PDF icon Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(14): 1521-1528
DOI: 10.1055/a-1656-6363
Original Article

Provider Perspectives on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Teleneonatology

Jennifer L. Fang
1   Division of Neonatal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota
,
Rachel Umoren
2   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington & Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
,
Hilary Whyte
3   Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Jamie Limjoco
4   Division of Neonatology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Abhishek Makkar
5   University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Rosanna Yankanah
3   Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Mike McCoy
5   University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Mark D. Lo
6   Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington & Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
,
Christopher E. Colby
1   Division of Neonatal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota
,
Jeph Herrin
7   Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Robert M. Jacobson
8   Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
,
Bart M. Demaerschalk
9   Department of Neurology and Center for Connected Care, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Scottsdale, Arizona
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available ateRefHebammen
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals.

Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models.

Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries.

Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable.

Key Points

  • Neonatal care providers perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible.

  • Perceptions of teleneonatology do not differ based on professional role or years of experience.

  • Perceptions of teleneonatology are especially high in smaller hospitals with well newborn nurseries.

Keywords

implementation science - telemedicine - newborn - feasibility - teleneonatology

Authors' Contributions

J.L.F. conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. R.U. collected data, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. H.W, J.L., A.M., M.D.L., R.Y., and M.M. collected data and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. J.H. conceptualized and designed the study, performed the analyses, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. C.E.C. conceptualized the study and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. R.M.J. conceptualized and designed the study and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. B.M.D. conceptualized and designed the study, supervised data collection, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 05 May 2021

Accepted: 26 September 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
28 September 2021

Article published online:
23 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA