You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Current practice of neonatal resuscitation documentation in North America: a multi-center retrospective chart review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12887-015-0503-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew S. Braga, Prakash Kabbur, Pradeep Alur, Michael H. Goodstein, Kari D. Roberts, Katie Satrom, Sandesh Shivananda, Ipsita Goswami, Mariann Pappagallo, Carrie-Ellen Briere, Gautham Suresh |
| Abstract |
To determine the comprehensiveness of neonatal resuscitation documentation and to determine the association of various patient, provider and institutional factors with completeness of neonatal documentation. Multi-center retrospective chart review of a sequential sample of very low birth weight infants born in 2013. The description of resuscitation in each infant's record was evaluated for the presence of 29 Resuscitation Data Items and assigned a Number of items documented per record. Covariates associated with this Assessment were identified. Charts of 263 infants were reviewed. The mean gestational age was 28.4 weeks, and the mean birth weight 1050 g. Of the infants, 69 % were singletons, and 74 % were delivered by Cesarean section. A mean of 13.2 (SD 3.5) of the 29 Resuscitation Data Items were registered for each birth. Items most frequently present were; review of obstetric history (98 %), Apgar scores (96 %), oxygen use (77 %), suctioning (71 %), and stimulation (62 %). In our model adjusted for measured covariates, the institution was significantly associated with documentation. Neonatal resuscitation documentation is not standardized and has significant variation. Variation in documentation was mostly dependent on institutional factors, not infant or provider characteristics. Understanding this variation may lead to efforts to standardize documentation of neonatal resuscitation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 20% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |