Successful Implementation of a Change in Practice to Optimize Timing of Umbilical Cord Clamping in Preterm Neonates: A Quality Improvement Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Natural, also known as delayed, umbilical cord clamping (NCC) is recommended for at least 60 seconds (s) in preterm infants. However, changing the institutional guidelines only may not result in satisfactory adoption and change in practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine if a structured multidisciplinary educational approach during the implementation of the new guideline of NCC in pre-term infants will result in over 50% compliance rate. DESIGN/METHODS: The evidence supporting NCC was presented in a grand round to all health care providers involved in maternal-newborn care. A multidisciplinary team comprised of neonatologists, obstetricians, neonatal nurse practitioners, respiratory therapists and nurses developed NCC clinical practice guideline. Local champions at each of the 4 city hospitals were identified to create change in culture and establish lines of open communication between disciplines. Following completion of education of all staff involved in delivery room care, formal implementation of NCC began October 2013 for gestational age (GA) 33-35 weeks, January 2014 for GA ≥28 weeks, and April 2014 for GA ≥26 weeks. Data were collected from October 2013 until April 2015. RESULTS: Table 1 shows the compliance rates and the proportion of infants who received NCC ≥45s. In addition, we found that 18% of infants 26-32 weeks GA deemed eligible for NCC, received cord clamping at <45s to facilitate resuscitation. CONCLUSION: Compliance with practice change can be successfully achieved through a structured team approach, establishing open lines of communication, and frequent feedback to the front line members. Further research may lead to more infants qualifying for and resuscitated during NCC.
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 | 0.068 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".