Five-minute Apgar score and risk of neonatal mortality, severe neurological morbidity and severe non-neurological morbidity in term infants - an Australian population-based cohort study.

Background: The aim of this study was to ascertain risks of neonatal mortality, severe neurological morbidity and severe non-neurological morbidity related to the 5-min Apgar score in early term (37+0-38+6 weeks), full term (39+0-40+6 weeks), late term (41+0-41+6 weeks), and post term (≥42+0 weeks) infants. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 941,221 term singleton births between 2000 and 2018 in Queensland, Australia. Apgar scores at 5-min were categorized into five groups: Apgar 0 or 1, 2 or 3, 4-6, 7 or 8 and 9 or 10. Gestational age was stratified into 4 groups: Early term, full term, late term and post term. Three specific neonatal study outcomes were considered: 1) Neonatal mortality 2) Severe neurological morbidity and 3) Severe non-neurological morbidity. Poisson multivariable regression models were used to determine relative risk ratios for the effect of gestational age and Apgar scores on these severe neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that a low Apgar score of <4 was significantly associated with increased risks of neonatal mortality, severe neurological morbidity and severe non-neurological morbidity. Findings: Of the study cohort, 0.04% (345/941,221) were neonatal deaths, 0.70% (6627/941,221) were infants with severe neurological morbidity and 4.3% (40,693/941,221) had severe non-neurological morbidity. Infants with Apgar score <4 were more likely to birth at late term and post term gestations and have birthweights <3rd and <10th percentiles. The adjusted relative risk ratios (aRRR) for neonatal mortality and severe neurological morbidity were highest in the Apgar 0 or 1 cohort. For infants in the Apgar 0 or 1 group, neonatal mortality increased incrementally with advancing term gestation: early term (aRRR 860.16, 95% CI 560.96, 1318.94, p < 0.001); full term (aRRR 1835.77, 95% CI 1279.48, 2633.91, p < 0.001); late term (aRRR 1693.61, 95% CI 859.65, 3336.6, p < 0.001) and post term (aRRR 2231.59, 95% CI 272.23, 18293.07, p < 0.001) whilst severe neurological morbidity decreased as gestation progressed: early term (aRRR 158.48, 95% CI 118.74, 211.51, p < 0.001); full term (aRRR 112.99, 95% CI 90.56, 140.98, p < 0.001); late term (aRRR 87.94, 95% CI 67.09, 115.27, p < 0.001) and post term (aRRR 52.07, 95% CI 15.17, 178.70, p < 0.001). Severe non-neurological morbidity was greatest in the full term, Apgar 2-3 cohort (aRRR 7.36, 95% CI 6.2, 8.74, p < 0.001). Interpretation: A 5-min Apgar score of <4 was prognostic of neonatal mortality, severe neurological morbidity, and severe non-neurological morbidity in infants born >37 weeks' gestation with the risk greatest in the early term cohort. Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council and Mater Foundation.

A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine taper duration among opioid-dependent adolescents and young adults.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few randomized controlled trials have evaluated buprenorphine treatment interventions for opioid-dependent youth. Consequently, optimal administration strategies for this cohort are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the relative efficacy of two different buprenorphine taper lengths in promoting abstinence from illicit opioids and treatment retention among opioid-dependent youth. DESIGN: A double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two hospital-based research clinics (Manhattan and Brooklyn) in New York City, USA from 2005 to 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of 53 primarily Caucasian participants between the ages of 16 and 24 (n = 11 under age 18) who met DSM-IV opioid dependence criteria. INTERVENTION: Participants were assigned randomly to either a 28-day buprenorphine taper (n = 28) or 56-day buprenorphine taper (n = 25) via a parallel-groups design during a 63-day period. Both groups received behavioral counseling and opioid abstinence incentives. Both taper conditions had a minimum of 1 week of placebo dosing at the end of the taper. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was opioid abstinence measured as a percentage of scheduled urine toxicology tests documented to be negative for opioids. The secondary outcome was treatment retention, measured as number of days attended scheduled visits. FINDINGS: Intent-to-treat analyses revealed that participants who received a 56-day buprenorphine taper had a significantly higher percentage of opioid-negative scheduled urine tests compared with participants who received a 28-day buprenorphine taper [35 versus 17%, P = 0.039; Cohen's d = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02, 1.13]. Participants who received a 56-day buprenorphine taper were retained in treatment significantly longer than participants who received a 28-day buprenorphine taper (37.5 versus 26.4 days, P = 0.027; Cohen's d = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.06, 1.19). Daily attendance requirement was associated with decreased abstinence and shorter retention compared with a two to three times weekly attendance requirement, independent of taper duration. Follow-up data were insufficient to report. CONCLUSION: Longer (56-day) buprenorphine taper produces better opioid abstinence and retention outcomes than shorter (28-day) buprenorphine taper for opioid-dependent youth.

Nursing praxis, compassionate caring and interpersonal relations: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Initiative Nurse (CIN) is a role that requires experienced emergency nurses to assess, initiate diagnostic tests, treat and manage a range of patient conditions. The CIN role is focused on the waiting room and to 'communicate the wait', initiate diagnostics or treatment and follow-up for waiting room patients. We aim to explore what emergency nurses' do in their extended practice role in observable everyday life in the emergency department (ED). The paper argues that compassionate caring is a core nursing skill that supports CIN interpersonal relations, despite the role's highly clinical nature. METHOD: Sixteen non-participant observations were undertaken in three EDs in New South Wales, Australia. Nurses were eligible for inclusion if they had two years of emergency experience and had worked in the CIN role for more than one year. All CIN's that were observed were highly experienced with a minimum three year ED experience. RESULTS: The CIN observations revealed how compassionate caring was utilised by CIN's to quickly build a therapeutic relationship with patients and colleagues, and helped to facilitate core communication and interpersonal skills. While the CIN role was viewed as extended practice, the role relied heavily on compassionate care to support interpersonal relationships and to actualise extended practice care. CONCLUSION: The study supports the contribution made by emergency nurses and demonstrates how compassionate caring is central to nursing praxis. This paper also demonstrates that the CIN role utilises a complex mix between advanced clinical skills and compassion that supports interpersonal and therapeutic relationships. Further research is needed to understand how compassionate care can be optimised within nursing praxis and the duty of care between nurses and patients, nurses and other health care professionals so that future healthcare goals can be realised.

Managing the wait: clinical initiative nurses' perceptions of an extended practice role.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Initiative Nurse (CIN) is a role that requires experienced emergency nurses to assess, initiate diagnostic tests and treat and manage a range of patient conditions. In 2010, the New South Wales Ministry of Health redefined the focus of the CIN role to be on waiting room patients. The new CIN role was now focused on the waiting room and to 'communicate the wait', initiate diagnostics and or treatment and follow-up for waiting room patients. While new models of care are often introduced the perceptions of those undertaking the roles are often absent from evaluation. We aimed to explore emergency nurses' perceptions of the extended practice role known as the Clinical Initiative Nurse. METHOD: This was a multicentre study and formed part of a larger qualitative exploratory study of the CIN role. RESULTS: Thirty-six interviews were conducted across the three sites. There was no statistical difference between groups for hospital site, ED experience or Clinical Nurse Specialist grade. Three main themes were identified from the data and included (i) managing the waiting room patient; (ii) benefits of being the CIN; and (iii) situational barriers impacting on the CIN role. CONCLUSION: We have provided a deeper understanding of the CIN role and of contextual factors operating in everyday practice. Further research is needed to determine how nursing roles can be sustained, learned, enjoyed and optimised to meet future healthcare goals.