| Summary: | Objectives To determine whether a panel of neonatal experts could address evidence gaps in local and international neonatal guidelines by reaching a consensus on four clinical decision algorithms for a neonatal digital platform (NeoTree).Design Two-round, modified Delphi technique.Setting and participants Participants were neonatal experts from high-income and low-income countries (LICs).Methods This was a consensus-generating study. In round 1, experts rated items for four clinical algorithms (neonatal sepsis, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, respiratory distress of the newborn, hypothermia) and justified their responses. Items meeting consensus for inclusion (≥80% agreement) were incorporated into the algorithms. Items not meeting consensus were either excluded, included following revisions or included if they contained core elements of evidence-based guidelines. In round 2, experts rated items from round 1 that did not reach consensus.Results Fourteen experts participated in round 1, 10 in round 2. Nine were from high-income countries, five from LICs. Experts included physicians and nurse practitioners with an average neonatal experience of 20 years, 12 in LICs. After two rounds, a consensus was reached on 43 of 84 items (52%). Per experts’ recommendations, items in line with local and WHO guidelines yet not meeting consensus were still included to encourage consistency for front-line healthcare workers. As a result, the final algorithms included 53 items (62%).Conclusion Four algorithms in a neonatal digital platform were reviewed and refined by consensus expert opinion. Revisions to NeoTree will be made in response to these findings. Next steps include clinical validation of the algorithms.
|
|---|
