| Literature DB >> 35584880 |
Charlotte Carina Holm-Hansen1, Anja Poulsen1, Tine Bruhn Skytte1, Christina Nadia Stensgaard1, Christine Manich Bech1, Mads Nathaniel Lopes1, Mads Kristiansen1, Jesper Kjærgaard1, Said Mzee2, Said Ali2, Shaali Ame2, Jette Led Sorensen3,4, Gorm Greisen4,5, Stine Lund6,5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of using video recordings of neonatal resuscitation (NR) to evaluate the quality of care in a low-resource district hospital.Entities:
Keywords: education & training (see medical education & training); neonatal intensive & critical care; neonatology; obstetrics; paediatric intensive & critical care; public health
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35584880 PMCID: PMC9119158 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 3.006
Bowen’s acceptability framework (adapted)
| Area of focus | Definitions according to Bowen | Outcomes of interest from results from the current NEO feasibility study |
| 1. Acceptability |
To what extent will participants accept the new idea? |
Acceptability of video recordings with a Likert acceptability scale question for all women and health workers Acceptability interview with mothers and health workers |
| 2. Demand |
Is there a demand? Is it fit within the organisational culture? |
Perceived demand for focus on neonatal resuscitation (NR) by health workers Appropriate within the organisational culture Desperate need for improvement of NR practice Exploratory and participatory meetings and workshops with staff before the design of the study Exploratory meetings with stakeholders, policymakers and officials from the Ministry of Health |
| 3. Implementation |
Can the new idea be successfully implemented? |
Recordings of NR can be implemented There is an ability of the study team to carry out and implement the study at the health facility |
| 4. Practicality |
Implementation with existing means, resources and circumstances? |
Awareness of technical challenges The extent where the video recordings are possible in the context Efficiency, speed, and quality of implementation setting with an unstable power source and unstable internet |
| 5. Adaptation |
To what extent can a new idea perform when changes are made for a new format? Degree to which similar outcomes are obtained in a new format? |
The extent where video recordings are possible when a non-consent woman is in the delivery room The extent to which video recordings can be implemented without effect on clinical work |
| 6. Integration |
To what extent can it be integrated into the existing system? |
Fit within existing infrastructure Video recordings work in a local context with no influence on workflow |
| 7. Expansion |
To what extent can the method be expanded? |
Positive effects on the health system explored Possible expansion with all practical factors considered The extent to which video recordings of NR can be scaled up in more facilities |
| 8. Limited-efficacy testing |
Does the new idea show promise of being successful in the intended populations? Intended effects on key intermediate variables |
The added value of video recordings to assess the quality of NR Small-scale analysis of NR videos and development of a thematic template scoring system |
Acceptability of video recordings during neonatal resuscitation
| n=139 (%) | |
| Women | |
| Very comfortable | 26 (18.7) |
| Comfortable | 100 (71.9) |
| Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable | 0 (0.0) |
| Uncomfortable | 1 (0.7) |
| Very uncomfortable | 0 (0.0) |
| Data missing | 12 (8.6) |
| Health workers | |
| Very comfortable | 10 (38.5) |
| Comfortable | 14 (53.8) |
| Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable | 0 (0.0) |
| Uncomfortable | 1 (3.8) |
| Very uncomfortable | 0 (0.0) |
| Missing | 1 (3.8) |
Figure 1Flow chart of the study population.
