Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-65b85459fc-rnwf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-16T12:39:29.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 33 - Non-technical Skills to Improve Obstetric Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2025

By
Rehan Khan  and
Kim Hinshaw
Edited by
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

Despite technological and scientific improvements in maternity care, mothers and babies continue to come to harm. As with other safety-critical industries, mistakes occur as a result of ‘human’ and ‘system’ errors. A sound understanding of non-technical skills can help explain past errors and prevent future errors; these skills include cognitive (situation awareness and decision-making) and social (teamwork, leadership and communication) aspects. Caring for mothers and babies is compromised by individuals and teams feeling stressed and exhausted, and it is increasingly recognised that a focus on individual/team human factors may be both ineffective and punitive. Improvements in safety culture therefore require both system redesign and compassionate leadership.

Keywords

patient safetynon-technical skillshuman factorserrorcompassionate leadershiporganisational ergonomicssystem redesignsafety culture

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Best Practice in Labour and Delivery , pp. 419 - 432
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Becoming tomorrow’s specialist: lifelong professional development for specialist in women’s health (Working party report). 2014 Sep [cited 2024 14 Mar]. Available from: www.rcog.org.uk/media/iglkfjri/becoming-tomorrows-specialist.pdfGoogle Scholar
Flin, R, O’Connor, P, Crichton, M. Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company; 2008.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P, editor. Safer care: human factors in healthcare training manual. Argyle& Bute, Scotland: Swan & Horn; 2013.Google Scholar
Jackson, K, Hayes, K, Hinshaw, K. The relevance of non-technical skills in obstetrics and gynaecology. TOG. 2013;15:269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachan, B, Bahl, R. Non-technical skills. In: Gale, A, Siassakos, D, Attilakos, G, Winter, C, Draycott, T, editors. ROBuST course manual (RCOG operative birth simulation training. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014: pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
Hyman, DA, Silver, C. Speak not of error. Regulation. 2005;Spring: 52–7.Google Scholar
Gawande, AA, Zinner, MJ, Studdert, DM, Brennan, TA. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery. 2003;133(6): 614–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keogh, B. Review into the quality of care and treatment provided by 14 hospital trusts in England [Overview report]. 2013 [cited 2016 16 May]. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/2dsf2x9aGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, PE, Goldman, MB, Mann, S, et al. Effects of teamwork training on adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(1):48–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weindling, AM. The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Arch Dis Childhood. 2003;88(12):1034–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, M, Kenyon, S, Brocklehurst, P, et al., editors, on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving lives, improving mothers’ care: lessons learned to inform future maternity care from the UK and Ireland – confidential enquiries into maternal deaths and morbidity 2009–12 (Core report). 2014 Dec [cited 2024 14 Mar]. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/2xk8murrGoogle Scholar
Coroyannakis, C, Chandraharan, E, Matiluko, A. Comparative analysis of the human ‘WORM’: role of human factors on adverse incidents in two adjacent obstetric units in London. BJOG. 2013;120(1):413.Google Scholar
Reason, J. Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care. 1995;4(2):80–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reason, J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singhal, T, Harding, K. Risk management in obstetrics. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2014;24(12):357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxfield, DG, Lyndon, A, Kennedy, HP, O’Keeffe, DF, Zlatnik, MG. Confronting safety gaps across labor and delivery teams. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):402–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flin, R, Martin, L, Koerters, KM, et al. Development of the NOTECHS (non-technical skills) system for assessing pilots’ skills. Human Factors Aerospace Safety. 2003;3(2):95–117.Google Scholar
