You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Experience of training in communication skills among trainee neonatologists
  1. Katie Gallagher,
  2. Chloe Shaw,
  3. Neil Marlow
  1. UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Neil Marlow, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK; n.marlow{at}ucl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309238

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Communication between medical teams and parents is a critical aspect of day-to-day neonatal care and helps to include parents in decisions made for their child. Nonetheless, parents report that current involvement is less than optimal.1 Communication skills are part of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) curriculum,2 assessed briefly during professional examinations, and signed off at the end of training. However, most training is delivered locally without formal evaluation. This study aimed to explore the experience of and need for communication training among trainee neonatologists.

    Using a short open-ended questionnaire, we explored the involvement of trainee neonatologists (ST3-8) in communications skills training. Data were collected during a British Association of Perinatal Medicine national training day during September 2014. Forty nine of 58 trainees attending completed the questionnaire. Of the 49, 51% (n=25) had …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NM, KG and CS conceived the study in July 2014. CS undertook data collection. CS and KG collated the data. KG wrote the first draft of the paper. CS and NM contributed to the draft and have approved the final version of the manuscript. NM is the guarantor for the paper.

    • Funding National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Programme Development Grant RG-DG-0611-10006—The Department of Health and NIHR had no role in the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript and the decision to submit for publication.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.