A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL AUDIT OF NEONATAL RESUSCITATION PRACTICES IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This is a prospective audit to determine the frequency of resuscitation interventions in the clinical setting and to compare self-reports of clinical performance with the existing Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) and Canadian National Guidelines for Neonatal Resuscitation. SUBJECTS: Fifty-six level I, II, and III hospitals in Canada participated. Any infant requiring resuscitation, as defined by the need for at least positive pressure ventilation (PPV), was eligible for inclusion (n = 783 resuscitations). DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective self-report audit was chosen and data were collected over a 6-month period in 1998. The audit focused on the use of PPV, intubation, chest compressions, free-flow oxygen, or medications during the resuscitation. The infant's temperature at the end of resuscitation was also noted. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The composition of the resuscitation team and their NRP certification status were recorded. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: The need for resuscitation was not anticipated in 76% of the cases (596 of 783). Errors in the sequencing of care, such as delays in initiating PPV, provision of chest compressions before or without establishing an airway and ventilatory support, and administering naloxone before PPV, were reported. Resuscitations attended by a team of NRP certified providers had improved sequencing when compared with those in which only some individual providers were certified. Chest compressions were provided in 8% of the cases (65 of 783). Medications were used in 14% (113/783) of all cases. Providers in level I hospitals performed chest compressions more frequently than those in level II and III settings. At the end of the resuscitation, 27% of the infants were hypothermic (142 of 520), and 25% were hyperthermic (128 of 520). Overall, 52% were out of the normal neutral range. CONCLUSIONS: Clear differences between the NRP guidelines and actual clinical practice were shown. A high rate of unanticipated resuscitations, delivery room medications, and chest compressions was described. Postresuscitation hypothermia or hyperthermia were common. Improved sequencing was noted when the entire resuscitation team was NRP certified. Certification in NRP does not assure competency, nor does it ensure compliance with established standards of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".