Qualitative assessment of family caregiver-centered neonatal education program in Karnataka, India.

Globally 2.5 million newborns die every year before they reach the age of one month; the majority of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Among other factors, inadequate knowledge and skills to take care of newborns contribute to these deaths. To fill this gap, training patients and family members on the behaviors needed to improve essential newborn care practices at home is a promising opportunity. One program that aims to do this is the Care Companion Program (CCP) which provides in-hospital, skills-based training on care of mothers and newborns to families. This study uses semi-structured interviews to understand how and why knowledge and behaviors of maternal and newborn care behaviors change (or don't change) as a result of CCP sessions and participants' perception of the impact of CCP on change. Interviews focused on knowledge and behaviors around key neonatal and newborn topics and health seeking behaviors for health complications. Forty-two in-depth interviews were conducted among families with recently-delivered babies at their homes from four districts in Karnataka, India. Respondents have a positive perception about CCP, found training useful and appreciated other family members presence during the training. CCP increased knowledge and awareness and provided critical details to key behaviors like breastfeeding. Respondents were more likely to be receptive toward details on already known topics, like hand washing before touching the baby. Awareness increased on newly learned behaviors, like skin-to-skin care, which don't conflict with cultural norms. The CCP did not influence nonrestrictive maternal diet as much, which cultural norms heavily influence. In-hospital family caregiver education programs, like CCP, can positively influence key neonatal behaviors by imparting knowledge and key skills. However, the effect is not universal across health behaviors.

Does Quality Certification Work? An Assessment of Manyata, a Childbirth Quality Program in India's Private Sector.

BACKGROUND: In India, more than 60% of hospital beds are in private facilities, yet several studies have observed suboptimal quality of care in private facilities. We aimed to understand the role of Manyata, a quality improvement initiative in private facilities focused on mentorship and clinical standards, to improve the knowledge and skills of health care providers, their adherence to key childbirth-related clinical practices, and health outcomes for women and newborns. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of Manyata program data collected from 466 private facilities across 3 states (Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh) in India from October 2016 to February 2019. We calculated means and 95% confidence intervals for knowledge and skills assessment, adherence to facility standards was analyzed by calculating the proportion of facilities passing a given quality standard at baseline and endline, and changes in pregnancy outcomes were assessed with autoregression modeling. RESULTS: From assessments conducted before and after training among providers in Manyata, we observed a significant increase in average knowledge score (6.3 vs. 13.2 of 20) and skill score (8.0 vs. 34.3 of 40). Overall, a significant increase occurred in adherence to clinical standards between baseline and endline assessments (29% vs. 93%). The standards with the greatest improvements were identification and management of eclampsia/preeclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal resuscitation. There were no significant changes over time in absolute rate of reported complications; however, referral rates from private facilities for preeclampsia and newborn sepsis identification and management declined. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates private facilities' adherence to quality standards and nurses' childbirth knowledge and practical skills increased during Manyata. Additional efforts are needed to ensure high-quality care during cesarean deliveries at private facilities. Future studies with rigorous design are required to evaluate the impact of this quality improvement initiative in improving pregnancy outcomes.

Estimating maternity ward birth attendant time use in India: a microcosting study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite global concern over the quality of maternal care, little is known about the time requirements to complete the essential birth practices. Using three microcosting data collection methods within the BetterBirth trial, we aimed to assess time use and the specific time requirements to incorporate the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist into clinical practice. SETTING: We collected detailed survey data on birth attendant time use within the BetterBirth trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. The BetterBirth trial tested whether the peer-coaching-based implementation of the WHO Checklist was effective in improving the quality of facility-based childbirth care. PARTICIPANTS: We collected measurements of time to completion for 18 essential birth practices from July 2016 through October 2016 across 10 facilities in five districts (1559 total timed observations). An anonymous survey asked about the impact of the WHO Checklist on birth attendants at every intervention facility (15 facilities, 83 respondents) in the Lucknow hub. Additionally, data collectors visited facilities to conduct a census of patients and birth attendants across 20 facilities in seven districts between June 2016 and November 2016 (six hundred and ten 2-hour facility observations). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure of this study is the per cent of staff time required to complete the essential birth practices included in the WHO Checklist. RESULTS: When birth attendants were timed, we found practices were completed rapidly (18 s to 2 min). As the patient load increased, time dedicated to clinical care increased but remained low relative to administrative and downtime. On average, WHO Checklist clinical care accounted for less than 7% of birth attendant time use per hour. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that a coaching-based implementation of the WHO Checklist was a burden on birth attendant's time use. However, questions remain regarding the performance quality of practices and how to accurately capture and interpret idle and break time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02148952.

