Variation in management of in-hospital newborn falls: A single-center experience

17Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: There are only 3 small case series in the literature that report on the management of in-hospital newborn falls (NFs), and recommendations are unclear. The authors performed a retrospective review to determine outcome and differences in management and to understand why management of NFs varies at their institution. Methods: All NFs occurring within the authors' institution over a 3.5-year period were reviewed. Post-fall management and outcomes of each incident were compared. Results: There were 24 NFs out of 40,349 deliveries (5.9 NFs/10,000 deliveries). The mechanism of injury was nearly identical in 22 of 24 falls (the newborn fell to the floor from a parent in a bed or chair), and physical examination findings were normal or benign in all cases. Unexplained management variation based solely on clinician preference was noted, including observation only (in 13 cases), skull radiograph (in 7), head CT scan (in 6), bone survey (in 4), and head ultrasound examination (in 1), with some babies having more than 1 study. Two babies had nondepressed linear parietal fractures diagnosed by skull radiograph, and 2 babies had small subdural hemorrhages diagnosed by head CT scan. All 24 babies had normal findings on examination at discharge. Conclusions: There is a high incidence of nondepressed linear parietal skull fractures associated with NFs. However, since associated intracranial injury is uncommon, imaging studies may not be routinely performed. Neonatal intensive care unit admission, head CT, and neurosurgical evaluation are reserved for the rare baby with abnormal physical examination or neurological findings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kahn, D. J., Fisher, P. D., & Hertzler, D. A. (2017). Variation in management of in-hospital newborn falls: A single-center experience. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 20(2), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.3.PEDS16651

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free