Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Recording of neonatal resuscitation, including video and respiratory parameters, was implemented for research and quality purposes at the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of the Leiden University Medical Center, and parents were offered to review the recording of their infant together with a neonatal care provider. We aimed to provide insight in parental experiences with reviewing the recording of the neonatal resuscitation of their premature infant.
Methods This study combined participant observations during parental review of recordings with retrospective qualitative interviews with parents.
Results Parental review of recordings of neonatal resuscitation was observed on 20 occasions, reviewing recordings of 31 children (12 singletons, 8 twins and 1 triplet), of whom 4 died during admission. Median (range) gestational age at birth was 27+5 (24+5–30+3) weeks. Subsequently, 25 parents (13 mothers and 12 fathers) were interviewed.
Parents reported many positive experiences, with special emphasis on the value for getting hold of the start of their infant’s life and coping with the trauma of neonatal resuscitation. Reviewing recordings of neonatal resuscitation frequently resulted in appreciation for the child, the father and the medical team. Timing and set-up of the review contributed to positive experiences. Parents considered screenshots/copies of the recording of the resuscitation of their infant as valuable keepsakes of their NICU story and reported that having the screenshots/video comforted them, especially when their child died during admission.
Conclusion Parents consider reviewing recordings of neonatal resuscitation as valuable. These positive parental experiences could allay concerns about sharing recordings of neonatal resuscitation with parents.
- neonatology
- ethics
- qualitative research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @martinecdevries, @None
Contributors MCdB conceptualised and designed the study, collected data, carried out the initial analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. MH conceptualised and designed the study, carried out the initial analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. RSGMW, RvdS and EL coordinated data collection, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. MCdV conceptualised and designed the study, supervised analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. ABtP conceptualised and designed the study, supervised data collection, supervised analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding Arjan te Pas is recipient of an NWO innovational research incentives scheme (VIDI 91716428).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This study was reviewed by the Ethics Review Committee of the LUMC (reference number P16.316). In concordance with laws and guidelines, a statement of no objection against execution of the study was issued.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.