Experiences of Indian Health Workers Using WhatsApp for Improving Aseptic Practices With Newborns: Exploratory Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) involves the following 4 steps: (1) forming a team to work on a specific aim, (2) analyzing the reasons for current underperformance, (3) developing changes that could improve care and testing these changes using plan-do-study-act cycles (PDSA), and (4) implementing successful interventions to sustain improvements. Teamwork and group discussion are key for effective QI, but convening in-person meetings with all staff can be challenging due to workload and shift changes. Mobile technologies can support communication within a team when face-to-face meetings are not possible. WhatsApp, a mobile messaging platform, was implemented as a communication tool by a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) team in an Indian tertiary hospital seeking to reduce nosocomial infections in newborns. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory qualitative study aimed to examine experiences with WhatsApp as a communication tool among improvement team members and an external coach to improve adherence to aseptic protocols. METHODS: Ten QI team members and the external coach were interviewed on communication processes and approaches and thematically analyzed. The WhatsApp transcript for the implementation period was also included in the analysis. RESULTS: WhatsApp was effective for disseminating information, including guidance on QI and clinical practice, and data on performance indicators. It was not effective as a platform for group discussion to generate change ideas or analyze the performance indicator data. The decision of who to include in the WhatsApp group and how members engaged in the group may have reinforced existing hierarchies. Using WhatsApp created a work environment in which members were accessible all the time, breaking down barriers between personal and professional time. The continual influx of messages was distracting to some respondents, and how respondents managed these messages (eg, using the silent function) may have influenced their perceptions of WhatsApp. The coach used WhatsApp to share information, schedule site visits, and prompt action on behalf of the team. CONCLUSIONS: WhatsApp is a productive communication tool that can be used by teams and coaches to disseminate information and prompt action to improve the quality of care, but cannot replace in-person meetings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".