Objective

There is a paucity of evidence to guide the clinical care of late preterm and term neonates born to women with perinatal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The objective of this case series is to describe early neonatal outcomes and inpatient management in U.S. hospitals.

Study design

We solicited cases of mother-infant dyads affected by novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from the Better Outcomes through Research for Newborns (BORN) Network members. Using a structured case template, participating sites contributed deidentified, retrospective birth hospitalization data for neonates ≥35 weeks of gestation at birth with mothers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before delivery. We describe demographic and clinical characteristics, clinical management, and neonatal outcomes.

Results

Sixteen U.S. hospitals contributed 70 cases. Birth hospitalizations were uncomplicated for 66 (94%) neonates in which 4 (6%) required admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. None required evaluation or treatment for infection, and all who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 were negative (n = 57). Half of the dyads were colocated (n = 34) and 40% directly breastfed (n = 28). Outpatient follow-up data were available for 13 neonates, all of whom remained asymptomatic.

Conclusion

In this multisite case series of 70 neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical outcomes were overall good, and there were no documented neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infections. Clinical management was largely inconsistent with contemporaneous U.S. COVID-19 guidelines for nursery care, suggesting concerns about the acceptability and feasibility of those recommendations. Longitudinal studies are urgently needed to assess the benefits and harms of current practices to inform evidence-based clinical care and aid shared decision-making.

Key points

· Birth hospitalizations were uncomplicated for late preterm and term infants with maternal COVID-19.. · Nursery management of dyads affected by COVID-19 varied between hospitals.. · Adherence to contemporaneous U.S. clinical guidelines for nursery care was low.. · Breastfeeding rates were lower for dyads roomed separately than those who were colocated..

Background and objectives

Guidelines encourage exclusive breastfeeding for healthy newborns but lack specificity regarding criteria for medically indicated supplementation, including type, timing, and best practices. We set out to describe practice patterns and provider perspectives regarding medically indicated supplementation of breastfeeding newborns across the United States.

Methods

From 2017 to 2018, we surveyed the Better Outcomes through Research for Newborns representative from each Better Outcomes through Research for Newborns hospital regarding practices related to medically indicated supplementation. We used descriptive statistics to compare practices between subgroups defined by breastfeeding prevalence and used qualitative methods and an inductive approach to describe provider opinions.

Results

Of 96 providers representing discrete hospitals eligible for the study, 71 participated (74% response rate). Practices related to criteria for supplementation and pumping and to type and caloric density of supplements varied widely between hospitals, especially for late preterm infants, whereas practices related to lactation consultant availability and hand expression education were more consistent. The most commonly reported criterion for initiating supplementation was weight loss of ≥10% from birth weight, and bottle-feeding was the most commonly reported method; however, practices varied widely. Donor milk use was reported at 20 (44%) hospitals with ≥81% breastfeeding initiation and 1 (4%) hospital with <80% breastfeeding initiation (P = .001).

Conclusions

Strategies related to supplementation vary among US hospitals. Donor milk availability is concentrated in hospitals with the highest prevalence of breastfeeding. Implementation of evidence-based management of supplementation among US hospitals has the potential to improve the care of term and late preterm newborns.

Objective

To assess the status of pulse oximetry screening and barriers to implementing screening programs.

Methods

This was a prospective pre-post intervention survey of nurse managers and medical directors of hospital-based birthing centers in Oregon, Idaho, and Southern Washington. The intervention was a 7-minute video demonstrating and discussing pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease.

Results

Analysis of matched pairs showed a significant increase in the use of pulse oximetry screening during the study period from 52% to 73% (P < .0001). Following implementation of the video, the perception of all queried potential barriers decreased significantly among individuals from hospitals self-identified as nonscreening at baseline. Viewing the educational video was associated with an increase in the percentage of individuals from nonscreening hospitals that rated screening as "very beneficial" (45% vs 90%, P = .0001).

Conclusions

An educational video was associated with improved opinions of pulse oximetry screening among hospitals not currently screening.

Objective: Due to the inconclusive evidence supporting the traditional recommendation to avoid early pacifier use among breastfeeding newborns, this study aims to understand what information mothers are receiving from hospital based care providers and their perspectives about pacifier use in the newborn period. Methods: Interviews with mothers of healthy, term newborns during the postpartum hospitalization were conducted in this qualitative study. Results: Qualitative data analysis yielded several major themes that included the following: (1) pacifiers are beneficial for the maternal/infant experience, (2) concerns that pacifiers may interfere with breastfeeding, and (3) concerns about long-term use (including reliance and effect on teeth). Conclusion: Given the maternal perception of benefit and the paucity of high-quality evidence showing harm, further research on the effects of early pacifier use is needed.

Background

Prior research suggests that physicians' personal experience with breastfeeding may influence their attitudes toward breastfeeding. This phenomenon has not been explored in well-newborn care physician leaders, whose administrative responsibilities often include drafting and approval of hospital breastfeeding and formula supplementation policies.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study, surveying physicians in the Better Outcomes through Research for Newborns (BORN) network. We examined physician attitudes toward recommending breastfeeding and their breastfeeding experience. Qualitative analysis was conducted on responses to the question: "How do you think your breastfeeding experience influences your clinical practice?"

Results

Of 71 participants, most (92%) had a very positive attitude toward breastfeeding with 75% of respondents reporting personal experience with breastfeeding. Of these, 68% had a very positive experience, 25% had a somewhat positive experience, and 6% had a neutral experience. Four themes emerged with respect to the effect of breastfeeding experience on practice: (1) empathy with breastfeeding struggles, (2) increased knowledge and skills, (3) passion for breastfeeding benefits, and (4) application of personal experience in lieu of evidence-based medicine, particularly among those who struggled with breastfeeding.

Conclusions

Well-newborn care physician leaders reported positive attitudes about breastfeeding, increased support toward breastfeeding persons, and a perception of improved clinical lactation skills. Those who struggled with breastfeeding reported increased comfort with recommending formula supplementation to their own patients. Medical education about evidence-based breastfeeding support practices and provision of lactation support to physicians has the potential to affect public health through improved care for the patients they serve.