From the Zambian Anaesthesia Development Program, University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia.
University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia.
Anesth Analg. 2018 Jul;127(1):217-223. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003337.
Birth asphyxia is a leading cause of early neonatal death. In 2013, 32% of neonatal deaths in Zambia were attributable to birth asphyxia and trauma. Basic, timely interventions are key to improving outcomes. However, data from the World Health Organization suggest that resuscitation is often not initiated, or is conducted suboptimally. Currently, there are little data on the quality of newborn resuscitation in the context of a tertiary center in a lower-middle income country. We aimed to measure the competencies of clinical practitioners responsible for newborn resuscitation.
This observational study was conducted over 5 months in Zambia. Health care professionals were recruited from anesthesia, pediatrics, and midwifery. Newborn skills and knowledge were examined using the following: (1) multiple-choice questions; (2) a ventilation skills test; and (3) 2 low-medium fidelity simulation scenarios. Participant demographics including previous resuscitation training and a self-efficacy rating score were noted. The primary outcome examined performance scores in a simulated scenario, which assessed the care of a newborn that failed to respond to basic interventions. Secondary outcome measures included apnea times after delivery and performance in the other assessments.
Seventy-eight participants were enrolled into the study (13 physician anesthesiology residents, 13 pediatric residents, and 52 midwives). A significant difference in interprofessional performance was observed when examining checklist scores for the unresponsive newborn simulated scenario (P = .006). The median (quartiles) checklist score (out of 18) was 14.0 (13.0-14.75) for the anesthesiologists, 11.0 (8.5-12.3) for the pediatricians, and 10.8 (8.3-13.9) for the midwives. A score of 14 or more was required to pass the scenario. There was no significant difference in performance between participants with and without previous newborn resuscitation training (P = .246). The median (quartiles) apnea time after delivery was significantly different between all groups (P = .01) with anesthetic and pediatric residents performing similarly, 61 (37-97) and 63 (42.5-97.5) seconds, respectively. The midwifery participants displayed a significantly longer apnea time, 93.5 (66.3-129) seconds. Self-efficacy rating scores displayed no correlation between confidence level and the primary outcome, Spearman coefficient 0.06 (P = .55).
Newborn resuscitation skills among health care professionals are varied. Midwives lead the majority of deliveries with anesthesiologists and pediatricians only being present at operative or high-risk births. It is therefore common that midwifery practitioners will initiate resuscitation. Despite this, midwives perform poorly when compared to anesthesia and pediatric residents. To address this discrepancy, a multidisciplinary, simulation-based newborn resuscitation program should be considered with continual clinical reenforcement of best practice.
出生窒息是导致新生儿早期死亡的主要原因。2013 年,赞比亚 32%的新生儿死亡归因于出生窒息和创伤。基本的、及时的干预措施是改善结局的关键。然而,世界卫生组织的数据表明,复苏往往没有开始,或者复苏效果不佳。目前,关于中低收入国家三级中心新生儿复苏质量的数据很少。我们旨在衡量负责新生儿复苏的临床医生的能力。
本观察性研究在赞比亚进行了 5 个月。从麻醉、儿科和助产专业招募了卫生保健专业人员。使用以下方法评估新生儿技能和知识:(1)多项选择题;(2)通气技能测试;(3)2 个低-中保真度模拟场景。记录参与者的人口统计学数据,包括以前的复苏培训和自我效能评分。主要结局是评估在模拟场景中对基本干预无反应的新生儿的护理表现评分。次要结局指标包括分娩后窒息时间和其他评估中的表现。
共有 78 名参与者参加了这项研究(13 名麻醉科住院医师、13 名儿科住院医师和 52 名助产士)。当检查无反应新生儿模拟场景的检查表评分时,观察到不同专业之间的表现存在显著差异(P=0.006)。麻醉科医生的检查表评分(18 分制)中位数(四分位数)为 14.0(13.0-14.75),儿科医生为 11.0(8.5-12.3),助产士为 10.8(8.3-13.9)。需要得 14 分或以上才能通过场景。有或没有新生儿复苏培训的参与者之间的表现没有显著差异(P=0.246)。分娩后窒息时间的中位数(四分位数)在所有组之间差异显著(P=0.01),麻醉科和儿科住院医师的表现相似,分别为 61(37-97)和 63(42.5-97.5)秒。助产士参与者的窒息时间明显较长,为 93.5(66.3-129)秒。自我效能评分显示,信心水平与主要结局之间无相关性,斯皮尔曼系数为 0.06(P=0.55)。
卫生保健专业人员的新生儿复苏技能参差不齐。助产士负责大多数分娩,麻醉科医生和儿科医生仅在手术或高危分娩时出现。因此,助产士通常会开始复苏。尽管如此,与麻醉科和儿科住院医师相比,助产士的表现较差。为了解决这一差距,应考虑开展多学科、基于模拟的新生儿复苏计划,并持续强化最佳实践的临床培训。