Prognostic Discordance Among Parents and Physicians Caring for Infants with Neurologic Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, degree, and nature of prognostic discordance between parents and physicians caring for infants with neurologic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: In this observational cohort study, we enrolled parents and physicians caring for infants with neurologic conditions in advance of a family conference. Parent-physician dyads completed a postconference survey targeting expected neurologic outcomes across 3 domains (motor, speech, and cognition) using a 6-point scale. Prognostic discordance was defined as a difference of ≥2 response options and was considered moderate (difference of 2-3 response options) or high (difference of 4-5 response options). Responses were categorized as differences in belief and/or differences in understanding using an existing paradigm. RESULTS: Forty parent-physician dyads of 28 infants completed surveys. Parent-physician discordance about prognosis occurred in ≥1 domain in the majority of dyads (n = 28/40, 70%). Discordance was generally moderate in degree (n = 23/28, 82%) and occurred with similar frequency across all domains. Of parent-physician dyads with discordance, the majority contained a difference in understanding in at least 1 domain (n = 25/28, 89%), while a minority contained a difference of belief (n = 6/28, 21%). When discordance was present, parents were typically more optimistic in their predictions compared with physicians (n = 25/28, 89%). CONCLUSIONS: Differing perceptions about the prognosis of critically ill infants are common and due to differences in both understanding and belief. These findings can be used to develop targeted interventions to improve prognostic communication.

Factors Influencing Compensation of Early Career Neonatologists.

OBJECTIVE: Workforce characteristics and compensation specific to early career neonatologists remain poorly defined. Lack of transparency surrounding compensation limits benchmarking for neonatologists entering the workforce and may negatively influence individual lifetime earnings. Our objective was to provide granular data for this unique subpopulation by defining employment characteristics and factors influential to compensation of early career neonatologists. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous 59-question cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to eligible members of American Academy of Pediatrics Trainees and Early Career Neonatologists. A focused analysis was conducted on salary and bonus compensation data collected from the survey instrument. Respondents were classified based on primary site of employment: nonuniversity located (e.g., private practice, hospital employed, government/military, and hybrid employment groups) versus university located practice settings (e.g., work is primarily conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting located within a university organization). Median quantile regression was used to conduct univariate and multivariate analyses using SAS Software version 9.4. RESULTS: We received 348 responses (26.7% response rate). Median salary was $220,000 (interquartile range: $200,000-250,000). Factors associated with salary include academic rank (instructor: $196,000; assistant professor: $220,000 [12% increase; p < 0.001]; associate professor: $260,000 [18% increase]; p = 0.027) and years of experience (p = 0.017), after adjusting for relevant factors. Employment location, practice type, group size, clinical schedule, location of medical school training, and gender identity did not significantly influence salary in multivariate quantile regression. Median annual bonus was $7,000 higher for nonuniversity located positions ($20,000 vs. 13,000; p = 0.021), with assumption of additional administrative roles and practice group seniority as most commonly cited bonus criteria (p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Academic rank and years of experience may influence salary. Bonus earnings are higher for nonuniversity located positions. Employment models are evolving to incorporate academic teaching appointments while practicing in nonuniversity located NICUs. This is the first detailed compensation analysis of early career neonatologists. KEY POINTS: · Transparent compensation data specific to early career neonatologists is lacking.. · Associated factors influential to compensation of early career neonatologists remain unclear.. · This study identifies years of experience and academic rank as possible factors influencing salary earnings of early career neonatologists.. · Practicing in nonuniversity located positions was associated with greater bonus earning potential..

Workforce Characterisustics of Early Career Neonatologists and Comparison of Practice Sites.

