Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(12): 1645-1651
DOI: 10.1055/a-2240-2094
Original Article

What Is the Opinion of the Health Care Personnel Regarding the Use of Different Assistive Tools to Improve the Quality of Neonatal Resuscitation?

Roberto Ortiz-Movilla
1   Pediatric Service, Neonatology Unit, Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
,
Maite Beato-Merino
2   Pediatric Service, Neonatology Unit, Severo Ochoa University Hospital, Leganés, Madrid, Spain
,
Rosa María Funes Moñux
3   Pediatric Service, Neonatology Unit, Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
,
Lucía Martínez-Bernat
4   Pediatric Service, Neonatology Unit, Getafe University Hospital, Getafe, Madrid, Spain
,
Laura Domingo-Comeche
5   Pediatric Service, Neonatology Unit, Fuenlabrada University Hospital, Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain
,
Ana Royuela-Vicente
6   Biostatistics Unit, Puerta de Hierro Biomedical Research Institute, CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
,
Enriqueta Román-Riechmann
7   Pediatric Service, Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
,
Miguel Ángel Marín-Gabriel
1   Pediatric Service, Neonatology Unit, Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective It is important to determine whether the use of different quality improvement tools in neonatal resuscitation is well-received by health care teams and improves coordination and perceived quality of the stabilization of the newborn at birth. This study aimed to explore the satisfaction of personnel involved in resuscitation for infants under 32 weeks of gestational age (<32 wGA) at birth with the use of an assistance toolkit: Random Real-time Safety Audits (RRSA) of neonatal stabilization stations, the use of pre-resuscitation checklists, and the implementation of briefings and debriefings.

Study Design A quasi-experimental, prospective, multicenter intervention study was conducted in five level III-A neonatal intensive care units in Madrid (Spain). The intervention involved conducting weekly RRSA of neonatal resuscitation stations and the systematic use of checklists, briefings, and debriefings during stabilization at birth for infants <32 wGA. The satisfaction with their use was analyzed through surveys conducted with the personnel responsible for resuscitating these newborns. These surveys were conducted both before and after the intervention phase (each lasting 1 year) and used a Likert scale response model to assess various aspects of the utility of the introduced assistance tools, team coordination, and perceived quality of the resuscitation.

Results Comparison of data from 200 preintervention surveys and 155 postintervention surveys revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) between the two phases. The postintervention phase scored higher in all aspects related to the effective utilization of these tools. Improvements were observed in team coordination and the perceived quality of neonatal resuscitation. These improved scores were consistent across personnel roles and years of experience.

Conclusion Personnel attending to infants <32 wGA in the delivery room are satisfied with the application of RRSA, checklists, briefings, and debriefings in the neonatal resuscitation and perceive a higher level of quality in the stabilization of these newborns following the introduction of these tools.

Key Points

  • RRSA, checklists, briefings, and debriefings improve the quality of neonatal resuscitation at birth.

  • These tools, when used together, are well-received and enhance perceived resuscitation quality.

  • Perception of utility and quality improvement is consistent across roles and experience.

