Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A tiny baby intubation team improves endotracheal intubation success rate but decreases residents’ training opportunities

Abstract

Objective

To assess the educational and clinical impact of a tiny baby intubation team (TBIT).

Study design

Retrospective study comparing endotracheal intubation (ETI) performed: pre-implementation of a TBIT (T1), 6 months post-implementation (T2), and 4 years post-implementation (T3).

Results

Post-implementation (T2), first-attempt success rate in tiny babies increased (44% T1; 59% T2, p = 0.04; 56% T3, p = NS) and the proportion of ETIs performed by residents decreased (53% T1; 37% T2, p = 0.001; 45% T3, p = NS). After an educational quality improvement intervention (prioritizing non-tiny baby ETIs to residents, systematic simulation training and ETI using videolaryngoscopy), in T3 residents’ overall (67% T1; 60% T2, p = NS; 79% T3, p = 0.02) and non-tiny baby ETI success rate improved (72% T1; 60% T2, p = NS; 82% T3, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

A TBIT improves success rate of ETIs in ELBW infants but decreases educational exposure of residents. Educational strategies may help maintain resident procedural competency without impacting on quality of care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Raju TN, Vidyasagar D, Torres C, Grundy D, Bennett EJ. Intracranial pressure during intubation and anesthesia in infants. J Pediatr. 1980;96:860–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Friesen RH, Honda AT, Thieme RE. Changes in anterior fontanel pressure in preterm neonates during tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:874–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marshall TA, Deeder R, Pai S, Berkowitz GP, Austin TL. Physiologic changes associated with endotracheal intubation in preterm infants. Crit Care Med. 1984;12:501–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hatch LD, Grubb PH, Lea AS, Walsh WF, Markham MH, Whitney GM, et al. Endotracheal intubation in neonates: a prospective study of adverse safety events in 162 infants. J Pediatr. 2016;168:62–66.e66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stow PJ, McLeod ME, Burrows FA, Creighton RE. Anterior fontanelle pressure responses to tracheal intubation in the awake and anaesthetized infant. Br J Anaesth. 1988;60:167–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller KE, Singh N. Association of multiple tracheal intubation attempts with clinical outcomes in extremely preterm infants: a retrospective single-center cohort study. J Perinatol. 2022;42:1216–20.

  7. Wallenstein MB, Birnie KL, Arain YH, Yang W, Yamada NK, Huffman LC, et al. Failed endotracheal intubation and adverse outcomes among extremely low birth weight infants. J Perinatol. 2016;36:112–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston L, Sawyer T, Ades A, Moussa A, Zenge J, Jung P, et al. Impact of physician training level on neonatal tracheal intubation success rates and adverse events: a report from National Emergency Airway Registry for Neonates (NEAR4NEOS). Neonatology. 2021;118:434–42.

  9. Sanders RC Jr, Giuliano JS Jr, Sullivan JE, Brown CA III, Walls RM, Nadkarni V, et al. Level of trainee and tracheal intubation outcomes. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e821–e828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morris M, Cleary JP, Soliman A. Small baby unit improves quality and outcomes in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2015;136:e1007–e1015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Donnell CP, Kamlin CO, Davis PG, Morley CJ. Endotracheal intubation attempts during neonatal resuscitation: success rates, duration, and adverse effects. Pediatrics. 2006;117:e16–e21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gozzo YF, Cummings CL, Chapman RL, Bizzarro MJ, Mercurio MR. Who is performing medical procedures in the neonatal intensive care unit? J Perinatol. 2011;31:206–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moussa A, Luangxay Y, Tremblay S, Lavoie J, Aube G, Savoie E, et al. Videolaryngoscope for teaching neonatal endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2016;137:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Assaad MA, Lachance C, Moussa A. Learning neonatal intubation using the videolaryngoscope: a randomized trial on mannequins. Simul Health. 2016;11:190–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Foglia EE, Ades A, Sawyer T, Glass KM, Singh N, Jung P, et al. Neonatal intubation practice and outcomes: an international registry study. Pediatrics. 2019;143:e20180902.

  16. Downes KJ, Narendran V, Meinzen-Derr J, McClanahan S, Akinbi HT. The lost art of intubation: assessing opportunities for residents to perform neonatal intubation. J Perinatol. 2012;32:927–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haubner LY, Barry JS, Johnston LC, Soghier L, Tatum PM, Kessler D, et al. Neonatal intubation performance: room for improvement in tertiary neonatal intensive care units. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1359–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wyckoff MH, Aziz K, Escobedo MB, Kapadia VS, Kattwinkel J, Perlman JM. et al. Part 13: neonatal resuscitation: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2015;132:S543–S560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Donoghue AJ, Ades AM, Nishisaki A, Deutsch ES. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in simulated pediatric intubation. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61:271–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sawyer T, Foglia E, Hatch LD, Moussa A, Ades A, Johnston L, et al. Improving neonatal intubation safety: a journey of a thousand miles. J Neonatal Perinat Med. 2017;10:125–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mills DM, Williams DC, Dobson JV. Simulation training as a mechanism for procedural and resuscitation education for pediatric residents: a systematic review. Hosp Pediatr. 2013;3:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Finan E, Bismilla Z, Campbell C, Leblanc V, Jefferies A, Whyte HE. Improved procedural performance following a simulation training session may not be transferable to the clinical environment. J Perinatol. 2012;32:539–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Surcouf JW, Chauvin SW, Ferry J, Yang T, Barkemeyer B. Enhancing residents’ neonatal resuscitation competency through unannounced simulation-based training. Med Educ Online. 2013;18:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Shea JE, Thio M, Kamlin CO, McGrory L, Wong C, John J, et al. Videolaryngoscopy to teach neonatal intubation: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:912–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Volz S, Stevens TP, Dadiz R. A randomized controlled trial: does coaching using video during direct laryngoscopy improve residents’ success in neonatal intubations? J Perinatol. 2018;38:1074–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lingappan K, Arnold JL, Fernandes CJ, Pammi M. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;6:Cd009975.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vlatten A, Aucoin S, Litz S, Macmanus B, Soder C. A comparison of the STORZ video laryngoscope and standard direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the Pediatric airway—a randomized clinical trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19:1102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hodgson KA, Owen LS, Kamlin COF, Roberts CT, Newman SE, Francis KL, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy during neonatal endotracheal intubation. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1627–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

LG-A has contributed to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data. She has co-written (with MJ) the first draft of this specific article and modified subsequent drafts until all authors approved the final version of the article. MJ has contributed to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data. She has co-written (with LG-A) the first draft of this specific article and revised the article critically for important intellectual content. GE and KJB have contributed to analysis and interpretation of data; and revised the article critically for important intellectual content. TP has contributed to acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data; and revised the article critically for important intellectual content. AM has contributed to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data. He helped LG-A and MJ write the first draft of this specific article and revised the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. They ensure that questions relating to accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors have approved the final version of the article as sent to Journal of Perinatology.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Moussa.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Sainte-Justine University Hospital institutional review board (Reference number: 2016-1209) and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gariépy-Assal, L., Janaillac, M., Ethier, G. et al. A tiny baby intubation team improves endotracheal intubation success rate but decreases residents’ training opportunities. J Perinatol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01546-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01546-8

Search

Quick links