Measuring practice preference variation for quality improvement in neonatal respiratory care.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to measure and compare practice preference variation in neonatal respiratory care within and between neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) using the Neonatology Survey of Interdisciplinary Groups in Healthcare Tool (NSIGHT). STUDY DESIGN: Eleven NICUs completed the NSIGHT between 2019 and 2021. Net preference was measured by mean response; agreement was ranked by standard distribution of response values. Heat maps showed comparisons between NICUs and disciplines. RESULTS: NICUs and individuals agreed most often on use of pressure support with mandatory ventilation and on use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for apnea. High preference variation surrounded decisions for invasive ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for extremely low birth weight infants. Preference difference was most frequent between neonatologists and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of practice preference variation in neonatal respiratory care are specific to clinical scenario. Measuring preference variation may inform psychology of change and strengthen quality improvement efforts.

Prediction and Prevention of Preterm Birth: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Intervention Trial.

Our objective was to evaluate whether pregnancy is prolonged by the use of a proteomics-based maternal serum screening test followed by treatment interventions. This is a secondary analysis of the PREVENT-PTB randomized trial comparing screening with the PreTRM test versus no screening. The primary trial analysis found no significant between-group difference in the preterm birth rate. Rather than considering a dichotomous outcome (preterm versus term), we treated gestational age at birth as a continuous variable using survival analysis. We also evaluated between-group difference in NICU length of stay and duration of respiratory support. Results indicated that pregnancy was significantly prolonged in subjects screened with the PreTRM test compared to controls (adjusted hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.78, p < 0.01). Newborns of screened subjects had significantly shorter NICU stays but no significant decrease in duration of respiratory support. In the PreTRM screen-positive group, interventions that were associated with pregnancy prolongation included care management and low-dose aspirin but not 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. We conclude that screening with the PreTRM test followed by interventions for screen-positive pregnancies may prolong pregnancy and reduce NICU LOS, but these observations need to be confirmed by additional research.

Economic considerations for resuscitative interventions in the immediate newborn period.

We present a systematic scoping review of the literature, which documents that only a very small number of interventions related to delivery room stabilization and resuscitation have been studied for their economic impact. Published analyses are mostly of programmatic interventions such as resuscitation training programs, are mostly in low-resource settings, and are of variable methodological quality. Investigators who are conducting clinical studies of delivery room interventions can address these deficiencies in the literature by engaging with health services researchers to assess economic outcomes alongside those studies. We provide a framework of five questions that clinical researchers may use to decide on when such an ancillary study is indicated, and to provide them with the necessary language to discuss the methodological details of potential evaluations with their health services colleagues. Emphasis should be given to interventions that are targeted to high volumes of patients, are expensive, or are likely to lead to changes in costly chronic outcomes.

Using the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Wisely: A National Survey of Clinicians Regarding Practices for Lower-Acuity Care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to document the practices and preferences of neonatal care stakeholders regarding location and duration of care for newborns with low illness acuity. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a survey instrument that comprised 14 questions across 2 global scenarios and 7 specific clinical conditions. The latter included apnea of prematurity, gestational age for neonatal intensive care unit admission, jaundice, neonatal opioid withdrawal, thermoregulation, and sepsis evaluation. Respondents reported their current practice and preferences for an alternative approach. We administered the survey to individuals in the membership email distribution lists of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, the National Association of Neonatal Nurses, and the Vermont Oxford Network. RESULTS: Of 2284 respondents, 53% believed that infants were, in general, admitted to a higher level of care than was required, and only 13% reported that the level of care was too low. Length of stay was perceived to be generally too long by 46% of respondents and too short by 21%. Across 10 specific clinical questions, there was substantial variability in current practice and up to 35% of respondents reported discordance between current and preferred practice. These respondents preferred a lower level of care in 8 of 10 scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary sample of US clinicians reported significant variation in the level and duration of care for infants with low illness acuity. Among individuals reporting discordance between current and preferred practice, a majority believed that current management could be accomplished in a lower level of care location.