OBJECTIVE: Transitioning into the early career physician workforce is a uniquely challenging period in a neonatologist's career. There are limited educational opportunities in fellowship regarding career progression, practice models, and benefits. Understanding these factors are key when searching for employment. This study evaluates the early career neonatologist (ECN) workforce and employment characteristics to improve identification of professional needs. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous 59-question cross-sectional survey was distributed in July 2020 to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Neonatal Perinatal Medicine Trainees and Early Career Neonatologists (TECaN). The survey instrument was designed using SurveyMonkey and assessed search methods for identifying employers, employment contract details, and professional duties. Questions addressed clinical service time, level of acuity, protected research time, financial compensation, benefits, job search methods, and promotion requirements. Comparisons were drawn between respondents exclusively working in a university-based setting and respondents employed in nonuniversity locations. Responses were collected using SurveyMonkey and then extracted to a Microsoft Excel Workbook for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: Of 1,302 eligible members, 348 people responded (26.7%). Forty-six percent of respondents worked in a university setting and 54% worked in a nonuniversity setting. Using employment site as a discriminator, significant differences were noted in scheduling models. University-located respondents were more likely to work 2-week block schedules, fewer weekend/weeknight call, less clinical weeks per year, and more research/administrative weeks per year. Between university and nonuniversity located positions, benefits were largely comparable, while factors perceived as influential toward promotion varied depending on practice site. CONCLUSION: This study provides ECNs with a contemporary workforce description vital to graduating TECaN seeking employment or renegotiating professional obligations. While benefits were largely similar based on practice site, promotion factors and scheduling models may vary depending on location. KEY POINTS: · Data specific to informing employment decisions for graduating Trainees and Early Career Neonatologists are limited.. · This study provides benchmarks for evaluating employment opportunities presented to early career neonatologists.. · Practice site can influence promotion factors..

Counseling parents of premature neonates on neuroimaging findings.

While medical advancements have led to improved survival of extremely premature infants, children remain at risk for brain injury and neurodevelopmental impairment. Brain imaging can offer insight into an infant's acute and long-term outcome; however, counseling parents about the results and implications of brain imaging remains challenging. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature and describe the challenges associated with counseling families of premature infants on neuroimaging findings. We propose a framework to guide clinicians in counseling parents about brain imaging results, informed by best practices in other disciplines: (FIGURE): 1) Formulate a plan 2) Identify parental needs and values 3) Give information 4) Acknowledge Uncertainty 5) Recognize and Respond to emotions 6) Discuss Expectations and Establish follow-up.

Validation of a Unilateral Cleft Lip Surgical Outcomes Evaluation Scale for Surgeons and Laypersons.

BACKGROUND: A standardized evaluation tool is needed for the assessment of surgical outcomes in cleft lip surgery. Current scales for evaluating unilateral cleft lip/nose (UCL/N) aesthetic outcomes are limited in their reliability, ease of use, and application. The Unilateral Cleft Lip Surgical Outcomes Evaluation (UCL SOE) scale measures symmetry of 4 components and sums these for a total score. The purpose of this study was to validate the SOE as a reliable tool for use by both surgeons and laypersons. METHODS: Twenty participants (9 surgeons and 12 laypeople) used the SOE to evaluate 25 sets of randomly selected presurgical and postsurgical standardized photographs of UCL/N patients. Interrater reliability for surgeon and laypeople was determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Individual surgeons and laypeople both reached an ICC in the "fair to good" range (ICC = 0.42 and 0.59, respectively). Averaging 2 evaluators in the surgeon group improved the ICC to 0.58 and in the laypeople group to 0.74, respectively. Averaging 3 evaluators increased the ICC for surgeons to the "good" range (ICC = 0.71) and the ICC for laypeople to the "very good" range (ICC = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon and layperson raters can reliably use the SOE to assess the aesthetics results after surgical repair of UCL/N, and improved reliability and reproducibility is achieved by averaging the scores of multiple reviewers.

Validation of the Unilateral Cleft Lip Severity Index for Surgeons and Laypersons.

BACKGROUND: Severity of the primary unilateral cleft lip/nose deformity (UCL/N) is postulated to play a key role in postoperative complications, aesthetic result, and need for secondary surgery. There is no validated and widely accepted classification scheme of initial cleft severity. The purpose of this study was to validate the Unilateral Cleft Lip Cleft Severity Index as a reliable tool for evaluating presurgical UCL/N deformity by both surgeons and laypersons. METHODS: Twenty-five participants (10 surgeons and 15 laypeople) evaluated 25 sets of randomly selected presurgical standardized photographs of UCL/N patients. Each participant rated patients on a scale of 1-4 using the Cleft Severity Index. Interrater reliability for surgeons, laypersons, and all participants was determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient. Histograms and regression analysis were performed to compare average ratings between groups. RESULTS: Interrater reliability for all groups was classified as "very good" determined by intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.837 (laymen), 0.885 (surgeons), and 0.848 (all participants). These results indicate that there was a high degree of interrater across all 3 groups and that both surgeons and laypersons can reliability rate cleft severity using the Cleft Severity Index. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the use of the Cleft Severity Index by both surgeons and laypersons as a reliable tool for evaluating the degree of presurgical severity of patients with UCL/N. The Unilateral Cleft Lip Cleft Severity Index can thus serve as a reproducible and reliable grading system for primary UCL/N deformity and to categorize patients for future outcomes studies.