Interprofessional perspectives on non-invasive respiratory support practices in extremely preterm infants: a Canadian survey.

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Journal of Perinatology Pub Date : 2025-04-12 DOI:10.1038/s41372-025-02291-4

Tugba Alarcon Martinez, Elissa Remmer, Stephanie Mardakis, Marisa Leone, Johanne Boyer, Shasha Lv, Marc Beltempo, Guilherme Sant'Anna, Wissam Shalish

{"title":"Interprofessional perspectives on non-invasive respiratory support practices in extremely preterm infants: a Canadian survey.","authors":"Tugba Alarcon Martinez, Elissa Remmer, Stephanie Mardakis, Marisa Leone, Johanne Boyer, Shasha Lv, Marc Beltempo, Guilherme Sant'Anna, Wissam Shalish","doi":"10.1038/s41372-025-02291-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To describe barriers and strategies amongst healthcare professionals (HCP) for optimal non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) provision in extremely preterm infants.Study design: A cross-sectional web-based anonymized 19-question survey was sent to HCPs across Canadian tertiary care NICUs. The survey inquired about perspectives on NRS devices and management strategies, respiratory event monitoring, NRS failure, and possible solutions.Result: 391 responses from 61 physicians, 173 nurses, and 147 respiratory therapists were analyzed. HCP perspectives varied regarding appropriateness of different NRS settings and interfaces, documentation of cardiorespiratory events, and prevention of NRS failure. Obtaining effective NRS was deemed challenging by 48% of HCPs. NRS training was deemed adequate by 89% of respiratory therapists and 78% of physicians, but only 56% of nurses.Conclusion: Substantial interprofessional variations exist in perceived benefits of various aspects of NRS. Better evidence on NRS modalities/settings, together with development of interdisciplinary guidelines and enhanced training, might reduce variability.","PeriodicalId":16690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-025-02291-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To describe barriers and strategies amongst healthcare professionals (HCP) for optimal non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) provision in extremely preterm infants.

Study design: A cross-sectional web-based anonymized 19-question survey was sent to HCPs across Canadian tertiary care NICUs. The survey inquired about perspectives on NRS devices and management strategies, respiratory event monitoring, NRS failure, and possible solutions.

Result: 391 responses from 61 physicians, 173 nurses, and 147 respiratory therapists were analyzed. HCP perspectives varied regarding appropriateness of different NRS settings and interfaces, documentation of cardiorespiratory events, and prevention of NRS failure. Obtaining effective NRS was deemed challenging by 48% of HCPs. NRS training was deemed adequate by 89% of respiratory therapists and 78% of physicians, but only 56% of nurses.

Conclusion: Substantial interprofessional variations exist in perceived benefits of various aspects of NRS. Better evidence on NRS modalities/settings, together with development of interdisciplinary guidelines and enhanced training, might reduce variability.

查看原文本刊更多论文

非侵入性呼吸支持实践在极早产儿中的跨专业观点：一项加拿大调查。

目的：描述医疗保健专业人员（HCP）为极早产儿提供最佳无创呼吸支持（NRS）的障碍和策略。研究设计：向加拿大三级护理新生儿重症监护病房的医护人员发送了一份基于网络的19个问题的横断面匿名调查。调查询问了对NRS设备和管理策略、呼吸事件监测、NRS失败和可能的解决方案的看法。结果：对61名内科医生、173名护士和147名呼吸治疗师的391份反馈进行了分析。HCP的观点在不同NRS设置和接口的适宜性、心肺事件的记录和NRS失败的预防方面存在差异。48%的HCPs认为获得有效的NRS具有挑战性。89%的呼吸治疗师和78%的医生认为NRS培训是足够的，但只有56%的护士认为NRS培训是足够的。结论：在NRS的各个方面存在显著的专业间差异。更好的关于国家自然资源调查模式/设置的证据，以及跨学科指南的制定和加强培训，可能会减少可变性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Perinatology 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

6.90%

发文量

284

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Perinatology provides members of the perinatal/neonatal healthcare team with original information pertinent to improving maternal/fetal and neonatal care. We publish peer-reviewed clinical research articles, state-of-the art reviews, comments, quality improvement reports, and letters to the editor. Articles published in the Journal of Perinatology embrace the full scope of the specialty, including clinical, professional, political, administrative and educational aspects. The Journal also explores legal and ethical issues, neonatal technology and product development. The Journal’s audience includes all those that participate in perinatal/neonatal care, including, but not limited to neonatologists, perinatologists, perinatal epidemiologists, pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, surgeons, neonatal and perinatal nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, dieticians, speech and hearing experts, other allied health professionals, as well as subspecialists who participate in patient care including radiologists, laboratory medicine and pathologists.