Change in neurodevelopmental outcomes for extremely premature infants over time: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Survival rates of extremely premature infants are rising, but changes in neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) rates are unclear. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of intrainstitutional variability of NDI over time. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Study eligibility: (1) at least two discrete cohorts of infants born <27 weeks' gestation or <1000 g birth weight, (2) one cohort born after 1990 and at least one subsequent cohort of similar gestational age, (3) all cohorts cared for within the same Neonatal Intensive Care Unit(s) (NICU) and (4) neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18-36 months corrected age. MAIN OUTCOME: Change in NDI rates. Quality, validity and bias were assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Quality in Prognosis Studies guidelines. RESULTS: Of 203 publications, 15 were eligible, including 13 229 infants. At the first time point, average NDI rate across study groups weighted by sample size was 41.0% (95% CI 34.0% to 48.0%). The average change in NDI between time points was -3.3% (95% CI -8·8% to 2.2%). For each added week of gestation at birth, the rate of NDI declined by 9.7% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.3%). Most studies exhibited moderate-severe bias in at least one domain, especially attrition rates. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing discrete same-centre cohorts over time, there was no significant change in NDI rates in infants born <27 weeks' gestation or <1000 g. Higher survival rates unaccompanied by improvement in neurodevelopment highlight urgency for renewed focus on the causes of NDI and evidence-based strategies to reduce brain injury.

Clinical and economic evaluation of a proteomic biomarker preterm birth risk predictor: cost-effectiveness modeling of prenatal interventions applied to predicted higher-risk pregnancies within a large and diverse cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Preterm birth occurs in more than 10% of U.S. births and is the leading cause of U.S. neonatal deaths, with estimated annual costs exceeding $25 billion USD. Using real-world data, we modeled the potential clinical and economic utility of a prematurity-reduction program comprising screening in a racially and ethnically diverse population with a validated proteomic biomarker risk predictor, followed by case management with or without pharmacological treatment. METHODS: The ACCORDANT microsimulation model used individual patient data from a prespecified, randomly selected sub-cohort (N = 847) of a multicenter, observational study of U.S. subjects receiving standard obstetric care with masked risk predictor assessment (TREETOP; NCT02787213). All subjects were included in three arms across 500 simulated trials: standard of care (SoC, control); risk predictor/case management comprising increased outreach, education and specialist care (RP-CM, active); and multimodal management (risk predictor/case management with pharmacological treatment) (RP-MM, active). In the active arms, only subjects stratified as higher risk by the predictor were modeled as receiving the intervention, whereas lower-risk subjects received standard care. Higher-risk subjects' gestational ages at birth were shifted based on published efficacies, and dependent outcomes, calibrated using national datasets, were changed accordingly. Subjects otherwise retained their original TREETOP outcomes. Arms were compared using survival analysis for neonatal and maternal hospital length of stay, bootstrap intervals for neonatal cost, and Fisher's exact test for neonatal morbidity/mortality (significance, p < .05). RESULTS: The model predicted improvements for all outcomes. RP-CM decreased neonatal and maternal hospital stay by 19% (p = .029) and 8.5% (p = .001), respectively; neonatal costs' point estimate by 16% (p = .098); and moderate-to-severe neonatal morbidity/mortality by 29% (p = .025). RP-MM strengthened observed reductions and significance. Point estimates of benefit did not differ by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Modeled evaluation of a biomarker-based test-and-treat strategy in a diverse population predicts clinically and economically meaningful improvements in neonatal and maternal outcomes.

Preterm birth, defined as delivery before 37 weeks' gestation, is the leading cause of illness and death in newborns. In the United States, more than 10% of infants are born prematurely, and this rate is substantially higher in lower-income, inner-city and Black populations. Prematurity associates with greatly increased risk of short- and long-term medical complications and can generate significant costs throughout the lives of affected children. Annual U.S. health care costs to manage short- and long-term prematurity complications are estimated to exceed $25 billion.Clinical interventions, including case management (increased patient outreach, education and specialist care), pharmacological treatment and their combination can provide benefit to pregnancies at higher risk for preterm birth. Early and sensitive risk detection, however, remains a challenge.We have developed and validated a proteomic biomarker risk predictor for early identification of pregnancies at increased risk of preterm birth. The ACCORDANT study modeled treatments with real-world patient data from a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. population to compare the benefits of risk predictor testing plus clinical intervention for higher-risk pregnancies versus no testing and standard care. Measured outcomes included neonatal and maternal length of hospital stay, associated costs and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The model projected improved outcomes and reduced costs across all subjects, including ethnic and racial minority populations, when predicted higher-risk pregnancies were treated using case management with or without pharmacological treatment. The biomarker risk predictor shows high potential to be a clinically important component of risk stratification for pregnant women, leading to tangible gains in reducing the impact of preterm birth.

