Disinfection of Neonatal Resuscitation Equipment in Low-Resource Settings: The Importance, the Reality, and Considerations for the Future.

Preventable neonatal deaths due to prematurity, perinatal events, and infections are the leading causes of under-five mortality. The vast majority of these deaths are in resource-limited areas. Deaths due to infection have been associated with lack of access to clean water, overcrowded nurseries, and improper disinfection (reprocessing) of equipment, including vital resuscitation equipment. Reprocessing has recently come to heightened attention, with the COVID-19 pandemic bringing this issue to the forefront across all economic levels; however, it is particularly challenging in low-resource settings. In 2015, Eslami et al. published a letter to the editor in Resuscitation, highlighting concerns about the disinfection of equipment being used to resuscitate newborns in Kenya. To address the issue of improper disinfection, the global health nongovernment organization PATH gathered a group of experts and, due to lack of best-practice evidence, published guidelines with recommendations for reprocessing of neonatal resuscitation equipment in low-resource areas. The guidelines follow the gold-standard principle of high-level disinfection; however, there is ongoing concern that the complexity of the guideline would make feasibility and sustainability difficult in the settings for which it was designed. Observations from hospitals in Kenya and Malawi reinforce this concern. The purpose of this review is to discuss why proper disinfection of equipment is important, why this is challenging in low-resource settings, and suggestions for solutions to move forward.

The Call and the Challenge of Pediatric Resuscitation and Simulation Research in Low-Resource Settings.

STATEMENT: The greatest burden of younger than 5 years mortality is in low- and middle-income nations where education resources are often few. The World Health Organization recommends scale-up of simulation in these settings, but it has been poorly studied. Although there has been an increase of contextualized resuscitation simulation programs designed for these settings, sustaining clinical outcomes and provider skill retention have remained research gaps. Our team designed a study to evaluate skill retention after an initial Helping Babies Breathe training at a rural Kenya referral hospital between randomized learner groups receiving supervised mock codes with debriefing versus just-in-time training with a peer. Although we saw sustained skills retention and some clinical improvements, we were unable to answer our research question because of numerous challenges, mainly that hospital leadership preferred the implementation of 1 arm of the study over another because of lack of protected education time and resources, eliminating differences between randomized study groups. Further challenges included lack of familiarity with simulation and debriefing and lack of protected educational resources and time, cultural differences in giving feedback, undeveloped systems for documentation, and high acuity and clinical volume. Our experience teaches many important lessons in how best to implement and study simulation in low-resource settings. Best practices include long-term partnerships, flexibility, community and staff engagement, mixed methodologies including community-based participatory methods, and careful attention to educational and research capacity building.

Using quality improvement to decrease birth asphyxia rates after 'Helping Babies Breathe' training in Kenya.

AIM: The Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) programme is known to decrease neonatal mortality in low-resource settings but gaps in care still exist. This study describes the use of quality improvement to sustain gains in birth asphyxia-related mortality after HBB. METHODS: Tenwek Hospital, a rural referral hospital in Kenya, identified high rates of birth asphyxia (BA). They developed a goal to decrease the suspected hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (SHIE) rate by 50% within six months after HBB. Rapid cycles of change were used to test interventions including training, retention and engagement for staff/trainees and improved data collection. Run charts followed the rate over time, and chi-square analysis was used. RESULTS: Ninety-six providers received HBB from September to November 2014. Over 4000 delivery records were reviewed. Ten months of baseline data showed a median SHIE rate of 14.7/1000 live births (LB) with wide variability. Ten months post-HBB, the SHIE rate decreased by 53% to 7.1/1000 LB (p = 0.01). SHIE rates increased after initial decline; investigation determined that half the trained midwives had been transferred. Presenting data to administration resulted in staff retention. Rates have after remained above goal with narrowing control limits. CONCLUSION: Focused quality improvement can sustain and advance gains in neonatal outcomes post-HBB training.