Quality Indicators to Evaluate Essential Newborn Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve neonatal outcomes rely on accurate collection and analyses of quality indicators. Most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) fail to monitor facility-level indicators, partly because recommended and consistently defined indicators for essential newborn care (ENC) do not exist. This gap prompted our development of an annotated directory of quality indicators. METHODS: We used a mixed method study design. In phase 1, we selected potential indicators by reviewing existing literature. An overall rating was assigned based on subscores for scientific evidence, importance, and usability. We used a modified Delphi technique for consensus-based approval from American Academy of Pediatrics Helping Babies Survive Planning Group members (phase 2) and secondarily surveyed international partners with expertise in ENC, LMIC clinical environments, and indicator development (phase 3). We generated the final directory with guidelines for site-specific indicator selection (phase 4). RESULTS: We identified 51 indicators during phase 1. Following Delphi sessions and secondary review, we added 5 indicators and rejected 7. We categorized the 49 indicators meeting inclusion criteria into 3 domains: 17 outcome, 21 process, and 11 educational. Among those, we recommend 30 for use, meaning indicators should be selected preferentially when appropriate; we recommend 9 for selective use primarily because of data collection challenges and 10 for use with reservation because of scientific evidence or usability limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We developed this open-access indicator directory with input from ENC experts to enable appraisal of care provision, track progress toward improvement goals, and provide a standard for benchmarking care delivery among LMICs.

Implementation of a Standardized Premedication Bundle to Improve Procedure Success for Nonemergent Neonatal Intubations.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends premedication for all nonemergent neonatal intubations, yet there remains significant variation in this practice nationally. We aimed to standardize our unit's premedication practices for improved intubation success and reduced adverse events. Methods: The study workgroup developed educational material and protocol content. Process measures included premedication use, education, and audit form completion. Primary (success on first intubation attempt and adverse event rates) and secondary (trainee success) study outcomes are displayed using statistical process control charts and pre-post cohort comparisons. Results: Forty-seven percent (97/206) of nurses completed educational intervention before protocol release, with an additional 20% (42/206) following a staff reminder. Two hundred sixteen (216) patients were intubated per protocol with 81% (174/216) audit completion. Compared with baseline (n = 158), intubation attempts decreased from 2 (IQR, 1-2) to 1 (IQR, 1-2) (P = 0.03), and success on the first attempt increased from 40% (63/158) to 57% (124/216) (P < 0.01), with a notable improvement in trainee success from less than 1% (1/40) to 43% (31/72) (P < 0.01). The rate of severe and rare adverse events remained stable; however, there was a rise in nonsevere events from 30% (48/158) to 45% (98/216). The tachycardia rate increased with atropine use. There was no change in chest wall rigidity, number of infants unable to extubate following surfactant, or decompensation awaiting medications. Conclusions: Standardizing procedural care delivery reduced intubation attempts and increased the attempt success rate. However, this was accompanied by an increase in the rate of nonsevere adverse events.