You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Neonatal videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid: the trainees’ perspective
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 14 June 2021
    Response to Neonatal videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid: the trainees’ perspective
    • Geraldine Y T Ng, Consultant Neonatologist and Honorary Senior Lecturer Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Susan Somerville, Lecturer, Postgraduate Medicine

    Dr O’Shea and colleagues provide useful trainee perspective on the use of videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid and highlight the need for standardised training packages.

    We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of 22 consultants and trainees in a UK tertiary neonatal unit where videolaryngoscopy is commonly used. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed using attribute and descriptive coding methods. Framework Analysis was used to interpret the data obtained from interviews.

    In our study, videolaryngoscopy was felt to have largely positive effects on facilitating safer training in an era where intubation opportunities are lacking. As with O’Shea et al,(1) our participants felt that videolaryngoscopy allowed considerably easier demonstration of intubation techniques. Interviewees commented that looking at the monitor combined with the movements of the operator and coaching in real-time, assisted eye-hand co-ordination and made it easier to correct technique. Visual feedback would benefit kinaesthetic learning as per the VARK: Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic learning styles, although the existence of these styles is debated.(2,3)
    In our study, interviewees felt that use of videolaryngosopy allowed group teaching, and instilled confidence in those watching in what was occurring. This ‘team learning’ aligns with social cognitive theory, where learning experiences are active and social, with re...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 12 June 2021
    Re: Neonatal videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid
    • Andrew Y Huang, Anaesthetist, Specialist Pain Medicine Physician Austin Health | Eastern Health | The University of Melbourne

    Dear Editor,
    As an emerging medical education researcher with an interest in video, and as a practising anaesthetist, I read O’Shea et al’s article on neonatal videolaryngoscopy[1] with great interest. I applaud and encourage the authors for their interest in medical education, which I believe underpins medicine’s ability to do the best for our patients. However, I wish to draw attention to two points that I believe should be addressed for future papers covering this topic.
    1. The authors in this paper use the words “conventional laryngoscope blades” to describe direct laryngoscopy without video feed. This assumes that what is conventional for the authors is conventional for the audience. In this paper I had assumed that “conventional” to a neonatologist would be a Miller (straight) blade, and that the video laryngoscope blade was a Macintosh blade because it was curved. However, after reviewing Kirolos and O’Shea[2], I recognised that both types of blade used in the study were possibly Miller blade variants, although I cannot know for certain. I feel it would be better in future papers that the term “conventional largynoscope blade” be avoided and the specific type of blades be specified.
    2. Grounded theory is cited as the methodology used for the free text response analysis. I wish to point out that there are several variants of grounded theory with different methodologies following the divergence between the two original authors, Glasser and Strauss[3]...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.