Keywords

neonatal resuscitation - safety audits - checklists - briefings - debriefings

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 26 September 2023

Accepted: 04 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 January 2024

Article published online:
30 January 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Wyckoff MH, Wyllie J, Aziz K. et al; Neonatal Life Support Collaborators. Neonatal Life Support 2020 International Consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circulation 2020; 142 (16_suppl_1): S185-S221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zeballos Sarrato G, Avila-Alvarez A, Escrig Fernández R, Izquierdo Renau M, Ruiz Campillo CW, Gómez Robles C. et al. Spanish guide for neonatal stabilization and resuscitation 2021: analysis, adaptation and consensus on international recommendations. An Pediatr (Engl Ed) 2022; 96 (02) 145.e1-145.e9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sauer CW, Boutin MA, Fatayerji AN, Proudfoot JA, Fatayerji NI, Golembeski DJ. Delivery room quality improvement project improved compliance with best practices for a community NICU. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 37397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 den Boer MC, Houtlosser M, Foglia EE, Tan RNGB, Engberts DP, Te Pas AB. Benefits of recording and reviewing neonatal resuscitation: the providers' perspective. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2019; 104 (05) F528-F534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ursprung R, Gray JE, Edwards WH. et al. Real time patient safety audits: improving safety every day. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14 (04) 284-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lee HC, Powers RJ, Bennett MV. et al. Implementation methods for delivery room management: a quality improvement comparison study. Pediatrics 2014; 134 (05) e1378-e1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bergon-Sendin E, Perez-Grande MDC, Lora-Pablos D. et al. [Real-time safety audits in a neonatal unit]. An Pediatr (Barc) 2017; 87 (03) 148-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bergon-Sendin E, Perez-Grande C, Lora-Pablos D. et al. Auditing of monitoring and respiratory support equipment in a level III–C Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 719497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bergon-Sendin E, Perez-Grande C, Lora-Pablos D. et al. Smart pumps and random safety audits in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: a new challenge for patient safety. BMC Pediatr 2015; 15: 206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ortiz-Movilla R, Funes-Moñux RM, Domingo-Comeche L. et al. Real-time safety audits of neonatal delivery room resuscitation areas: are we sufficiently prepared?. Am J Perinatol 2022; 39 (04) 361-368
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rite Gracia S, Fernández Lorenzo JR, Echániz Urcelay I. et al. Niveles asistenciales y recomendaciones de mínimos para la atención neonatal. An Pediatr (Barc) 2013; 79 (01) 51.e1-51.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ortiz-Movilla R, Funes-Moñux RM, Domingo-Comeche LD. et al. Combined application of various quality assessment tools in neonatal resuscitation. An Pediatr (Engl Ed) 2022; 97 (06) 405-414
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brown T, Tu J, Profit J, Gupta A, Lee HC. Optimal criteria survey for preresuscitation delivery room checklists. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (02) 203-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Vinci A, Islam S, Quintos-Alegheband L, Hanna N, Nayak A. A quality improvement intervention to decrease hypothermia in the delivery room using a checklist. Pediatr Qual Saf 2018; 3 (06) e125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shaw SC, Devgan A, Anila S, Anushree N, Debnath H. Use of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to decrease incidence of neonatal hypothermia in the labor room. Med J Armed Forces India 2018; 74 (02) 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bennett SC, Finer N, Halamek LP. et al. Implementing delivery room checklists and communication standards in a multi-neonatal ICU quality improvement collaborative. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2016; 42 (08) 369-376
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Finer N, Rich W. Neonatal resuscitation for the preterm infant: evidence versus practice. J Perinatol 2010; 30 (suppl): S57-S66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vats A, Vincent CA, Nagpal K, Davies RW, Darzi A, Moorthy K. Practical challenges of introducing WHO surgical checklist: UK pilot experience. BMJ 2010; 340: b5433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sawyer T, Loren D, Halamek LP. Post-event debriefings during neonatal care: why are we not doing them, and how can we start?. J Perinatol 2016; 36 (06) 415-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sandhu N, Eppich W, Mikrogianakis A. et al. Postresuscitation debriefing in the pediatric emergency department: a national needs assessment. CJEM 2014; 16 (05) 383-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors 2013; 55 (01) 231-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zeballos Sarrato G, Salguero García E, Aguayo Maldonado J, Gómez Robles C, Thió Lluch M, Iriondo Sanz M. Adaptación de las recomendaciones internacionales en estabilización y reanimación neonatal 2015. An Pediatr (Barc) 2017; 86 (01) 51.e1-51.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Aziz K, Lee CHC, Escobedo MB. et al. Part 5: Neonatal Resuscitation 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Pediatrics 2021; 147 (Suppl. 01) e2020038505E
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bhanji F, Mancini ME, Sinz E. et al. Part 16: education, implementation, and teams: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2010; 122 (18, suppl 3): S920-S933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Edwards EM, Soll RF, Ferrelli K. et al. Identifying improvements for delivery room resuscitation management: results from a multicenter safety audit. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol 2015; 1 (01) 2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mullan PC, Kessler DO, Cheng A. Educational opportunities with postevent debriefing. JAMA 2014; 312 (22) 2333-2334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kessler DO, Cheng A, Mullan PC. Debriefing in the emergency department after clinical events: a practical guide. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 65 (06) 690-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Salas E, Klein C, King H. et al. Debriefing medical teams: 12 evidence-based best practices and tips. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008; 34 (09) 518-527
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Consejería de Sanidad. Observatorio de resultados del Servicio Madrileño de Salud. Accessed on August 26, 2023 at: http://observatorioresultados.sanidadmadrid.org/HospitalesDatosGeneralesTabla.aspx?ID=86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar