Article Text

PDF
UK neonatal resuscitation survey
  1. Elinor Charles1,2,
  2. Katie Hunt1,2,
  3. Vadivelam Murthy3,
  4. Christopher Harris1,2,
  5. Anne Greenough1,2,4
  1. 1Department of Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK
  2. 2MRC and Asthma UK Centre for Allergic Mechanisms in Asthma, King’s College London, London, UK
  3. 3Neonatal Intensive Care Centre, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4NIHR Biomedical Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Anne Greenough, Department of Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London SE5 9RS, UK; anne.greenough{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Previous surveys have demonstrated that neonatal resuscitation practices on the delivery suite vary between UK units, particularly according to the hospital’s neonatal unit’s level. Our aim was to determine if recent changes to the Resuscitation Council guidelines had influenced clinical practice.

Methods Surveys of resuscitation practices at UK delivery units carried out in 2012 and 2017 were compared.

Results Comparing 2017 with 2012, initial resuscitation using air was more commonly used in both term (98% vs 75%, p<0.001) and preterm (84% vs 34%, p<0.001) born infants. Exhaled carbon dioxide monitoring was more frequently employed in 2017 (84% vs 19%, p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in practices according to the level of neonatal care provided by the hospital.

Conclusion There have been significant changes in neonatal resuscitation practices in the delivery suite since 2012 regardless of the different levels of neonatal care offered.

  • resuscitation
  • prematurity
  • monitoring

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors EC and KH collected the 2017 data. VM collected the 2012 data. EC, AG and CH analysed the data. EC and AG produced the initial manuscript. All authors were involved in producing the final manuscript and approved it.

  • Funding The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

  • Data sharing statement We agree to data sharing on request.

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.