Neonatal resuscitation and immediate newborn assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths: a systematic review, meta-analysis and Delphi estimation of mortality effect

BACKGROUND: Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously "birth asphyxia") and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the mortality effect of immediate newborn assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate newborn assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate newborn assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. CONCLUSION: Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and newborn assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US

Neonatal resuscitation in low-resource settings: what, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up?

BACKGROUND: Each year approximately 10 million babies do not breathe immediately at birth, of which about 6 million require basic neonatal resuscitation. The major burden is in low-income settings, where health system capacity to provide neonatal resuscitation is inadequate. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for neonatal resuscitation content, training and competency, equipment and supplies, cost, and key program considerations, specifically for resource-constrained settings. RESULTS: Evidence from several observational studies shows that facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation may avert 30% of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths. Very few babies require advanced resuscitation (endotracheal intubation and drugs) and these newborns may not survive without ongoing ventilation; hence, advanced neonatal resuscitation is not a priority in settings without neonatal intensive care. Of the 60 million nonfacility births, most do not have access to resuscitation. Several trials have shown that a range of community health workers can perform neonatal resuscitation with an estimated effect of a 20% reduction in intrapartum-related neonatal deaths, based on expert opinion. Case studies illustrate key considerations for scale up. CONCLUSION: Basic resuscitation would substantially reduce intrapartum-related neonatal deaths. Where births occur in facilities, it is a priority to ensure that all birth attendants are competent in resuscitation. Strategies to address the gap for home births are urgently required. More data are required to determine the impact of neonatal resuscitation, particularly on long-term outcomes in low-income settings

Basic newborn care and neonatal resuscitation: a multi-country analysis of health system bottlenecks and potential solutions.

BACKGROUND: An estimated two-thirds of the world's 2.7 million newborn deaths could be prevented with quality care at birth and during the postnatal period. Basic Newborn Care (BNC) is part of the solution and includes hygienic birth and newborn care practices including cord care, thermal care, and early and exclusive breastfeeding. Timely provision of resuscitation if needed is also critical to newborn survival. This paper describes health system barriers to BNC and neonatal resuscitation and proposes solutions to scale up evidence-based strategies. METHODS: The maternal and newborn bottleneck analysis tool was applied by 12 countries in Africa and Asia as part of the Every Newborn Action Plan process. Country workshops engaged technical experts to complete the survey tool, which is designed to synthesise and grade health system "bottlenecks" that hinder the scale up of maternal-newborn intervention packages. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to analyse the bottleneck data, combined with literature review, to present priority bottlenecks and actions relevant to different health system building blocks for BNC and neonatal resuscitation. RESULTS: Eleven of the 12 countries provided grading data. Overall, bottlenecks were graded more severely for resuscitation. The most severely graded bottlenecks for BNC were health workforce (8 of 11 countries), health financing (9 out of 11) and service delivery (7 out of 9); and for neonatal resuscitation, workforce (9 out of 10), essential commodities (9 out of 10) and service delivery (8 out of 10). Country teams from Africa graded bottlenecks overall more severely. Improving workforce performance, availability of essential commodities, and well-integrated health service delivery were the key solutions proposed. CONCLUSIONS: BNC was perceived to have the least health system challenges among the seven maternal and newborn intervention packages assessed. Although neonatal resuscitation bottlenecks were graded more severe than for BNC, similarities particularly in the workforce and service delivery building blocks highlight the inextricable link between the two interventions and the need to equip birth attendants with requisite skills and commodities to assess and care for every newborn. Solutions highlighted by country teams include ensuring more investment to improve workforce performance and distribution, especially numbers of skilled birth attendants, incentives for placement in challenging settings, and skills-based training particularly for neonatal resuscitation

Quality improvement initiatives for hospitalised small and sick newborns in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 2.6 million newborns died in 2016; over 98.5% of deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Neonates born preterm and small for gestational age are particularly at risk given the high incidence of infectious complications, cardiopulmonary, and neurodevelopmental disorders in this group. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives can reduce the burden of mortality and morbidity for hospitalised newborns in these settings. We undertook a systematic review to synthesise evidence from LMICs on QI approaches used, outcome measures employed to estimate effects, and the nature of implementation challenges. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, WHO Global Health Library, Cochrane Library, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov and scanned the references of identified studies and systematic reviews. Searches covered January 2000 until April 2017. Search terms were "quality improvement", "newborns", "hospitalised", and their derivatives. Studies were excluded if they took place in high-income countries, did not include QI interventions, or did not include small and sick hospitalised newborns. Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used to quality appraise the studies. RESULTS: From 8110 results, 28 studies were included, covering 23 LMICs and 65,642 participants. Most interventions were meso level (district and clinic level); fewer were micro (patient-provider level) or macro (above district level). In-service training was the most common intervention subtype; service organisation and distribution of referencing materials were also frequently identified. The most commonly assessed outcome was mortality, followed by length of admission, sepsis rates, and infection rates. Key barriers to implementation of quality improvement initiatives included overburdened staff and lack of sufficient equipment. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of meso level, single centre, and educational interventions suggests that these interventions may be easier for programme planners to implement. The success of some interventions in reducing morbidity and mortality rates suggests that QI approaches have a high potential for benefit to newborns. Going forward, there are opportunities to strengthen the focus of QI initiatives and to develop improved, larger-scale, collaborative research into implementation of quality improvement initiatives for this high-risk group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017055459