Characteristics of the participating women
| Demographics | n=139 (%) |
| Age distribution | |
| <20 years | 13 (9.4) |
| 20–29 years | 83 (59.7) |
| 30–39 years | 34 (24.5) |
| >40 years | 0 (0.0) |
| Unknown | 9 (6.5) |
| Civil status | |
| Married | 138 (99.3) |
| Single | 0 (0.0) |
| Unknown | 1 (0.7) |
| Education | |
| None | 1 (0.7) |
| Primary | 19 (13.7) |
| Secondary | 106 (76.3) |
| >Secondary | 12 (8.6) |
| Unknown | 1 (0.7) |
| Parity | |
| Primiparous | 34 (24.5) |
| Multiparous (2–4) | 67 (48.2) |
| Grand multiparous (>5) | 37 (26.6) |
| Unknown | 1 (0.7) |
| Antenatal care visits | |
| Did not attend | 0 |
| 1–3 | 48 (34.5) |
| >4 | 86 (61.9) |
| Unknown | 5 (3.6) |
| Previous caesarean section | |
| Yes | 9 (6.5) |
| No | 122 (87.8) |
| Unknown | 7 (5.0) |
Participating health workers
| n=26 (%) | |
| Gender | |
| Female | 23 (88.5) |
| Male | 3 (11.5) |
| Age | |
| <30 years | 11 (42.3) |
| 30–50 years | 13 (50.0) |
| >50 years | 2 (7.7) |
| Education | |
| General nurse | 8 (30.8) |
| Nurse midwife | 8 (30.8) |
| Medical doctor | 3 (11.5) |
| Clinical officer | 3 (11.5) |
| Assistant nurse | 4 (15.4) |
| Years since graduation | |
| <5 | 19 (73.1) |
| 5–10 | 3 (11.5) |
| >10 | 4 (15.4) |
| Number of deliveries in the month prior to the study | |
| <5 | 3 (11.5) |
| 6–20 | 8 (30.8) |
| >20 | 15 (57.7) |
| Postgraduate neonatal resuscitation course | |
| Yes | 15 (57.7) |
| No | 11 (42.3) |
Delivery and neonate characteristics at birth
| Not resuscitated, n=131 (%) | Resuscitated, n=8 (%) | |
| Mode of delivery | ||
| Spontaneous vaginal delivery | 121 (92.4) | 7 (87.5) |
| Assisted vaginal delivery | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0) |
| Caesarean section | 9 (6.9) | 1 (12.5) |
| Presentation | ||
| Cephalic | 123 (93.9) | 5 (62.5) |
| Breech | 4 (3.1) | 3 (37.5) |
| Other | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0) |
| Unknown | 3 (2.3) | 0 (0) |
| Born in thick meconium | ||
| Yes | 5 (3.8) | 0 (0) |
| No | 108 (82.4) | 8 (100) |
| Unknown | 18 (13.7) | 0 (0) |
| Fetal heart rate at the admission of the delivering woman | ||
| Yes | 127 (96.9) | 8 (100) |
| No | 4 (3.1) | 0 (0) |
| Neonate status at birth | ||
| Alive at birth | 127 (96.9) | 8 (100) |
| Stillbirth fresh | 2 (1.5) | 0 (0) |
| Stillbirth macerated | 2 (1.5) | 0 (0) |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 62 (47.3) | 3 (37.5) |
| Female | 69 (52.7) | 5 (62.5) |
| Birth weight, g | ||
| <1500 | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0) |
| 1500–2500 | 17 (13.0) | 3 (37.5) |
| 2501–4000 | 108 (82.4) | 5 (62.5) |
| >4000 | 4 (3.1) | 0 (0) |
| Data missing | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0) |
Quality of resuscitation assessed by video recordings in 0–15 min of life
| n=8 (%) | Median (IQR) | |
| Heat loss prevention | ||
| Not performed | 4 (50) | |
| Inadequately performed ( | 2 (25) | |
| Well performed ( | 2 (25) | |
| Time to first intervention | 2 s (14 s) | |
| Number of interventions/newborn | 3 (2) | |
| Total time spent on heat loss prevention | 31 s (27 s) | |
| Positioning of head | ||
| Not performed | 0 (0) | |
| Inadequately performed ( | 2 (25) | |
| Well performed ( | 6 (75) | |
| Time to first intervention | 42 s (38 s) | |
| Number of interventions/newborn | 5 (4) | |
| Total time spent on positioning of the head | 12 s (11 s) | |
| Clearing the airway via suction | ||
| Not performed when indicated (meconium) | 0 (0) | |
| Inadequately performed ( | 5 (63) | |
| Well performed ( | 3 (27) | |
| Time to first intervention | 16 s (15 s) | |
| Number of interventions/newborn | 2 (2) | |
| Total time spent on suction | 41 s (36 s) | |
| Stimulation | ||
| Not performed ( | 1 (22) | |
| Inadequately performed ( | 7 (88) | |
| Well performed | 0 (0) | |
| Time to first intervention | 41 s (26 s) | |
| Number of interventions/newborn | 7 (10) | |
| Total time spent on stimulation | 75 s (90 s) | |
| Bag and mask ventilation | ||
| Not performed | 1 (22) | |
| Inadequately performed ( | 7 (88) | |
| Well performed | 0 (0) | |
| Time to first intervention | 39 s (38 s) | |
| Number of interventions/newborn | 8 (11) | |
| Total time spent on bag and mask ventilation | 130 s (181 s) | |
| Heart rate assessment | ||
| Not performed | 7 (88) | |
| Inadequately performed ( | 1 (22) | |
| Well performed ( | 0 (0) | |
| Time to first intervention | 148 s (200 s) | |
| Number of interventions/newborn | 1 (0) | |
| Total time spent on heart rate assessment | 5 s (7 s) | |
The number of interventions refers to the number of (separate) episodes of that intervention.
Figure 2Timeline of interventions in the eight infants who were manually ventilated during resuscitation The first line per case is the interventions performed. The second line represents a breathing score where red=0 (no breathing), yellow=1 (gasping), green=2 (breathing).