Strengths and weaknesses in the high-risk baby care network.
Daniela Cardilli-Dias, Maristela Stoianov, Thaís Helena Ferreira Santos and 1 others
PMID 36946250WHAT IT FOUND
Families and professionals disagreed about Brazil's high-risk baby care network: most families found it functional and good quality, while a minority of professionals did.
Referral routes and team awareness also differed.
Key findings
0181.8% of user-group subjects said the care network was functional and 81.8% said it was of quality, while 20% of professional-group subjects said it was functional and 30% said it was of quality.
0255.6% of user-group subjects reported referral to high-risk prenatal care by the nursing team, while professional-group subjects reported 10% by the nursing team, 40% shared nurse/doctor and 50% by medical professionals only.
0377.3% of professional-group subjects did not know the duration of specialty outpatient care, and 88.9% did not know whether there was another absence.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 22 families and 10 professionals from two Basic Health Units, so it cannot represent all high-risk baby networks. All participants were women, and the user and professional groups differed strongly in age, education and socioeconomic class, which may have shaped their answers. The questionnaire was adapted by the researchers from an existing primary care tool, so the responses may not match a standard measure. Many responses were 'did not know', especially from professionals, so the results reflect recall and perception rather than verified records. The authors state the sample size was small and subjects were hard to identify, and that participants may have seen the questionnaire as an evaluation of their work. Because it was cross-sectional, it cannot show whether the network improved infant health outcomes.
Declared interests
The authors report support from CAPES with financing code 001. No other funding or conflict-of-interest declaration is given.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that the Stork Network improves infant outcomes. It compared 22 user-group subjects and 10 professional-group subjects' perceptions of care flow, not birth or health results.