Evaluation of an educational program for essential newborn care in resource-limited settings: Essential Care for Every Baby

Abstract Background Essential Care for Every Baby (ECEB) is an evidence-based educational program designed to increase cognitive knowledge and develop skills of health care professionals in essential newborn care in low-resource areas. The course focuses on the immediate care of the newborn after birth and during the first day or until discharge from the health facility. This study assessed the overall design of the course; the ability of facilitators to teach the course; and the knowledge and skills acquired by the learners. Methods Testing occurred at 2 global sites. Data from a facilitator evaluation survey, a learner satisfaction survey, a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination, performance on two objective structured clinical evaluations (OSCE), and pre- and post-course confidence assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Pre-post course differences were examined. Comments on the evaluation form and post-course group discussions were analyzed to identify potential program improvements. Results Using ECEB course material, master trainers taught 12 facilitators in India and 11 in Kenya who subsequently taught 62 providers of newborn care in India and 64 in Kenya. Facilitators and learners were satisfied with their ability to teach and learn from the program. Confidence (3.5 to 5) and MCQ scores (India: pre 19.4, post 24.8; Kenya: pre 20.8, post 25.0) improved (p < 0.001). Most participants demonstrated satisfactory skills on the OSCEs. Qualitative data suggested the course was effective, but also identified areas for course improvement. These included additional time for hands-on practice, including practice in a clinical setting, the addition of video learning aids and the adaptation of content to conform to locally recommended practices. Conclusion ECEB program was highly acceptable, demonstrated improved confidence, improved knowledge and developed skills. ECEB may improve newborn care in low resource settings if it is part of an overall implementation plan that addresses local needs and serves to further strengthen health systems

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in low-resource settings: a statement by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, supported by the AFEM, EUSEM, IFEM, and IFRC.

Most recommendations on cardiopulmonary resuscitation were developed from the perspective of high-resource settings with the aim of applying them in these settings. These so-called international guidelines are often not applicable in low-resource settings. Organisations including the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) have not sufficiently addressed this problem. We formed a collaborative group of experts from various settings including low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries, and conducted a prospective, multiphase consensus process to formulate this ILCOR Task Force statement. We highlight the discrepancy between current cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines and their applicability in low-resource settings. Successful existing initiatives such as the Helping Babies Breathe programme and the WHO Emergency Care Systems Framework are acknowledged. The concept of the chainmail of survival as an adaptive approach towards a framework of resuscitation, the potential enablers of and barriers to this framework, and gaps in the knowledge are discussed, focusing on low-resource settings. Action points are proposed, which might be expanded into future recommendations and suggestions, addressing a large diversity of addressees from caregivers to stakeholders. This statement serves as a stepping-stone to developing a truly global approach to guide resuscitation care and science, including in health-care systems worldwide

Service readiness for inpatient care of small and sick newborns: what do we need and what can we measure now?

BACKGROUND: Each year an estimated 2.6 million newborns die, mainly from complications of prematurity, neonatal infections, and intrapartum events. Reducing these deaths requires high coverage of good quality care at birth, and inpatient care for small and sick newborns. In low- and middle-income countries, standardised measurement of the readiness of facilities to provide emergency obstetric care has improved tracking of readiness to provide care at birth in recent years. However, the focus has been mainly on obstetric care; service readiness for providing inpatient care of small and sick newborns is still not consistently measured or tracked. METHODS: We reviewed existing international guidelines and resources to create a matrix of the structural characteristics (infrastructure, equipment, drugs, providers and guidelines) for service readiness to deliver a package of inpatient care interventions for small and sick newborns. To identify gaps in existing measurement systems, we reviewed three multi-country health facility survey tools (the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment, the Service Provision Assessment and the Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care Assessment) against our service readiness matrix. FINDINGS: For service readiness to provide inpatient care for small and sick newborns, our matrix detailed over 600 structural characteristics. Our review of the SPA, the SARA and the EmONC assessment tools identified several measurement omissions to capture information on key intervention areas, such as thermoregulation, feeding and respiratory support, treatment of specific complications (seizures, jaundice), and screening and follow up services, as well as specialised staff and service infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: Our review delineates the required inputs to ensure readiness to provide inpatient care for small and sick newborns. Based on these findings, we detail where questions need to be added to existing tools and describe how measurement systems can be adapted to reflect small and sick newborns interventions. Such work can inform investments in health systems to end preventable newborn death and disability as part of the Every Newborn Action Plan