Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Accuracy of real-time delivery room resuscitation documentation
  1. Claire E Fishman1,
  2. Danielle D Weinberg2,
  3. Ashley Murray3,
  4. Elizabeth E Foglia1,2
  1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Division of Neonatology, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3 Department of Nursing, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elizabeth E Foglia, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia PA 19104, USA; foglia{at}


Objective To assess the accuracy of real-time delivery room resuscitation documentation.

Design Retrospective observational study.

Setting Level 3 academic neonatal intensive care unit.

Participants Fifty infants with video recording of neonatal resuscitation.

Main outcome measures Vital sign assessments and interventions performed during resuscitation. The accuracy of written documentation was compared with video gold standard.

Results Timing of initial heart rate assessment agreed with video in 44/50 (88%) records; the documented heart rate was correct in 34/44 (77%) of these. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were documented at 5 min of life in 90% of resuscitations. Of these, 100% of heart rate and 93% of oxygen saturation values were correctly recorded. Written records accurately reflected the mode(s) of respiratory support for 89%–100%, procedures for 91%–100% and medications for 100% of events.

Conclusion Real-time documentation correctly reflects interventions performed during delivery room resuscitation but is less accurate for early vital sign assessments.

  • resuscitation
  • neonatology

Statistics from

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.


  • Contributors CEF designed this study, collected and analysed the data and wrote the first draft of this manuscript. DDW and EEF designed this study, interpreted the data and critically reviewed this manuscript. AM interpreted the data and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of this manuscript.

  • Funding This study was funded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant number K23HD084727).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

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