Title |
A quality improvement initiative for delayed umbilical cord clamping in very low-birthweight infants
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, September 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12887-016-0692-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jeff Bolstridge, Tracy Bell, Barbara Dean, Amy Mackley, Gina Moore, Cheryl Swift, Dina Viscount, David A. Paul, Stephen A. Pearlman |
Abstract |
Due to clinical benefits, delayed cord clamping (DCC) is recommended in infants born before 37 weeks gestational age. The objective was to institute a delayed cord clamping program and to evaluate clinical outcomes one year after initiation. This study occured at Christiana Care Health System, a tertiary care facility with a 52 bed level 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). A multidisciplinary team created a departmental policy, a DCC protocol and educational programs to support the development of a DCC program. A year after initiation of DCC, we evaluated two cohorts of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants (<1500 g) prior to (Cohort 1) and after initiation (Cohort 2) of DCC (n = 136 and n = 142 respectively). Chart review was conducted to evaluate demographic data and clinical outcomes. Analysis was completed with a retrospective, cohort analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. There were no differences in demographic factors between the two cohorts. We demonstrated a 73 % compliance rate with the delayed cord clamping protocol and a decrease in the percentage of VLBW infants requiring red blood cell transfusion from 53.7 to 35.9 % (p = 0.003). We also found a decreased need for respiratory support in the second cohort with no increases in the balancing measures of admission hypothermia and jaundice requiring phototherapy. During the Control Phase ongoing monitoring and education has led to a 93.7 % compliance rate. A multidisciplinary team including key leadership from the obstetric and pediatric departments allowed for the rapid and safe implementation of DCC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
Researcher | 11 | 14% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
Other | 6 | 8% |
Other | 13 | 16% |
Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 34% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 20% |
Psychology | 3 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 25 | 32% |