Developing New, Affordable Equipment for Use in Large-Scale Neonatal Care

Mihaela Visoiu^*
*Correspondence: Mihaela Visoiu, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Email:

Introduction

Biomedical technologies are needed to take care of sick and small newborns, such as devices that can keep babies warm (radiant warmers and incubators), resuscitate them (self-inflating bags), track their growth (weighing scales), treat jaundice (phototherapy units) and give them oxygen or respiratory support (hoods, CPAP devices and ventilators). Prior to the 1990s, the majority of these goods were imported, which came at a high cost and required little upkeep. In India, high-quality, low-cost equipment for a variety of high-volume categories has been produced in response to rising demand and informal collaboration among neonatologists, engineers and businesspeople. Brilliant warmers, revival sacks, phototherapy units, weighing scales and different gadgets made by Indian limited scope organizations have empowered a development of neonatal consideration in the nation, especially in region emergency clinics, clinical school clinics and subdistrict offices in the public area as a piece of the Public Provincial Wellbeing Mission. Indian goods are exported to developed nations and have achieved international quality standards. This story of entrepreneurship and innovation in neonatal care is told in this paper.

Description

Although the justification for growth promotion and monitoring is convincing, growth monitoring programs' appropriateness was questioned even in the 1980s. Low participation rates, poor performance by health workers and deficiencies in the infrastructure of the health system that hampered efficient growth-promoting action were the primary sources of concern. In recent times, there has been a push for a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of large-scale growth monitoring and promotion programs in order to ascertain whether or not the expenditures are justified. The new growth standard and charts released by the World Health Organization have served as a timely reminder of this debate. This review has been carried out within this setting: The primary objective is to examine the evidence that growth monitoring programs are successful in providing children with growth charts with measurable benefits. Improved nutritional status, increased utilization of health services and decreases in mortality are the benefits that are taken into consideration here [1].

Small-scale studies conducted in Nigeria, Jamaica, India (Narangwal and Jamkhed) and large-scale programs conducted in Tanzania (Iringa), India (Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Project), Madagascar and Senegal show that children whose mothers receive nutrition and health education and have access to basic child health services have better nutritional status and/or survival rates than children whose growth is not monitored. Participation in growth monitoring confers a significant benefit on nutritional status, independent of immunization and socioeconomic status, according to preliminary evidence from a largescale Brazilian program called Ceara [2]. There is proof from India (Coordinated Youngster Improvement Administrations) and Bangladesh (Bangladesh Provincial Progression Board and Bangladesh Incorporated Sustenance Undertaking) that development checking meaningfully affects dietary status in large‐scale programs with frail nourishment guiding. In a randomized trial from Tamil Nadu, there is evidence that the visual representation of growth on a chart has no additional benefit when mothers are visited at home every two weeks and receive unhurried counseling. There is some evidence to suggest that growth monitoring can increase health service utilization [3].

During contract development, the neonatal units' current equipment status was evaluated because it is necessary to account for the costs of purchasing, maintaining and updating equipment. As part of a one-year prospective survey of the 17 perinatal units in the Trent region, data were gathered. Ampleness of arrangement of gear for perceived concentrated care cost was evaluated utilizing the suggestions of the English Pediatric Affiliation and English Relationship of Perinatal Pediatrics. In the short term, it was assumed that units without recognized intensive care costs needed to be able to equip one cot to a level 1 intensive care standard. It was thought that equipment that was more than five years old would probably need to be replaced or given major maintenance within the next two years. In accordance with these guidelines, it would be necessary to spend more than 600,000 pounds in order to acquire sufficient equipment to cover all recognized costs associated with level 1 intensive care, enable units that are not funded to provide this level of care in the near future and replace outdated equipment for these costs alone. By dividing the cost of intensive care into levels 1 and 2, equipment costs could be cut by 25% [4]. However, this would make it harder for the units to provide level 1 care at funded provision, which has already been shown to need expansion. Equipment requirements for infants requiring specialized care are not taken into account in either figure. In addition, neither ultrasound scanners nor blood gas analyzers have been purchased or upgraded. Clinicians must revise guidelines regarding essential equipment if the government's proposed reforms are to be implemented and plans must be made to rectify any deficiencies so that they do not become inherited financial liabilities for future budget holders [5].

Conclusion

While many of the most recent and comprehensive plans for large-scale casualties involving adults can be directly applied to surge capacity plans for critically ill children and infants, comprehensive planning also requires collaboration between healthcare systems and regions in order to meet the unique and essential equipment and supply requirements of pediatric patients.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Lazzerini, Marzia, Michela Sonego and Maria Chiara Pellegrin. "Hypoxaemia as a mortality risk factor in acute lower respiratory infections in children in low and middle-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis." PloS One 10 (2015): e0136166.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Duke, Trevor, Francis Wandi, Merilyn Jonathan and Sens Matai, et al. "Improved oxygen systems for childhood pneumonia: A multihospital effectiveness study in Papua New Guinea." Lancet 372 (2008): 1328-1333.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Graham, Hamish, Ayobami A. Bakare, Adejumoke I. Ayede and Oladapo B. Oyewole, et al. "Hypoxaemia in hospitalised children and neonates: A prospective cohort study in Nigerian secondary-level hospitals." E Clinic Med 16 (2019): 51-63.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Duke, T., A.J. Blaschke, S. Sialis and J. L. Bonkowsky, et al. "Hypoxaemia in acute respiratory and non-respiratory illnesses in neonates and children in a developing country." Arch Dis Childh 86 (2002): 108-112.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Graham, Stephen M., Edward I. Mtitimila, Henry S. Kamanga and Amanda L. Walsh, et al. "Clinical presentation and outcome of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in Malawian children." Lancet 355 (2000): 369-373.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at