Adaptation and implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist around the world.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) published the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in 2015, which included the key evidence-based practices to prevent the major causes of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality during childbirth. We assessed the current use of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) and adaptations regarding the SCC tool and implementation strategies in different contexts from Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America. METHODS: This explanatory, sequential mixed methods study-including surveys followed by interviews-of global SCC implementers focused on adaptation and implementation strategies, data collection, and desired improvements to support ongoing SCC use. We analyzed the survey results using descriptive statistics. In a subset of respondents, follow-up virtual semi-structured interviews explored how they adapted, implemented, and evaluated the SCC in their context. We used rapid inductive and deductive thematic analysis for the interviews. RESULTS: Of the 483 total potential participants, 65 (13.5%) responded to the survey; 55 completed the survey (11.4%). We analyzed completed responses from those who identified as having SCC implementation experience (n = 29, 52.7%). Twelve interviews were conducted and analyzed. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that they adapted the SCC tool, including adding clinical and operational items. Adaptations to structure included translation into local language, incorporation into a mobile app, and integration into medical records. Respondents reported variation in implementation strategies and data collection. The most common implementation strategies were meeting with stakeholders to secure buy-in, incorporating technical training, and providing supportive supervision or coaching around SCC use. Desired improvements included clarifying the purpose of the SCC, adding guidance on relevant clinical topics, refining items addressing behaviors with low adherence, and integrating contextual factors into decision-making. To improve implementation, participants desired political support to embed SCC into existing policies and ongoing clinical training and coaching. CONCLUSION: Additional adaptation and implementation guidance for the SCC would be helpful for stakeholders to sustain effective implementation.

Just-in-time postnatal education programees to improve newborn care practices: needs and opportunities in low-resource settings.

Worldwide, many newborns die in the first month of life, with most deaths happening in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Families' use of evidence-based newborn care practices in the home and timely care-seeking for illness can save newborn lives. Postnatal education is an important investment to improve families' use of evidence-based newborn care practices, yet there are gaps in the literature on postnatal education programees that have been evaluated to date. Recent findings from a 13 000+ person survey in 3 states in India show opportunities for improvement in postnatal education for mothers and families and their use of newborn care practices in the home. Our survey data and the literature suggest the need to incorporate the following strategies into future postnatal education programming: implement structured predischarge education with postdischarge reinforcement, using a multipronged teaching approach to reach whole families with education on multiple newborn care practices. Researchers need to conduct robust evaluation on postnatal education models incorporating these programee elements in the LMIC context, as well as explore whether this type of education model can work for other health areas that are critical for families to survive and thrive.

Nurses' and auxiliary nurse midwives' adherence to essential birth practices with peer coaching in Uttar Pradesh, India: a secondary analysis of the BetterBirth trial.

BACKGROUND: The BetterBirth trial tested the effect of a peer coaching program around the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist for birth attendants in primary-level facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India on a composite measure of perinatal and maternal mortality and maternal morbidity. This study aimed to examine the adherence to essential birth practices between two different cadres of birth attendants-nurses and auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs)-during and after a peer coaching intervention for the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of birth attendant characteristics, coaching visits, and behavior uptake during the BetterBirth trial through birth attendant surveys, coach observations, and independent observations. Descriptive statistics were calculated overall, and by staffing cadre (staff nurses and ANMs) for demographic characteristics. Logistic regression using the Pearson overdispersion correction (to account for clustering by site) was used to assess differences between staff nurses and ANMs in the intervention group during regular coaching (2-month time point) and 4 months after the coaching program ended (12-month time point). RESULTS: Of the 570 birth attendants who responded to the survey in intervention and control arms, 474 were staff nurses (83.2%) and 96 were ANMs (16.8%). In the intervention arm, more staff nurses (240/260, 92.3%) received coaching at all pause points compared to ANMs (40/53, 75.5%). At baseline, adherence to practices was similar between ANMs and staff nurses (~ 30%). Overall percent adherence to essential birth practices among ANMs and nurses was highest at 2 months after intervention initiation, when frequent coaching visits occurred (68.1% and 64.1%, respectively, p = 0.76). Practice adherence tapered to 49.2% among ANMs and 56.1% among staff nurses at 12 months, which was 4 months after coaching had ended (p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ANMs and nurses responded similarly to the coaching intervention with the greatest increase in percent adherence to essential birth practices after 2 months of coaching and subsequent decrease in adherence 4 months after coaching ended. While coaching is an effective strategy to support some aspects of birth attendant competency, the structure, content, and frequency of coaching may need to be customized according to the birth attendant training and competency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT2148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1131-5647.

Unpacking the null: a post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh, India (BetterBirth).

BACKGROUND: A coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh, India, improved adherence to evidence-based practices, but did not reduce perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, or maternal mortality. We examined facility-level correlates of the outcomes, which varied widely across the 120 study facilities. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of the coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh. We used multivariable modelling to identify correlations between 30 facility-level characteristics and each health outcome (perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, or maternal mortality). To identify contexts in which the intervention might have had an effect, we then ran the models on data restricted to the period of intensive coaching and among patients not referred out of the facilities. FINDINGS: In the multivariable context, perinatal mortality was associated with only 3 of the 30 variables: female literacy at the district level, geographical location, and previous neonatal mortality. Maternal morbidity was only associated with geographical location. No facility-level predictors were associated with maternal mortality. Among facilities in the lowest tertile of birth volume (<95 births per month), our models estimated perinatal mortality was 17 (95% CI 11·7-24·8) per 1000 births in the intervention group versus 38 (31·6-44·8) per 1000 in the control group (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Mortality was not directly associated with measured facility-level indicators but was associated with general risk factors. The absence of correlation between expected predictors and patient outcomes and the association between improved outcomes and the intervention in smaller facilities suggest a need for additional measures of quality of care that take into account complexity. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.