Increased risk of bradycardia in vigorous infants receiving early as compared to delayed cord clamping at birth.

OBJECTIVE: To compare HR pattern of vigorous newborns during the first 180 s with early (≤60 s, ECC) or delayed (>60 s, DCC) cord clamping. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study including dry-electrode ECG monitoring of 610 vaginally-born singleton term and late-preterm (≥34 weeks) who were vigorous after birth. RESULTS: 198 received ECC while 412 received DCC with median cord clamping at 37 s and 94 s. Median HR remained stable from 30 to 180 s with DCC (172 and 170 bpm respectively) but increased with ECC (169 and 184 bpm). The proportion with bradycardia was higher among ECC than DCC at 30 s and fell faster in the DCC through 60 s. After adjusting for factors affecting timing of cord clamping, ECC had significant risk of bradycardia compared to DCC (aRR 1.51; 95% CI; 1.01-2.26). CONCLUSION: Early heart instability and higher risk of bradycardia with ECC as compared to DCC supports the recommended clinical practice of DCC.

Neonatal resuscitation: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

BACKGROUND: Annually, 14 million newborns require stimulation to initiate breathing at birth and 6 million require bag-mask-ventilation (BMV). Many countries have invested in facility-based neonatal resuscitation equipment and training. However, there is no consistent tracking for neonatal resuscitation coverage. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study, in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania (2017-2018), collected time-stamped data for care around birth, including neonatal resuscitation. Researchers surveyed women and extracted data from routine labour ward registers. To assess accuracy, we compared gold standard observed coverage to survey-reported and register-recorded coverage, using absolute difference, validity ratios, and individual-level validation metrics (sensitivity, specificity, percent agreement). We analysed two resuscitation numerators (stimulation, BMV) and three denominators (live births and fresh stillbirths, non-crying, non-breathing). We also examined timeliness of BMV. Qualitative data were collected from health workers and data collectors regarding barriers and enablers to routine recording of resuscitation. RESULTS: Among 22,752 observed births, 5330 (23.4%) babies did not cry and 3860 (17.0%) did not breathe in the first minute after birth. 16.2% (n = 3688) of babies were stimulated and 4.4% (n = 998) received BMV. Survey-report underestimated coverage of stimulation and BMV. Four of five labour ward registers captured resuscitation numerators. Stimulation had variable accuracy (sensitivity 7.5-40.8%, specificity 66.8-99.5%), BMV accuracy was higher (sensitivity 12.4-48.4%, specificity > 93%), with small absolute differences between observed and recorded BMV. Accuracy did not vary by denominator option. < 1% of BMV was initiated within 1 min of birth. Enablers to register recording included training and data use while barriers included register design, documentation burden, and time pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based surveys are unlikely to be useful for measuring resuscitation coverage given low validity of exit-survey report. Routine labour ward registers have potential to accurately capture BMV as the numerator. Measuring the true denominator for clinical need is complex; newborns may require BMV if breathing ineffectively or experiencing apnoea after initial drying/stimulation or subsequently at any time. Further denominator research is required to evaluate non-crying as a potential alternative in the context of respectful care. Measuring quality gaps, notably timely provision of resuscitation, is crucial for programme improvement and impact, but unlikely to be feasible in routine systems, requiring audits and special studies.

