↓ Skip to main content

Expert consensus statement ‘Neonatologist-performed Echocardiography (NoPE)’—training and accreditation in UK

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Expert consensus statement ‘Neonatologist-performed Echocardiography (NoPE)’—training and accreditation in UK
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00431-015-2633-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yogen Singh, Samir Gupta, Alan M. Groves, Anjum Gandhi, John Thomson, Shakeel Qureshi, John M. Simpson

Abstract

Targeted echocardiographic assessments of haemodynamic status are increasingly utilised in many settings. Application in the neonatal intensive care units (NICU) is increasingly demanded but challenging given the risk of underlying structural lesions. This statement follows discussions in UK led by the Neonatologists with an Interest in Cardiology and Haemodynamics (NICHe) group in collaboration with the British Congenital Cardiac Association (BCCA) and the Paediatricians with Expertise in Cardiology Special Interest Group (PECSIG). Clear consensus was agreed on multiple aspects of best practice for neonatologist-performed echocardiogram (NoPE)-rigorous attention to infection control and cardiorespiratory/thermal stability, early referral to paediatric cardiology with suspicion of structural disease, reporting on standardised templates, reliable image storage, regular skills maintenance, collaboration with a designated paediatric cardiologist, and regular scan audit/review. It was agreed that NoPE assessments should confidently exclude structural lesions at first scan. Practitioners would be expected to screen and establish gross normality of structure at first scan and obtain confirmation from paediatric cardiologist if required, and subsequently, functional echocardiography can be performed for haemodynamic assessment to guide management of newborn babies. To achieve training, NICHe group suggested that mandatory placements could be undertaken during core registrar training or neonatal subspecialty grid training with a paediatric cardiology placement for 6 months and a neonatology placement for a minimum of 6 months. In the future, we hope to define a precise curriculum for assessments. Technological advances may provide solutions-improvements in telemedicine may have neonatologists assessing haemodynamic status with paediatric cardiologists excluding structural lesions and neonatal echocardiography simulators could increase exposure to multiple pathologies and allow limitless practice in image acquisition. We propose developing training places in specialist paediatric cardiology centres and neonatal units to facilitate training and suggest all UK practitioners performing neonatologist-performed echocardiogram adopt this current best practice statement. What is Known: • Neonatologist-performed echocardiogram (NoPE) also known as targeted neonatal echocardiography (TNE) or functional ECHO is increasingly recognised and utilised in care of sick newborn and premature babies. • There are differences in training for echocardiography across continents and formal accreditation processes are lacking. What is New: • This is the first document of consensus best practice statement for training of neonatologists in neonatologist-performed echocardiogram (NoPE), jointly drafted by Neonatologists with interest in cardiology & haemodynamics (NICHe), paediatric cardiology and paediatricians with expertise in cardiology interest groups in UK. • Key elements of a code of practice for neonatologist-performed echocardiogram are suggested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 39 28%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Unspecified 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 40 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,640,409
of 25,779,988 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#1,789
of 4,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,136
of 281,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#18
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,779,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.