Page 22 of 23
OG9.1-6 | Early Pregnancy Complications — Assignment
CLINICAL SCENARIO
Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of first-trimester maternal death in India. Despite advances in diagnostics, delays in recognition — particularly misclassifying ectopic as threatened abortion — remain a major source of preventable mortality. This assignment asks you to analyse a clinical scenario of ectopic pregnancy, work through the diagnostic reasoning, treatment selection, and communicate the management plan as a clinician to a patient. You will integrate anatomical knowledge, biochemical interpretation, clinical decision criteria, and patient communication skills.
Instructions
Read the following clinical scenario carefully, then answer all four sections in order. Your response should demonstrate integration of the relevant OG9.4 competency: aetiology, clinical features, differential diagnosis, and principles of medical and surgical management of acute abdomen in early pregnancy with a focus on ectopic pregnancy.
Clinical Scenario: Mrs Priya, a 26-year-old woman with a history of right salpingitis three years ago, presents to the emergency department with a 2-day history of right lower abdominal ache and mild spotting per vaginum. She has been amenorrhoeic for 6 weeks. A urine pregnancy test performed at home is positive. On examination: she is haemodynamically stable; uterus is 6-week size; right adnexal tenderness is present; no cervical excitation. A transvaginal ultrasound shows an empty uterine cavity and a 2.8 cm right adnexal mass with a peripheral ring of echogenicity ('ring of fire' on Doppler). Serum beta-hCG is 3,400 mIU/mL.
Length: 900-1300 words across all four sections (Section 1: ~300 words; Section 2: ~300 words; Section 3: 200-300 words; Section 4: ~150 words)
What to Submit
Section 1: Diagnostic Reasoning
Guidance: Establish the diagnosis with justification. Explain why ectopic pregnancy is the primary diagnosis in this case — reference the clinical features, the ultrasound findings (significance of an empty uterus at hCG 3400 mIU/mL, the adnexal ring sign, and Doppler findings), and her risk factors. Then list the differential diagnoses for acute abdomen in early pregnancy that you considered and explain why each was excluded in this case. Your differentials must include: threatened abortion, incomplete abortion, and corpus luteum cyst — explain the distinguishing feature for each.
Section 2: Treatment Selection and Rationale
Guidance: Evaluate whether this patient is a candidate for methotrexate medical management or surgical management. List ALL criteria for single-dose methotrexate eligibility and assess whether Mrs Priya meets each criterion. Justify your final management recommendation. If choosing surgery, specify the operative approach (laparoscopic vs open) and the procedure (salpingectomy vs salpingotomy) with your reasoning — reference her contralateral tube status and future fertility implications.
Section 3: Counselling the Patient
Guidance: Write a brief script (200-300 words) of what you would say to Mrs Priya to explain her diagnosis, the proposed management, and three specific aspects she must understand: (1) the urgency of the situation and why delay is dangerous; (2) what monitoring or follow-up is required (including serial beta-hCG); (3) her future fertility and the risk of recurrent ectopic pregnancy. Use plain language appropriate for a patient with secondary school education. Avoid unexplained medical jargon.
Section 4: Critical Reflection
Guidance: Identify the single most common clinical error that leads to delayed diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in Indian emergency departments, based on what you have learned. Explain the pathophysiological reason why a closed cervical os and positive pregnancy test does NOT rule out ectopic pregnancy — and what clinical or biochemical finding should always prompt exclusion of ectopic before assuming the diagnosis is threatened abortion.
Grading Rubric — Ectopic Pregnancy Case Analysis Rubric
| Criterion | Points | Full-marks descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Reasoning: Accuracy of diagnosis, appropriate use of discriminatory zone, correct differential diagnosis with exclusion reasoning | 25 pts | Diagnosis correctly established with full reference to discriminatory zone, adnexal ring sign, Doppler findings, and risk factors; all three required differentials (threatened, incomplete, corpus luteum cyst) accurately excluded with the correct distinguishing clinical feature for each |
| Treatment Selection: Correct application of methotrexate eligibility criteria and surgical decision-making with fertility-preserving reasoning | 25 pts | All methotrexate eligibility criteria correctly listed and each assessed for this patient; correct conclusion drawn; surgical approach and procedure justified with reference to contralateral tube and future fertility; salpingectomy vs salpingotomy trade-off discussed |
| Patient Communication: Clarity, completeness of counselling on urgency, follow-up requirements, and future fertility | 25 pts | Patient language is clear and jargon-free; all three required elements addressed (urgency/risk, serial beta-hCG follow-up, future fertility and recurrence risk); empathetic tone; information is clinically accurate and proportionate |
| Critical Reflection: Identification of diagnostic error, pathophysiological explanation of closed os limitation, and clinical safety principle | 25 pts | Common clinical error accurately identified (e.g. assuming closed os = IUP or assuming threatened abortion without exclusion of ectopic); pathophysiological explanation is mechanistically correct (ectopic does not open the os; bleeding is from decidual slough not from cervical dilation); correct clinical/biochemical safety rule stated (empty uterus + hCG above discriminatory zone = ectopic until proven otherwise) |
PEER REVIEW
Review your peer's submission using the four criteria in the marking rubric. For each criterion, write 2-3 sentences explaining: (1) what was done well; (2) one specific gap or inaccuracy you identified; (3) one suggestion for improvement. Be constructive and evidence-based — reference the teaching points from the module. Do not simply award a score without written justification.