Resuscitators' opinions on using a respiratory function monitor during neonatal resuscitation

Kuypers, K.L.A.M.; Zanten, H.A. van; Heesters, V.; Kamlin, O.; Springer, L.; Lista, G.; Cavigioli, F.; Vento, M.; Nunez-Ramiro, A.; Kuester, H.; Horn, S.; Weinberg, D.D.; Foglia, E.E.; Morley, C.J.; Davis, P.G.; Pas, A.B. te

doi:doi:10.1111/apa.16559

Aim The aim of this study was to assess the resuscitators' opinions of the usefulness and clinical value of using a respiratory function monitor (RFM) when resuscitating extremely preterm infants with positive pressure ventilation. Methods The link to an online survey was sent to 106 resuscitators from six countries who were involved in a multicentre trial that compared the percentage of inflations within a predefined target range with and without the RFM. The resuscitators were asked to assess the usefulness and clinical value of the RFM. The survey was online for 4 months after the trial ended in May 2019. Results The survey was completed by 74 (70%) resuscitators of which 99% considered the RFM to be helpful during neonatal resuscitation and 92% indicated that it influenced their decision-making. The majority (76%) indicated that using the RFM improved their practice and made resuscitation more effective, even when the RFM was not available. Inadequate training was the key issue...Show moreAim The aim of this study was to assess the resuscitators' opinions of the usefulness and clinical value of using a respiratory function monitor (RFM) when resuscitating extremely preterm infants with positive pressure ventilation. Methods The link to an online survey was sent to 106 resuscitators from six countries who were involved in a multicentre trial that compared the percentage of inflations within a predefined target range with and without the RFM. The resuscitators were asked to assess the usefulness and clinical value of the RFM. The survey was online for 4 months after the trial ended in May 2019. Results The survey was completed by 74 (70%) resuscitators of which 99% considered the RFM to be helpful during neonatal resuscitation and 92% indicated that it influenced their decision-making. The majority (76%) indicated that using the RFM improved their practice and made resuscitation more effective, even when the RFM was not available. Inadequate training was the key issue that limited the effectiveness of the RFM: 45% felt insufficiently trained, and 78% felt more training in using and interpreting the RFM would have been beneficial. Conclusion Resuscitators considered the RFM to be helpful to guide neonatal resuscitation, but sufficient training was required to achieve the maximum benefit.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Resuscitators' opinions on using a respiratory function monitor during neonatal resuscitation