Article Text
Abstract
Introduction Worldwide, neonatal jaundice accounts for considerable morbidity and mortality. Although severe adverse outcomes, such as hyperbilirubinaemia and kernicterus, are uncommon in high-income countries, these outcomes do occur, have enormous lifelong personal, health and social costs, and may be preventable. Evidence-based practice commonly relies on clinical guidelines; however, their implementation can be difficult. Implementation of neonatal jaundice care has been adversely affected by issues with professional boundaries, competing professional priorities and poor understanding of neonatal jaundice. This paper focuses on the perceptions and experiences of Australian health professionals involved in the management of neonatal jaundice.
Methods Using a qualitative descriptive approach, semistructured interviews were undertaken to gain understanding of the experiences of health professionals in Australia across the scope of care for jaundiced newborns through an interpretivist approach and to identify possible gaps in the delivery of evidence-based care. Health professionals from a range of disciplines and care settings were recruited by purposive maximum variation sampling. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone with detailed notes taken and a field journal maintained. Interview scripts were verified by participants and imported into NVivo software. Data were analysed for major themes according to type and contexts of practice.
Results Forty-one health professionals from six broad discipline areas were interviewed. Two major themes and explanatory subthemes were found. The first theme, falling through the gaps, highlighted gaps in evidence-based care, as described by four explanatory subthemes: professional boundaries, blindness to possibility of adverse outcomes, competing professional development priorities and unintended consequences.
The second major theme, we know what should happen—but how?, described participant perceptions that it was known what was required to improve care but how to achieve such changes was unclear. The two subthemes are: improvements in education and training, and standardised policies and protocols.
Conclusions Multiple barriers to the provision of evidence-based care related to neonatal jaundice management are experienced by health professionals in Australia. Clinical guidelines are not sufficient to support health professionals deliver evidence-based care in the complex contexts in which they work. Implementation strategies for evidence-based practice need to take account of the experiences of health professionals and the challenges they face. Such strategies need to focus on improving collaboration between different disciplines for the well-being of those needing care. In the case of neonatal jaundice management, consideration is also needed in how to raise awareness of the importance of avoiding severe adverse outcomes, even when they might be rare, and how this might be done. Addressing issues that lead to disjointed care or poor knowledge of neonatal jaundice among health professionals is essential.
- NEONATOLOGY
- Protocols & guidelines
- EDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Deidentified interview scripts are available upon reasonable request from a controlled access repository (Figshare: https://figshare.com/s/8cd109d0a2b49ac8071c). Reuse is permitted when there is a published protocol or detailed plan for analysis.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Deidentified interview scripts are available upon reasonable request from a controlled access repository (Figshare: https://figshare.com/s/8cd109d0a2b49ac8071c). Reuse is permitted when there is a published protocol or detailed plan for analysis.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors CT conceived the study design and collected all data. CT wrote the main manuscript text with support from DH. Both authors reviewed the manuscript. CT is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor.
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 None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.