Lisa Umphrey1, Morten Breindahl2, Alexandra Brown3, Ola Didrik Saugstad4, Marta Thio5, Daniele Trevisanuto6, Charles Christoph Roehr7, Mats Blennow2. 1. Medical Department, Médecins Sans Frontières Operational Centre Paris, Paris, France. 2. Department of Neonatology, Karolinska Institutet and University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Communications Department, Médecins Sans Frontières, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Department of Pediatric Research, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. Newborn Research Centre, The Royal Women's Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Department of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 7. Department of Paediatrics, Newborn Services, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal resuscitation (NR) combines a set of life-saving interventions in order to stabilize compromised newborns at birth or when critically ill. Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), as an international medical-humanitarian organization working particularly in low-resource settings (LRS), assisted over 250,000 births in obstetric and newborn care aid projects in 2016 and provides thousands of newborn resuscitations annually. The Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) program has been used as formal guidance for basic resuscitation since 2012. However, in some MSF projects with the capacity to provide more advanced NR interventions but a lack of adapted guidance, staff have felt prompted to create their own advanced algorithms, which runs counter to the organization's aim for standardized protocols in all aspects of its care. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to close a significant gap in neonatal care provision in LRS by establishing consensus on a protocol that would guide MSF field teams in their practice of more advanced NR. METHODS: An independent committee of international experts was formed and met regularly from June 2016 to agree on the content and design of a new NR algorithm. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a novel, mid-level NR algorithm in April 2017. The algorithm was accepted for use by MSF Operational Center Paris. CONCLUSION: This paper contributes to the literature on decision-making in the development of cognitive aids. The authors also highlight how critical gaps in healthcare delivery in LRS can be addressed, even when there is limited evidence to guide the process.
BACKGROUND: Neonatal resuscitation (NR) combines a set of life-saving interventions in order to stabilize compromised newborns at birth or when critically ill. Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), as an international medical-humanitarian organization working particularly in low-resource settings (LRS), assisted over 250,000 births in obstetric and newborn care aid projects in 2016 and provides thousands of newborn resuscitations annually. The Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) program has been used as formal guidance for basic resuscitation since 2012. However, in some MSF projects with the capacity to provide more advanced NR interventions but a lack of adapted guidance, staff have felt prompted to create their own advanced algorithms, which runs counter to the organization's aim for standardized protocols in all aspects of its care. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to close a significant gap in neonatal care provision in LRS by establishing consensus on a protocol that would guide MSF field teams in their practice of more advanced NR. METHODS: An independent committee of international experts was formed and met regularly from June 2016 to agree on the content and design of a new NR algorithm. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a novel, mid-level NR algorithm in April 2017. The algorithm was accepted for use by MSF Operational Center Paris. CONCLUSION: This paper contributes to the literature on decision-making in the development of cognitive aids. The authors also highlight how critical gaps in healthcare delivery in LRS can be addressed, even when there is limited evidence to guide the process.
Authors: Myra H Wyckoff; Khalid Aziz; Marilyn B Escobedo; Vishal S Kapadia; John Kattwinkel; Jeffrey M Perlman; Wendy M Simon; Gary M Weiner; Jeanette G Zaichkin Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephen N Wall; Anne C C Lee; Waldemar Carlo; Robert Goldenberg; Susan Niermeyer; Gary L Darmstadt; William Keenan; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Jeffrey Perlman; Joy E Lawn Journal: Semin Perinatol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.300
Authors: Deborah J Harrington; Christopher W Redman; Mary Moulden; Catherine E Greenwood Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Morgan Haines; Ian M Wright; Barbara Bajuk; Mohamed E Abdel-Latif; Lisa Hilder; Daniel Challis; Robert Guaran; Ju Lee Oei Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 2.299
Authors: Patrick van Rheenen; Lette de Moor; Sanne Eschbach; Hannah de Grooth; Bernard Brabin Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.622