The Trend in Costs of Tertiary-Level Neonatal Intensive Care for Neonates Born Preterm at 220/7-286/7 Weeks of Gestation from 2010 to 2019 in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the trend in costs over 10 years for tertiary-level neonatal care of infants born 220/7-286/7 weeks of gestation during an ongoing Canadian national quality improvement project. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical characteristics, outcomes, and third-party payor costs for the tertiary neonatal care of infants born 220/7-286/7 weeks of gestation between the years 2010 and 2019 were analyzed from the Canadian Neonatal Network database. Costs were estimated using resource use data from the Canadian Neonatal Network and cost inputs from hospitals, physician billing, and administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Cost estimates were adjusted to 2017 Canadian dollars (CAD). A generalized linear mixed-effects model with gamma regression was used to estimate trends in costs. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, the number of infants born <24 weeks of gestation increased from 4.4% to 7.7%. The average length of stay increased from 68 days to 75 days. Unadjusted average ± SD total costs per neonate were $120 717 ± $93 062 CAD in 2010 and $132 774 ± $93 161 CAD in 2019. After adjustment for year, center, and gestation, total costs and length of stay increased significantly, by $13 612 CAD (P < .01) and 8.1 days (P < .01) over 10 years, respectively; whereas costs accounting for LOS remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: The total costs and length of stay for infants 220/7-286/7 weeks of gestation have increased over the past decade in Canada during an ongoing national quality improvement initiative; however, there was an increase in the number and survival of neonates at the age of periviability.

A Blueprint for Advocacy in Neonatology.

Advocacy is at the heart of pediatrics and neonatal care. Historically and currently, numerous pediatricians have used their expertise to raise the voices of children and families to promote child health and welfare. Despite a lack of formal training in advocacy and health policy, many of the skills required for daily clinical care can, and ought to, be applied to affect systemic change within neonatology. Advocacy can no longer be considered an optional activity, but rather a core competency and professional responsibility. In this review, the authors describe the necessity and foundational principles for advocacy success as well as provide guidance, resources, and opportunities for neonatologists and clinicians providing newborn care.

Study protocol for reducing disparity in receipt of mother's own milk in very low birth weight infants (ReDiMOM): a randomized trial to improve adherence to sustained maternal breast pump use.

BACKGROUND: Black very low birth weight (VLBW; < 1500 g birth weight) and very preterm (VP, < 32 weeks gestational age, inclusive of extremely preterm, < 28 weeks gestational age) infants are significantly less likely than other VLBW and VP infants to receive mother's own milk (MOM) through to discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The costs associated with adhering to pumping maternal breast milk are borne by mothers and contribute to this disparity. This randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to offset maternal costs associated with pumping. METHODS: This randomized control trial will enroll 284 mothers and their VP infants to test an intervention (NICU acquires MOM) developed to facilitate maternal adherence to breast pump use by offsetting maternal costs that serve as barriers to sustaining MOM feedings and the receipt of MOM at NICU discharge. Compared to current standard of care (mother provides MOM), the intervention bundle includes three components: a) free hospital-grade electric breast pump, b) pickup of MOM, and c) payment for opportunity costs. The primary outcome is infant receipt of MOM at the time of NICU discharge, and secondary outcomes include infant receipt of any MOM during the NICU hospitalization, duration of MOM feedings (days), and cumulative dose of MOM feedings (total mL/kg of MOM) received by the infant during the NICU hospitalization; maternal duration of MOM pumping (days) and volume of MOM pumped (mLs); and total cost of NICU care. Additionally, we will compare the cost of the NICU acquiring MOM versus NICU acquiring donor human milk if MOM is not available and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention (NICU acquires MOM) versus standard of care (mother provides MOM). DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the effectiveness of an economic intervention that transfers the costs of feeding VLBWand VP infants from mothers to the NICU to address the disparity in the receipt of MOM feedings at NICU discharge by Black infants. The cost-effectiveness analysis will provide data that inform the adoption and scalability of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04540575 , registered September 7, 2020.

Economic considerations at the threshold of viability.