Endsley, M. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors. 1995;37(1):32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabris, C, Simons, D. The invisible gorilla and other ways our intuition deceives us. London: HarperCollins Publishers; 2011.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Non-technical skills for obstetricians conducting forceps and vacuum deliveries: qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(2):147–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yee, LM, Liu, LY, Grobman, WA. The relationship between obstetricians’ cognitive and affective traits and their patients’ delivery outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:e1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee on Improving the Decision Making Abilities of Small Unit Leaders; Naval Studies Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council. Improving the decision making abilities of small unit leaders. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Decision-making in operative vaginal delivery: when to intervene, where to deliver and which instrument to use? Qualitative analysis of expert clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):333–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Dept of Health & Human Services – Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). TeamSTEPPSTM – teamwork attitudes questionnaire manual. 2016 [cited 2016 16 May]. Available from: www.teamstepps.ahrq.gov/taq_index.htmGoogle Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth (NICE Clinical Guideline CG190). 2014 [cited 2016 16 May]. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG190Google Scholar
Francis, R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.Google Scholar
West, M, Eckert, R, Steward, K, Pasmore, B, on behalf of the King’s Fund. Developing collective leadership for healthcare. 2014 [cited 2016 16 May]. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/4ccmrf65Google Scholar
Hasson, G. Emotional intelligence. Chichester: Capstone; 2014.Google Scholar
West, MA. Compassionate leadership: sustaining wisdom, humanity and presence in health and social care. UK: The Swirling Leaf Press; 2021.Google Scholar
Yule, S, Flin, R, Maran, N, et al. Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behaviour rating system. World J Surg. 2008;32:548–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S, Brackley, K, Landau, A, Hayes, K. Assessing non-technical skills on the delivery suite: a pilot study. Clin Teach. 2014;11(5):375–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Department of Health & Human Services – Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. TeamSTEPPS 2®. Video training tools – Inpatient surgical hand off. 2014 [cited 2016 16 May]. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/58d4xynvGoogle Scholar
Toeima, E. SHARING: improving and documentation of handover – mind the gap. J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;31:681–2.Google ScholarPubMed
Edozien, L. Structured Multidisciplinary Intershift Handover (SMITH): a tool for promoting safer intrapartum care. J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;31:683–6.Google Scholar
US Department of Health & Human Services – Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. TeamSTEPPS 2®. Video training tools – Inpatient surgical check back. 2014 [cited 2016 16 May]. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/n7xax9k5Google Scholar
Easterbrook, JA. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychol Rev. 1959;66(3):183–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanoch, Y, Vitouch, O. When less is more: information, emotional arousal and the ecological reframing of the Yerkes–Dodson Law. Theory Psychol. 2004;14(4):427–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinni, S, Wallace, E, Cross, W. Patient safety: a literature review to inform an evaluation of a maternity service. Midwifery. 2011;27(6):e274–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Kirkup, B. The report of the Morecambe Bay investigation [Kirkup report]. 2015 Mar [cited 2024 23 Apr]. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/2skspyr8.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Each Baby Counts: 2015 full report. London: RCOG; 2017.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Each Baby Counts: 2018 full report. London: RCOG; 2018.Google Scholar
Bogne Kamdem, V, Daelemans, C, Englert, Y, Morin, F, Sansregret, A. Using simulation team training with human factors components in obstetrics to improve patient outcome: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2021;260:159–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapur, N, Parand, A, Soukup, T, Reader, T, Sevdalis, N. Aviation and healthcare: a comparative review with implications for patient safety. JRSM Open. 2015;7(1).Google ScholarPubMed
Hardie, J, Oeppen, R, Shaw, G, Holden, C, Tayler, N, Brennan, P. You Have Control: aviation communication application for safety-critical times in surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;58(9):1073–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carayon, P, Wooldridge, A, Gurses, A, et al. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics. 2013;56(11):1669–86.Google Scholar
Holden, R, Carayon, P, Hoonakker, P, Hundt, A, Kelly, M. SEIPS 3.0: human centred design of the patient journey for patient safety. Appl Ergon. 2020;84:1103033.Google Scholar
Holden, RJ, Carayon, P. SEIPS 101 and seven simple SEIPS tools. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(11):901–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×