Participant evaluations after participation in either ISS or OSS in medians with 25% and 75% quartiles. Analysis comprised a comparison of the evaluation medians of the ISS versus the OSS group
| ISS | OSS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median (1st Q–3rd Q) | Median (1st Q–3rd Q) | p Value* | |
| Evaluation questions (shortened version, original version in Danish) | |||
| 1. Overall, the training day was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 5 (4–5) | 5 (4–5) | 0.70 |
| 2. Multi-professional approach with all healthcare groups involved was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 5 (4–5) | 5 (4–5) | 0.70 |
| 3. I thought the level of education of the training was (1=very much over my level to 5=very much below my level) | 3 (3–3) | 3 (3–3) | 0.70 |
| 4. Will recommend others to participate (1=never to 5=always) | 5 (5–5) | 5 (4–5) | 0.70 |
| 5. Did simulations inspire you to change procedures or practical issues in the labour room or operating theatre (1=no ideas to 5=many ideas) (included open-ended questions) | 3 (2–3) | 3 (2–4) | 0.70 |
| 6. Did simulations inspire you to change guidelines (1=no ideas to 5=many ideas) (included open-ended questions) | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–2) | 0.70 |
| Simulation of an emergency CS | |||
| 7. Overall, my learning was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (3–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.90 |
| 8. The authenticity of the CS simulation was (1=not at all authentic to 5=very authentic) | 4 (3–4) | 3 (3–4) | 0.02 |
| 9. The authenticity of the CS simulation influenced my learning (1=not at all important to 5=very important) | 4 (4–4.5) | 4 (4–4) | 0.65 |
| 10. Collaboration in the CS team was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (4–4.5) | 4 (3.8–4) | 0.27 |
| 11. Communication in the CS team was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (3–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.23 |
| 12. The CS team leader was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (3–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.26 |
| 13. My learning at the debriefing after the CS was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (4–5) | 4 (4–4) | 0.88 |
| Simulation in PPH | |||
| 14. My learning overall was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (4–4) | 4 (4–4) | 0.70 |
| 15. The authenticity of the PPH simulation was (1=not at all authentic to 5=very authentic) | 4 (3–4) | 3 (3–4) | 0.01 |
| 16. The authenticity of the simulation in PPH influenced my learning (1=not at all important to 5=very important) | 4 (4–4.5) | 4 (4–4) | 0.23 |
| 17. Collaboration in the PPH team was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (4–4.5) | 4 (4–4) | 0.64 |
| 18. Communication in the PPH team was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (3.5–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.64 |
| 19. The PPH team leader was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (4–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.23 |
| 20. My learning at the debriefing after the PPH was (1=very bad to 5=very good) | 4 (4–4) | 4 (4–4) | 0.57 |
*Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. p Values adjusted for multiple testing.
CS, caesarean section; ISS, in situ simulation; OSS, off-site simulation; 1st Q–3rd Q, 25% and 75% quartiles; PPH, postpartum haemorrhage.