Search

Introduction: Digital data systems have the potential to improve data quality and provide individual-level information to understand gaps in the quality of care. This study explored experiences and perceptions of a perinatal eRegistry in two hospitals in Mtwara region, Tanzania. Drawing from realist evaluation and systems thinking, we go beyond a descriptive account of stakeholders' experiences and provide insight into key structural drivers and underlying social paradigms., Methods: We carried out 6 weeks of focused ethnographic observations at the labour wards of the two hospitals and 29 semi-structured qualitative interviews with labour ward staff, as well as with administrative and managerial stakeholders at hospital, district and regional levels. Multi-stage reflexive thematic data analysis was carried out., Results: We provide an in-depth account of the day-to-day functioning of the eRegistry in the two hospitals, including both aspects of positive change and key challenges with its integration into routine documentation duties. Experiences with and perceptions of the eRegistry were inextricably linked to broader systemic constraints relating to staffing, workload and infrastructure. A key underlying theme shaping the way people engaged with the eRegistry was the notion of data ownership: the presence or absence of a feeling of being responsible, involved and in control of data., Conclusion: Some of the key systemic challenges in recording accurate, timely information about women and their babies are not solved by digital tools. Our findings also underline that when healthcare workers feel that data are not primarily for them, they document only for reporting purposes. The eRegistry increased a sense of data ownership among the nurse-midwives directly involved with data entry, but the potential for promoting and supporting data use feedback loops for improvement in care provision remained largely untapped. Our findings highlight the importance of local relevance and ownership in digitisation of routine health information systems., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We aimed to assess risk factors for neonatal mortality, quality of neonatal resuscitation (NR) on videos and identify potential areas for improvement., Methods: This prospective cohort study included women in childbirth and their newborns at four district hospitals in Pemba, Tanzania. Videos were analysed for quality-of-care. Questionnaires on quality-of-care indicators were answered by health workers (HW) and women. Risk factors for neonatal mortality were analysed in a binomial logistic regression model., Results: 1440 newborns were enrolled. 34 newborns died within the neonatal period (23.6 per 1000 live births). Ninety neonatal resuscitations were performed, 20 cases on video. Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) was inadequate in 15 cases (75%). Half (10/20) did not have PPV initiated within the first minute, and in one case (5.0%), no PPV was performed. PPV was not sustained in 16/20 (80%) newborns. Of the 20 videos analysed, death occurred in 10 newborns: 8 after resuscitation attempts and two within the first 24 h. Most of HW 49/56 (87.5%) had received training in NR., Conclusions: Video analysis of NR revealed significant deviations from guidelines despite 87.5% of HW being trained in NR. Videos provided direct evidence of gaps in the quality of care and areas for future education, particularly effective PPV., Impact: Neonatal mortality in Pemba is 23.6 per 1000 livebirths, with more than 90% occurring in the first 24 h of life. Video assessment of neonatal resuscitation revealed deviations from guidelines and can add to understanding challenges and aid intervention design. The present study using video assessment of neonatal resuscitation is the first one performed at secondary-level hospitals where many of the world's births are conducted. Almost 90% of the health workers had received training in neonatal resuscitation, and the paper can aid intervention design by understanding the actual challenges in neonatal resuscitation., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: More than 2 million third-trimester stillbirths occur yearly, most of them in low- and middle-income countries. Data on stillbirths in these countries are rarely collected systematically. This study investigated the stillbirth rate and risk factors associated with stillbirth in four district hospitals in Pemba Island, Tanzania., Methods: A prospective cohort study was completed between the 13th of September and the 29th of November 2019. All singleton births were eligible for inclusion. Events and history during pregnancy and indicators for adherence to guidelines were analysed in a logistic regression model that identified odds ratios [OR] with a 95% confidence interval [95% CI]., Results: A stillbirth rate of 22 per 1000 total births in the cohort was identified; 35.5% were intrapartum stillbirths (total number of stillbirths in the cohort, n = 31). Risk factors for stillbirth were breech or cephalic malpresentation (OR 17.67, CI 7.5-41.64), decreased or no foetal movements (OR 2.6, CI 1.13-5.98), caesarean section [CS] (OR 5.19, CI 2.32-11.62), previous CS (OR 2.63, CI 1.05-6.59), preeclampsia (OR 21.54, CI 5.28-87.8), premature rupture of membranes or rupture of membranes 18 h before birth (OR 2.5, CI 1.06-5.94) and meconium stained amniotic fluid (OR 12.03, CI 5.23-27.67). Blood pressure was not routinely measured, and 25% of women with stillbirths with no registered foetal heart rate [FHR] at admission underwent CS., Conclusions: The stillbirth rate in this cohort was 22 per 1000 total births and did not fulfil the Every Newborn Action Plan's goal of 12 stillbirths per 1000 total births in 2030. Awareness of risk factors associated with stillbirth, preventive interventions and improved adherence to clinical guidelines during labour, and hence improved quality of care, are needed to decrease the stillbirth rate in resource-limited settings., (© 2023. The Author(s).)