You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Healthcare professionals’ views to inform revision of the BAPM newborn early warning trigger and track system
  1. Shalini Ojha1,2,
  2. Kathryn MacAllister3,
  3. Sara Abdula4,
  4. John Madar5,
  5. Oliver Rackham6,
  6. Wendy Tyler7
  1. 1 Academic Unit of Population and Life Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2 Neonatal Unit, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
  3. 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
  4. 4 Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK
  5. 5 Neonatal Unit, Plymouth, UK
  6. 6 Neonatal Unit, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, UK
  7. 7 Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Shalini Ojha, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; shalini.ojha{at}nottingham.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-323160

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Early identification of impending deterioration could prevent irreversible damage and save life of vulnerable newborn infants.1 Inspired by the popular implementation of early warning scores (EWS) and trigger and track charts in other areas, similar tools were designed for newborn infants. In 2015, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) published a framework for practice: the BAPM Newborn Early Warning Trigger and Track (NEWTT) chart. This framework is being revised.

    A review of EWS in neonates found four tools, all based on limited evidence and none adequately validated.2 For many clinical questions, published evidence is limited, too indirect or non-existent.3 While opinions are the lowest quality of evidence, where there is little or no systematic empirical evidence, opinions may be helpful in guiding recommendations.4 To inform the review of the BAPM NEWTT guidance, we conducted an online survey of healthcare professionals …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @shaliniojha7, @OliverRackham

    • Contributors SO created the survey questionnaire, participated in the concept and design, performed the analysis and interpretation of the data and drafted the manuscript. KM, SA, RJM, OR and WT participated in the concept and design, interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. All authors approve the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests The authors are all members of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine Working Group for revision the Newborn Early Warning Score.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.