MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310464003 · doi:10.1111/ajo.13634

Current approach and attitudes toward neonatal near‐miss and perinatal audits: An exploratory international survey

2022· article· en· W4310464003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of QueenslandNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMater Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAuditNeonatal resuscitationAsphyxiaPediatricsFamily medicineEmergency medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combined with perinatal mortality review, neonatal near-miss (NNM) audit has the potential to inform strategies to better prevent adverse perinatal outcomes. Nonetheless, there is lack of standardised definitions of NNM and limited evidence of implementation of NNM audits. AIM: To describe definitions of NNM and assess current approaches and attitudes toward perinatal mortality and morbidity audit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online survey from December 2021 to February 2022, with a mix of Likert scales, polar, pool, multi-choice, and open-ended questions, disseminated through national and international organisations to perinatal healthcare workers from high-income countries. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty participants came from Australia (n = 86), New Zealand (n = 18), Canada (n = 7), USA (n = 4), Netherlands (n = 2), other countries (n = 3). Neonatologists (35%), midwives (21.7%), obstetricians (12.5%), neonatal nurse practitioners (11.7%) and others (23.3%) responded. Most respondents thought the main characteristics to define NNM were birth asphyxia needing therapeutic hypothermia (68.3%), unexpected resuscitation at birth (67.5%), need for intubation/chest compression/adrenaline (65.0%) and metabolic acidosis at birth (60.0%). There were 97.5% of participants who considered NNM important for identifying cases for perinatal morbidity audits. However, only 10.0% of their institutions used a NNM definition. Overall, 98.4% of participants considered perinatal mortality and morbidity audits important to prevent adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Neonatal near-miss audit is viewed as a valuable tool to reduce adverse neonatal outcomes. There was reasonable consensus that NNM encompassed evidence of birth asphyxia and/or advanced neonatal resuscitation. Data from this international survey identifies a starting point for a consensus definition of NNM, which can be used for perinatal audits to identify opportunities for improvement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it