowledge alone does not assure clinical competency.

Keywords

electronic fetal monitoring - Fetal Monitoring Credentialing - interpretation of fetal monitoring

Disclosure

There was no outside financial support or services.

• References

• 1 Association of Women's Health. Obstetric and neonatal nurses. Fetal heart rate monitoring. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44: 683-686
• 2 Curtin SC, Park MM. Trends in the attendant, place, and timing of births, and in the use of obstetric interventions: United States, 1989-97. Natl Vital Stat Rep 1999; 47 (27) 1-12
• 3 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003; 52 (10) 1-113
• 4 Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (03) 661-666
• 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 116: Management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (05) 1232-1240
• 6 The Joint Commission. Preventing infant death and injury during delivery. Sentinel Event Alert 2004; ;(30): 1-3
• 7 Berkowitz RL, D'Alton ME, Goldberg JD. , et al. The case for an electronic fetal heart rate monitoring credentialing examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 204-207
• 8 Charlin B, Roy L, Brailovsky C, Goulet F, van der Vleuten C. The Script Concordance test: a tool to assess the reflective clinician. Teach Learn Med 2000; 12 (04) 189-195
• 9 Fournier JP, Demeester A, Charlin B. Script concordance tests: guidelines for construction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 18
• 10 Charlin B, Brailovsky CA, Brazeau-Lamon-tagne L, Samson L, Van der Vleuten CP. Script questionnaires: their use for assessment of diagnostic knowledge in radiology. Med Teach 1998; 20: 567-571
• 11 Meterissian S, Zabolotny B, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Is the script concordance test a valid instrument for assessment of intraoperative decision-making skills?. Am J Surg 2007; 193 (02) 248-251
• 12 Park AJ, Barber MD, Bent AE. , et al. Assessment of intraoperative judgment during gynecologic surgery using the Script Concordance Test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (03) 240.e1-240.e6
• 13 Sibert L, Darmoni SJ, Dahamna B, Hellot MF, Weber J, Charlin B. On line clinical reasoning assessment with Script Concordance test in urology: results of a French pilot study. BMC Med Educ 2006; 6: 45
• 14 Hableton RK, Swaminathan H. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing; 1985
• 15 Groves M. , Ed. The Diagnostic Process in Medical Practice: The Role of Clinical Reasoning. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2007
• 16 Gagnon R, Charlin B, Coletti M, Sauvé E, van der Vleuten C. Assessment in the context of uncertainty: how many members are needed on the panel of reference of a script concordance test?. Med Educ 2005; 39 (03) 284-291
• 17 Novick MR, Lewis C. Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika 1967; 32 (01) 1-13
• 18 Sheng Y, Sheng Z. Is coefficient alpha robust to non-normal data?. Front Psychol 2012; 3: 34
• 19 Bandalos DL, Enders CK. The effects of nonnormality and number of response categories on reliability. Appl Meas Educ 1996; 9 (02) 151
• 20 Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978
• 21 Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002; 287 (02) 226-235
• 22 Murphy AA, Halamek LP, Lyell DJ, Druzin ML. Training and competency assessment in electronic fetal monitoring: a national survey. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (06) 1243-1248
• 23 Pettker CM, Grobman WA. Obstetric safety and quality. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (01) 196-206
• 24 Grimes DA, Peipert JF. Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (06) 1397-1400
• 25 Williams KP, Galerneau F. Intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns in the prediction of neonatal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (03) 820-823
• 26 Cahill AG, Tuuli MG, Stout MJ, López JD, Macones GA. A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (05) 523.e1-523.e12
• 27 Clark SL, Meyers JA, Frye DK, Perlin JA. Patient safety in obstetrics--the Hospital Corporation of America experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (04) 283-287
• 28 Pettker CM, Thung SF, Lipkind HS. , et al. A comprehensive obstetric patient safety program reduces liability claims and payments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (04) 319-325