Standardized Six-Step Approach to the Performance of the Focused Basic Obstetric Ultrasound Examination

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to validate the feasibility and accuracy of a new standardized six-step approach to the performance of the focused basic obstetric ultrasound examination, and compare the new approach to the regular approach performed in the scheduled obstetric ultrasound examination.

Study Design A new standardized six-step approach to the performance of the focused basic obstetric ultrasound examination, to evaluate fetal presentation, fetal cardiac activity, presence of multiple pregnancy, placental localization, amniotic fluid volume evaluation, and biometric measurements, was prospectively performed on 100 pregnant women between 18⁺⁰ and 27⁺⁶ weeks of gestation and another 100 pregnant women between 28⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks of gestation. The agreement of findings for each of the six steps of the standardized six-step approach was evaluated against the regular approach.

Results In all ultrasound examinations performed, substantial to perfect agreement (Kappa value between 0.64 and 1.00) was observed between the new standardized six-step approach and the regular approach.

Conclusion The new standardized six-step approach to the focused basic obstetric ultrasound examination can be performed successfully and accurately between 18⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks of gestation. This standardized approach can be of significant benefit to limited resource settings and in point of care obstetric ultrasound applications.

Keywords

six-step approach - focused basic obstetric ultrasound - limited resource settings - fetus

• References

• 1 Abuhamad AZ, Chaoui R, Jeanty P, Paladini D. Ultrasound in Obstetric and Gynecology: A Practical Approach. 1st ed. 2014: 186-211
• 2 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32 (6) 1083-1101
• 3 Shah SP, Epino H, Bukhman G , et al. Impact of the introduction of ultrasound services in a limited resource setting: rural Rwanda 2008. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 2009; 9: 4
• 4 Swanson JO, Kawooya MG, Swanson DL, Hippe DS, Dungu-Matovu P, Nathan R. The diagnostic impact of limited, screening obstetric ultrasound when performed by midwives in rural Uganda. J Perinatol 2014; 34 (7) 508-512
• 5 Rijken MJ, Lee SJ, Boel ME , et al. Obstetric ultrasound scanning by local health workers in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burmese border. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34 (4) 395-403
• 6 Training in diagnostic ultrasound: essentials, principles and standards. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1998; 875: i-46 back cover.
• 7 Sippel S, Muruganandan K, Levine A, Shah S. Review article: Use of ultrasound in the developing world. Int J Emerg Med 2011; 4: 72
• 8 Abuhamad AZ. Ultrasound outreach and the crisis in Haiti. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29 (4) 673-677
• 9 Yazdi B, Zanker P, Wanger P , et al. Optimal caliper placement: manual vs automated methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43 (2) 170-175