Hundscheid Tim, Bruinenberg Jos, Dudink Jeroen, de Jonge Rogier, Hogeveen Marije
Division of Neonatology, Department of Paediatrics, Amalia Children's Hospital, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, ETZ Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Eur J Pediatr. 2021 May;180(5):1647-1651. doi: 10.1007/s00431-020-03917-9. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
In this retrospective analysis, the Newborn Life Support (NLS) test scenario performance of participants of the Dutch Neonatal Advanced Life Support (NALS) course was assessed. Characteristics of participants and total amount of failures were collected. Failures were subdivided in (1) errors of omission; (2) errors of commission; and (3) unspecified if data was missing. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess differences between participant groups. In total, 23 out of 86 participants (27%) failed their NLS test scenario. Life support course instructors in general (20/21) passed their test scenario more often compared to other participants (43/65) (p = 0.008). In total 110 fail items were recorded; the most common errors being not assessing heart rate (error of omission) (n = 47) and inadequate performance of airway management (error of commission) (n = 24).Conclusion: A substantial part of NALS participants failed their NLS test scenario. Errors of omission could be reduced by the availability of a checklist/NLS algorithm. Life support course instructors possibly make less errors of commission due to retention of skills by teaching these skills at least twice a year. Therefore, our study suggests that neonatal basic life support skills should be retained by local assurance of training programmes. What is Known: • Retention of skills after life support courses decreases after three months. • Adherence to newborn life support guidelines is suboptimal. What is New: • NLS performance is suboptimal in participants for advanced neonatal life support. • Most common failures are not assessing heart rate and inadequate airway management.
在这项回顾性分析中,对荷兰新生儿高级生命支持(NALS)课程参与者的新生儿生命支持(NLS)测试场景表现进行了评估。收集了参与者的特征和失败总数。如果数据缺失,失败被细分为:(1)遗漏错误;(2)操作错误;(3)未明确分类。使用Pearson卡方检验评估参与者组之间的差异。86名参与者中有23名(27%)在NLS测试场景中失败。与其他参与者(43/65)相比,生命支持课程教员总体上(20/21)通过测试场景的比例更高(p = 0.008)。总共记录了110项失败项目;最常见的错误是未评估心率(遗漏错误)(n = 47)和气道管理操作不当(操作错误)(n = 24)。结论:很大一部分NALS参与者在NLS测试场景中失败。通过提供检查表/NLS算法可以减少遗漏错误。由于每年至少教授这些技能两次,生命支持课程教员可能犯的操作错误较少。因此,我们的研究表明,应通过当地培训计划保证来保持新生儿基本生命支持技能。已知信息:• 生命支持课程后三个月技能保持率下降。• 对新生儿生命支持指南的遵守情况不理想。新发现:• 高级新生儿生命支持参与者的NLS表现不理想。• 最常见的失败是未评估心率和气道管理不足。