Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 12 November 2001
- Published on: 8 November 2001
- Published on: 25 October 2001
- Published on: 12 November 2001Re: Caution required when comparing ANNPs and medical staffShow More
Dear Editor
French and Evans have pointed out several limitations of our study which we had already discussed within the original paper. As there was no randomistaion performed, it is not possible to conclude that one group was better or worse than another at resuscitating preterm babies. The concerns expressed about the accuracy of retrospectively collected data are equally valid.
However, this was no...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 8 November 2001Caution required when comparing ANNPs and medical staffShow More
Dear Editor
Aubrey and Yoxall conclude that Advanced Neonatal Nurse Practitioners (ANNPs) are effective in the resuscitation of preterm infants at birth [1]. The authors are careful not to conclude that ANNPs are more effective than medically led teams but they have made a comparison nevertheless. The data presented suggest that the infants resuscitated by ANNP led teams were intubated more quickly, received surfactan...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 25 October 2001Paediatric senior house officers (SHOs) need to be trainedShow More
Dear Editor,
The paper by Aubrey and Yoxall[1] concludes that Advanced Neonatal Nurse Practitioners (ANNPs) are effective in the resuscitation of preterm babies at birth. In the same edition, Lee et al.[2] show that ANNPs in East Yorkshire are significantly more effective in detecting abnormalities during the neonatal check.
Neither of these results surprise me. ANNPs are intelligent, motivated and mos...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.