Assessment of the validity of the measurement of newborn and maternal health-care coverage in hospitals (EN-BIRTH): an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Progress in reducing maternal and neonatal deaths and stillbirths is impeded by data gaps, especially regarding coverage and quality of care in hospitals. We aimed to assess the validity of indicators of maternal and newborn health-care coverage around the time of birth in survey data and routine facility register data. METHODS: Every Newborn-BIRTH Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals was an observational study in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania. We included women and their newborn babies who consented on admission to hospital. Exclusion critiera at admission were no fetal heartbeat heard or imminent birth. For coverage of uterotonics to prevent post-partum haemorrhage, early initiation of breastfeeding (within 1 h), neonatal bag-mask ventilation, kangaroo mother care (KMC), and antibiotics for clinically defined neonatal infection (sepsis, pneumonia, or meningitis), we collected time-stamped, direct observation or case note verification data as gold standard. We compared data reported via hospital exit surveys and via hospital registers to the gold standard, pooled using random effects meta-analysis. We calculated population-level validity ratios (measured coverage to observed coverage) plus individual-level validity metrics. FINDINGS: We observed 23 471 births and 840 mother-baby KMC pairs, and verified the case notes of 1015 admitted newborn babies regarding antibiotic treatment. Exit-survey-reported coverage for KMC was 99·9% (95% CI 98·3-100) compared with observed coverage of 100% (99·9-100), but exit surveys underestimated coverage for uterotonics (84·7% [79·1-89·5]) vs 99·4% [98·7-99·8] observed), bag-mask ventilation (0·8% [0·4-1·4]) vs 4·4% [1·9-8·1]), and antibiotics for neonatal infection (74·7% [55·3-90·1] vs 96·4% [94·0-98·6] observed). Early breastfeeding coverage was overestimated in exit surveys (53·2% [39·4-66·8) vs 10·9% [3·8-21·0] observed). "Don't know" responses concerning clinical interventions were more common in the exit survey after caesarean birth. Register data underestimated coverage of uterotonics (77·9% [37·8-99·5] vs 99·2% [98·6-99·7] observed), bag-mask ventilation (4·3% [2·1-7·3] vs 5·1% [2·0-9·6] observed), KMC (92·9% [84·2-98·5] vs 100% [99·9-100] observed), and overestimated early breastfeeding (85·9% (58·1-99·6) vs 12·5% [4·6-23·6] observed). Inter-hospital heterogeneity was higher for register-recorded coverage than for exit survey report. Even with the same register design, accuracy varied between hospitals. INTERPRETATION: Coverage indicators for newborn and maternal health care in exit surveys had low accuracy for specific clinical interventions, except for self-report of KMC, which had high sensitivity after admission to a KMC ward or corner and could be considered for further assessment. Hospital register design and completion are less standardised than surveys, resulting in variable data quality, with good validity for the best performing sites. Because approximately 80% of births worldwide take place in facilities, standardising register design and information systems has the potential to sustainably improve the quality of data on care at birth. FUNDING: Children's Investment Fund Foundation and Swedish Research Council.

"Every Newborn-BIRTH" protocol: observational study validating indicators for coverage and quality of maternal and newborn health care in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: To achieve Sustainable Development Goals and Universal Health Coverage, programmatic data are essential. The Every Newborn Action Plan, agreed by all United Nations member states and >80 development partners, includes an ambitious Measurement Improvement Roadmap. Quality of care at birth is prioritised by both Every Newborn and Ending Preventable Maternal Mortality strategies, hence metrics need to advance from health service contact alone, to content of care. As facility births increase, monitoring using routine facility data in DHIS2 has potential, yet validation research has mainly focussed on maternal recall surveys. The Every Newborn - Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) study aims to validate selected newborn and maternal indicators for routine tracking of coverage and quality of facility-based care for use at district, national and global levels. METHODS: EN-BIRTH is an observational study including >20 000 facility births in three countries (Tanzania, Bangladesh and Nepal) to validate selected indicators. Direct clinical observation will be compared with facility register data and a pre-discharge maternal recall survey for indicators including: uterotonic administration, immediate newborn care, neonatal resuscitation and Kangaroo mother care. Indicators including neonatal infection management and antenatal corticosteroid administration, which cannot be easily observed, will be validated using inpatient records. Trained clinical observers in Labour/Delivery ward, Operation theatre, and Kangaroo mother care ward/areas will collect data using a tablet-based customised data capturing application. Sensitivity will be calculated for numerators of all indicators and specificity for those numerators with adequate information. Other objectives include comparison of denominator options (ie, true target population or surrogates) and quality of care analyses, especially regarding intervention timing. Barriers and enablers to routine recording and data usage will be assessed by data flow assessments, quantitative and qualitative analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first large, multi-country study validating facility-based routine data compared to direct observation for maternal and newborn care, designed to provide evidence to inform selection of a core list of indicators recommended for inclusion in national DHIS2. Availability and use of such data are fundamental to drive progress towards ending the annual 5.5 million preventable stillbirths, maternal and newborn deaths.