Objective To assess benefits of recording and reviewing neonatal resuscitation as experienced by neonatal care providers.
Design A qualitative study using semistructured interviews questioning neonatal care providers about their experiences with recording and reviewing neonatal resuscitation. Data were analysed using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti V.7.0.
Setting Neonatal care providers working at neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) of the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, USA, participated in this study.
Results In total, 48 NICU staff members were interviewed. Reported experiences and attitudes are broadly similar for both NICUs. All interviewed providers reported positive experiences and benefits, with special emphasis on educational benefits. Recording and reviewing neonatal resuscitation is used for various learning activities, such as plenary review meetings and as tool for objective feedback. Providers reported to learn from reviewing their own performance during resuscitation, as well as from reviewing performances of others. Improved time perception, reflection on guideline compliance and acting less invasively during resuscitations were often mentioned as learning outcomes. All providers would recommend other NICUs to implement recording and reviewing neonatal resuscitation, as it is a powerful tool for learning and improving. However, they emphasised preconditions for successful implementation, such as providing information, not being punitive and focusing on the benefits for learning and improving.
Conclusion Recording and reviewing neonatal resuscitation is considered highly beneficial for learning and improving resuscitation skills and is recommended by providers participating in it.
- medical education
- qualitative research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MCdB and MH drafted the initial version of the manuscript, and all authors participated in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding ABteP is recipient of a NWO innovational research incentives scheme (VIDI 91716428).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval This study was reviewed by the Ethics Review Committee of the Leiden University Medical Center.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.