Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial

D Wolke; S Dave; J Hayes; J Townsend; M Tomlin

doi:10.1136/fn.86.3.F155

Responses

Original articles

Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the 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A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ 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:

Authors’ reply: SHOs attitudes towards the neonatal examination
Dieter Wolke
Published on: 9 January 2022
Attitudes to routine neonatal examination
Guy C Millman
Published on: 9 January 2022

Published on: 9 January 2022
Authors’ reply: SHOs attitudes towards the neonatal examination
- Dieter Wolke, Research Professor of Psychology
- Other Contributors:
  Shreya Dave, Julie Hayes, Joy Townsend, and Maggie Tomlin
Dear Editor
we would like to thank Drs Millman and Satodia for their considerate comments on our paper.[1] The randomised controlled trial reported in the Archives is part of a larger evaluation study of the implications and cost effectiveness of extending the role of midwives to include the routine (24 hour) examination of the newborn. The evaluation study includes, apart from the RCT, a longer term follow-up (...
Show More

Dear Editor
we would like to thank Drs Millman and Satodia for their considerate comments on our paper.[1] The randomised controlled trial reported in the Archives is part of a larger evaluation study of the implications and cost effectiveness of extending the role of midwives to include the routine (24 hour) examination of the newborn. The evaluation study includes, apart from the RCT, a longer term follow-up (safety and referrals), videotaped quality assessments and interviews with health professionals involved in the newborn assessment and with parents and all stakeholders (Royal Colleges, professional organisations and consumer groups). Furthermore a national survey of current practice was conducted. The findings have been written up in a number of papers that are submitted or in press and our full report will be published by the NHS Executive Research and Development Programme Health Technology Assessment Programme this year.
The questions raised by Millman & Satodia have been addressed in the interviews with senior house officers (SHOs) (and midwives, General Practioners (GPs), consultant paediatricians). The full findings from the interviews with the SHOs and GPs were fairly consistent and clearcut:
1. they value the neonatal examination to screen for major anomalies;
2. they value the examination to reassure the parents about the normality of their child;
3. there were mixed opinions of whether "a quick SHO check" provides opportunities for any health education. Some felt not confident of providing such information while others were pro-active in discussing history or baby care issues. In contrast midwives consider the examination as an ideal opportunity to discuss feeding and baby care issues.
4. SHOs reported that they received very little, if any, training and the usual procedure was to be shown once and let to get on with it.
5. SHOs did not feel comfortable about some aspects of the examination such as the hips, taking pulses or the red reflex. They would have liked more training by senior paediatricians and more supervision.
6. Many SHOs and GPs felt that doing the examinations was useful for their training but there were too many examinations and they were often rushed. Others reported that "doctors have more important things to do";
7. SHOs and GPs were broadly the view that any midwife, if trained, could do the newborn examination as well as the junior doctor. This concurred with mothers views who would be happy for midwives to examine babies, and some expressed they had more confidence in midwives than SHOs.
Taking the findings of our evaluation study together, it is apparent that a system of formal training for SHOs would be highly desirable to increase quality of examinations and parental satisfaction. The training would need to include, apart from technical components, education in communication skills and knowledge on child care issues. SHOs, and in particular those who progress to GPs require some experience with normal newborns. In a programme of training there should be enough opportunities for newborn examinations by SHOs alongside or together with midwives. However, as one GP expressed it: "ultimately, the examination should not be education for an SHO but for the benefit of the baby".
Reference
(1) Wolke D, Dave S, Hayes J, Townsend J, Tomlin M. Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Neonatal Fetal Ed2002;86:F155-60.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 9 January 2022
Attitudes to routine neonatal examination
- Guy C Millman, Neonatal Fellow
- Other Contributors:
  Prakash Satodia
Dear Editor
We read with interest the findings of Wolke et al.[1] regarding maternal satisfaction with routine examination of the newborn. Whilst appreciating their conclusions and those reached by others (Lee TWR et al.[2] and Walker D[3])we wish to provide further comment. Perhaps an equally valuable study would be one which explores the attitudes of senior house officers to performing this examinat...
Show More

Dear Editor
We read with interest the findings of Wolke et al.[1] regarding maternal satisfaction with routine examination of the newborn. Whilst appreciating their conclusions and those reached by others (Lee TWR et al.[2] and Walker D[3])we wish to provide further comment. Perhaps an equally valuable study would be one which explores the attitudes of senior house officers to performing this examination and assessing the perceived benefits to their professional development. Possible questions may include:
(i) Did you receive formal training from a senior paediatrician?
(ii) Do you feel comfortable performing this task and subsequently reassuring parents about their infant?
(iii) Do you feel competent to discuss aspects of general neonatal care and education with parents?
(iv) Do you think this task contributes positively to your training?
It is important to note that whilst not subjecting senior house officers to vast numbers of repetitive neonatal examinations, a formal system of training in all aspects of routine neonatal care followed by subsequent assessment might be educationally beneficial. It is surely questionable to expect paediatric senior house officers to progress to GPs and higher specialist trainees managing common problems in newborn infants if their previous experience is being reduced further. The correct balance between education and service provision is essential to prevent future deficiencies in general paediatric knowledge.
Guy C Millman
Prakash Satodia
References
(1) Wolke D, Dave S, Hayes J, Townsend J, Tomlin M. Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Neonatal Fetal Ed 2002;86:F155-60.
(2) TWR Lee, R E Skelton, and C Skene. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001;85:F100-4.
(3) Walker D. Role of routine neonatal examination. It probably makes more sense for other staff to carry out neonatal examinations [letter]. BMJ 1999;318:1766.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top

Main menu

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Log in using your username and password

Main menu

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Log in using your username and password