Training practices in neonatal and paediatric life support: A survey among healthcare professionals working in paediatrics

Mathijs Binkhorst; Inge M van der Aar; Marjolein Linders; Arno F J van Heijst; Willem P de Boode; Jos M T Draaisma; Marije Hogeveen

doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100063

Training practices in neonatal and paediatric life support: A survey among healthcare professionals working in paediatrics

Resusc Plus. 2021 Jan 6:5:100063. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100063. eCollection 2021 Mar.

Authors

Mathijs Binkhorst¹, Inge M van der Aar¹, Marjolein Linders², Arno F J van Heijst¹, Willem P de Boode¹, Jos M T Draaisma², Marije Hogeveen¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
² Department of Paediatrics, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate neonatal and paediatric life support training practices across Europe.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive study. Paediatric residents, general paediatricians, and subspecialists were surveyed to assess how paediatric basic and advanced life support (PBLS/PALS) and neonatal life support (NLS) are practically arranged and utilised throughout Europe. A mini-Delphi approach was used for survey development. Eligible professionals in general and university hospitals received a web link to the survey.

Results: 498 respondents from 16 countries were included. A large majority of responses came from the Netherlands (n = 393) and Belgium (n = 42). Therefore, analysis was based on these responses. PBLS was more frequently offered than PALS and NLS, though not to all professionals caring for children. For PBLS, PALS, and NLS, official recertification varied between 35-75%. Approximately 80-90% had read the latest guidelines, at least partially. Sixty to seventy percent felt capable of instant PALS, 75-90% considered themselves able to perform PBLS and NLS instantly. Not reading the guidelines and less confidence about instant resuscitation seemed to occur more often in the lower and higher age/experience groups compared to the intermediate age/experience groups. A quarter of the respondents <30 years did not feel prepared for instant PALS. General paediatricians appeared to feel most capable of instant resuscitation. General and university hospitals had rather similar training practices and facilities. Manikins were predominantly low-fidelity, especially in general hospitals. Barriers to course participation were high costs, lack of time, the non-compulsory status, remote location, and unavailability of courses.

Conclusion: Although most paediatric professionals receive life support training, guideline reading, recertification, training utilisation, and resuscitation preparedness require improvement. Barriers to course participation should be addressed.

Keywords: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Education; Newborn; Paediatrics; Survey; Training.