Severe neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, defined as total serum bilirubin (TSB) ≥20 mg/dl, is associated with a higher risk of permanent neurological sequelae and death. Jaundice can and should be promptly diagnosed and treated. Reliable methods for TSB assay are not always readily available, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, making the true incidence of severe neonatal jaundice (NNJ) difficult to estimate. To gather a more comprehensive picture, a symposium addressing NNJ worldwide was organized during the 2015 Don Ostrow Trieste Yellow Retreat. Data collected by several researchers in different regions of the world were presented and differences/similarities discussed. This report points out the need for: (1) a coordinated worldwide effort to define the burden and the causes of severe NNJ and its consequences; (2) aggressive educational programs for families and health personnel to facilitate timely care-seeking, and (3) accurate diagnostics and effective phototherapy.

Relatively little is known about the quality of care provided across modern health systems. Knowledge of care quality is limited to targeted studies in some countries^1,2; small numbers of, or single, conditions³; or particular settings.⁴ Previous population-level studies of adults in the United States¹ and Australia² estimated a prevalence of adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of 55% and 57%, respectively. In child health, a large US study of multiple conditions in children remains the benchmark.⁵ That study, published a decade ago, examined ambulatory care delivered between 1998 and 2000 for 11 conditions in 12 metropolitan settings, and estimated adherence of 47%.

Background: The adoption of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in cancer care has been widely advocated, but little is known about the evidence for the implementation of PROMs in practice. Qualitative research captures the perspectives of health professionals as end-users of PROMs and can be used to inform adoption efforts. This paper presents a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research conducted to address the question: What are the attitudes of health professionals towards PROMs in oncology, including any barriers and facilitators to the adoption of PROMS, reported in qualitative evidence? Methods: Systematic searches of qualitative evidence were undertaken in four databases and reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies published in English between 1998 and 2018, which reported qualitative findings about the attitudes of health professionals working in oncology towards PROMs were eligible. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme’s Qualitative Research Checklist. A sentiment analysis was conducted on primary text to examine the polarity (neutral, positive or negative) of health professionals’ views of PROMs. Qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted using a constant comparative analysis. Results: From 1227 articles after duplicates were removed, with 1014 excluded against the screening criteria, 213 full text articles remained and were assessed; 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The majority of studies were of good quality. Sentiment analysis on primary text demonstrated an overall positive polarity from the expressed opinions of health professionals. The meta-synthesis showed health professionals’ attitudes in four domains: identifying patient issues and needs using PROMs; managing and addressing patient issues; the care experience; and the integration of PROMs into clinical practice. Conclusions: From the accounts of health professionals, the fit of PROMs with existing practice, how PROMs are valued, capacity to respond to PROMs and the supports in place, formed the key factors which may impede or promote adoption of PROMs in routine practice. To assist policy-makers and services involved in implementing these initiatives, further evidence is required about the relationship between PROMs data collection and corresponding clinical actions. Trial registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019119447, 6th March, 2019.

Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) synthesize the best available evidence to guide clinician and patient decision making. There are a multitude of barriers and facilitators to clinicians adhering to CPGs; however, little is known about active cancer treatment CPG adherence specifically. This systematic review sought to identify clinician attitudes, and perceived barriers and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken of five databases; Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PROQUEST. The retrieved abstracts were screened for eligibility against inclusion criteria, and a full text review was conducted of all eligible studies. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was conducted of all included studies. The qualitative papers were thematically analyzed. Attitudes, barriers, and facilitating factors extracted from the quantitative papers were categorized within the qualitative thematic framework. Results: The search resulted in the identification of 9676 titles. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 15 studies were included. Four themes were identified which related to negative clinician attitudes and barriers to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (1) concern over CPG content and currency of CPGs; (2) concern about the evidence underpinning CPGs; (3) clinician uncertainty and negative perceptions of CPGs; and (4) organizational and patient factors. The review also identified four themes related to positive attitudes and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (5) CPG accessibility and ease of use; (6) endorsement and dissemination of CPGs and adequate access to treatment facilities and resources; (7) awareness of CPGs and belief in their relevance; and (8) belief that CPGs support decision making, improve patient care, reduce clinical variation, and reduce costs. Conclusion: These results highlight that adherence to active cancer treatment CPG recommendations by oncology clinicians is influenced by multiple factors such as attitudes, practices, and access to resources. The review has also revealed many similarities and differences in the factors associated with general CPG, and active cancer treatment CPG, adherence. These findings will inform tailored implementation strategies to increase adherence to cancer treatment CPGs. Trial registration: PROSPERO (2019) CRD42019125748.

Nasal high-flow therapy is an alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as a means of respiratory support for newborn infants. The efficacy of high-flow therapy in nontertiary special care nurseries is unknown.

OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to determine whether continuous positive airway pressure therapy would safely reduce the need for up-transfer of infants with respiratory distress from nontertiary centers.METHODS. We randomly assigned 300 infants at >30 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress to receive either Hudson prong bubble continuous positive airway pressure therapy or headbox oxygen treatment (standard care). The primary end point was “up-transfer or treatment failure.” Secondary end points included death, length of nursery stay, time receiving oxygen therapy, cost of care, and other measures of morbidity.RESULTS. Of 151 infants who received continuous positive airway pressure therapy, 35 either were up-transferred or experienced treatment failure, as did 60 of the 149 infants given headbox oxygen treatment. There was no difference in the length of stay or the duration of oxygen treatment. For every 6 infants treated with continuous positive airway pressure therapy, there was an estimated cost saving of $10000. Pneumothorax was identified for 14 infants in the continuous positive airway pressure group and 5 in the headbox group. There was no difference in any other measure of morbidity or death.CONCLUSIONS. Hudson prong bubble continuous positive airway pressure therapy reduces the need for up-transfer of infants with respiratory distress in nontertiary centers. There is a clinically relevant but not statistically significant increase in the risk of pneumothorax. There are significant benefits associated with continuous positive airway pressure use in larger nontertiary centers.