Skip to content
MEO NextGenDeveloper StudioDEV
  1. Dashboard
  2. Questions
  3. SBA
  4. Q184
SBA

SBA — Single Best Answer · Review

Question 184

Delivery suite → Haemorrhage

NextGen Workflow Status Needs Review
SQL status generated
Destination Site
Type SSBA
UUID 20c2be21-8c71-4931-83ee-d6a24a47f2d7

Classification

Speciality
Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Group
Clinical
Title
Delivery suite
Topic
Haemorrhage
Subtopic 1
Antepartum haemorrhage
Subtopic 2
General
Subtopic 3
Management
Question Type
SBA

Question

SSBA
Question Header
Two women at 32 weeks are assessed following APH. Both currently have normal observations and reassuring fetal assessment. Woman X had a single episode of spotting that stopped before assessment; placenta praevia has been excluded and no further bleeding occurs. Woman Y has had three episodes of unexplained bleeding over seven days, the most recent being 40 mL earlier today. Which distinction most appropriately influences disposition?
Question Stem
—

Options

A Both must remain admitted until delivery because any APH before 34 weeks prohibits discharge
B Woman X must remain admitted because spotting carries greater concealed-haemorrhage risk than recurrent bleeding
C Both should automatically be discharged because their current observations are normal
D Woman Y may require continued admission or more cautious individualised management because recurrence changes the risk context despite current stability
E Woman Y can be discharged preferentially because each individual bleed remains below 50 mL

Explanation

Current haemodynamic and fetal stability are important but are not the only determinants of disposition after APH. A woman with a single episode of resolved spotting, reassuring assessment and excluded placenta praevia may be suitable for discharge. Recurrent unexplained APH represents a different clinical risk context and requires individualised consideration of recurrence, gestation, access to hospital and maternal-fetal surveillance. The numerical volume of the latest episode should not be interpreted in isolation.

Option Validity

A) There is no universal requirement for admission until delivery after every episode of APH before 34 weeks.

B) Recurrent bleeding generally warrants greater caution than a single completely resolved episode of spotting.

C) Normal observations at one time point do not erase the significance of recurrent APH.

E) Repeated episodes cannot be reduced to the volume classification of the latest bleed alone.

Further Reading

RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 63. Antepartum Haemorrhage. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2011.

Source & metrics

Authored Difficulty
4.00
Evaluation Score
—
Destination
Site
Source
—
Source Section
—
Source Locator
—
Updated
2026-10-06 01:57:35
Difficulty Factor
Not available yet
Attended Users
No candidate-attempt data yet
Review Question