Author
Abstract
Objectives: To study the scalability of the rural hospital (RH) model of basic newborn care in a general hospital (GH) by including very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, and to assess the implementation aspects. Study design: Observational Settings: RH (1988-1992) and General Hospital, (GH) (2010-2013). Subjects: VLBW infants with birth weight ranging from 1000 g to 1500 g. Interventions: (1) RH: Basic care including warmth, feeding, antibiotics, and oxygen (2) GH: Basic plus circulatory care (2010-12), and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support (2013). Mechanical ventilation and surfactant therapy were not available. Main outcome measure: Mortality Results: The cumulative mortality (38.5%) with basic neonatal care in the RH model declined to 26.6% at the GH with the addition of circulatory support and a “home-made” CPAP system. Conclusions: The RH package may be scaled up by adding CPAP and circulatory support to reduce the mortality among VLBW infants. The RH model is scalable horizontally and vertically. What is already known about this subject? Implementation research constitutes a relatively new and underdeveloped field, One of the facets of health system research is the implementation research. Implementation research aims at bridging the gaps between knowledge and action. What does this study add? Tertiary care center can help in developing basic newborn care at a rural hospital. The rural hospital model can be upscaled vertically as well as horizontally. Addition of circulatory support and CPAP to basic newborn care can significantly lower neonatal mortality. How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future? The study may encourage tertiary care centers to facilitate the development of basic newborn care centers at the rural hospitals. These centers, in turn, can spread horizontally.
Suggested Citation
Subhashchandra Daga, 2021.
"Scalability of the Basic Care Model for Very Low Birth Weight Infants and Implementation Research Considerations,"
European Journal of Clinical Medicine, European Open Science, vol. 2(6), pages 41-44, November.
Handle:
RePEc:epw:clinic:v:2:y:2021:i:6:id:12150
DOI: 10.24018/clinicmed.2021.2.6.150
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:clinic:v:2:y:2021:i:6:id:12150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/clinicmed .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.