Neonatal intensive care for infants born at 22-24 weeks has become more prevalent in the past three decades, but outcomes remain highly variable between centers, in part due to different approaches in management. With this increased frequency of intervention, there has been concern for a concurrent increase in costs of care for survivors. This article reviews the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs of care for periviable infants and their families, as well as the current limitations of published data. In addition, we highlight the cost-effectiveness of neonatal intensive care and various therapies offered to extremely preterm infants, while also considering the ethical dilemmas inherently tied to periviable decision-making. Strategies to improve the gaps in knowledge on the economic impact of the smallest infants are discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Proteomic Test for Preterm Birth Prediction.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (PTB) carries increased risk of short- and long-term health problems as well as higher healthcare costs. Current strategies using clinically accepted maternal risk factors (prior PTB, short cervix) can only identify a minority of singleton PTBs. OBJECTIVE: We modeled the cost-effectiveness of a risk-screening-and-treat strategy versus usual care for commercially insured pregnant US women without clinically accepted PTB risk factors. The risk-screening-and-treat strategy included use of a novel PTB prognostic blood test (PreTRM®) in the 19th-20th week of pregnancy, followed by treatment with a combined regimen of multi-component high-intensity-case-management and pharmacologic interventions for the remainder of the pregnancy for women assessed as higher-risk by the test, and usual care in women without higher risk. METHODS: We built a cost-effectiveness model using a combined decision-tree/Markov approach and a US payer perspective. We modeled 1-week cycles of pregnancy from week 19 to birth (preterm or term) and assessed costs throughout the pregnancy, and further to 12-months post-delivery in mothers and 30-months in infants. PTB rates and costs were based on >40,000 mothers and infants from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database® with birth events in 2016. Estimates of test performance, treatment effectiveness, and other model inputs were derived from published literature. RESULTS: In the base case, the risk-screening-and-treat strategy dominated usual care with an estimated 870 fewer PTBs (20% reduction) and $54 million less in total cost ($863 net savings per pregnant woman). Reductions were projected for neonatal intensive care admissions (10%), overall length-of-stay (7%), and births <32 weeks (33%). Treatment effectiveness had the strongest influence on cost-effectiveness estimates. The risk-screening-and-treat strategy remained dominant in the majority of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations and model scenarios. CONCLUSION: Use of a novel prognostic test during pregnancy to identify women at risk of PTB combined with evidence-based treatment is estimated to reduce total costs while preventing PTBs and their consequences.

Quantifying the variation in neonatal transport referral patterns using network analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Regionalized care reduces neonatal morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated the association of patient characteristics with quantitative differences in neonatal transport networks. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data for infants <28 days of age acutely transported within California from 2008 to 2012. We generated graphs representing bidirectional transfers between hospitals, stratified by patient attribute, and compared standard network analysis metrics. RESULT: We analyzed 34,708 acute transfers, representing 1594 unique transfer routes between 271 hospitals. Density, centralization, efficiency, and modularity differed significantly among networks drawn based on different infant attributes. Compared to term infants and to those transported for medical reasons, network metrics identify greater degrees of regionalization for preterm and surgical patients (more centralized and less dense, respectively [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSION: Neonatal interhospital transport networks differ by patient attributes as reflected by differences in network metrics, suggesting that regionalization should be considered in the context of a multidimensional system.

COVID-19 preparedness-a survey among neonatal care providers in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate COVID-19 pandemic preparedness, available resources, and guidelines for neonatal care delivery among neonatal health care providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across all continents. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, web-based survey administered between May and June, 2020. RESULTS: Of 189 invited participants in 69 LMICs, we received 145 (77%) responses from 58 (84%) countries. The pandemic provides significant challenges to neonatal care, particularly in low-income countries. Respondents noted exacerbations of preexisting shortages in staffing, equipment, and isolation capabilities. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 9/35 (26%) respondents noted increased mortality in non-COVID-19-infected infants. Clinical practices on cord clamping, isolation, and breastfeeding varied widely, often not in line with World Health Organization guidelines. Most respondents noted family access restrictions, and limited shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Many LMICs face an exacerbation of preexisting resource challenges for neonatal care during the pandemic. Variable approaches to care delivery and deviations from guidelines provide opportunities for international collaborative improvement.

Unbiasing costs? An appraisal of economic assessment alongside randomized trials in neonatology.

Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized controlled trials benefit from the protections against bias inherent in randomization. In this systematic review, we assessed the frequency and quality of economic assessments alongside randomized controlled trials of interventions in neonates published between 1990 and 2016. Over that period, 58 economic assessments were published, corresponding to approximately 2% of RCTs. We noted significant methodological limitations of these studies, including limitation of included costs to the health sector or payer rather than broader categories such as family or community expenditures (81%), short time horizon for cost measurement (less than one year in 60%), lack of reporting of uncertainty (26%), and infrequent analysis of costs and effects in a single metric (combined in 45%). Strategies for improving the quality and frequency of economic evaluations in neonatology are discussed, including selection of appropriate trials, funding, and peer review.

The financial burden on families of infants requiring neonatal intensive care.

While the high costs of neonatal intensive care have been a topic of increasing study, the financial impact on families have been less frequently reported or summarized. We conducted a systematic review of the literature using Pubmed/Medline and EMBASE (1990-2020) for studies reporting estimates of out-of-pocket costs or qualitative estimates of financial burden on families during a neonatal intensive care unit stay or after discharge. 44 studies met inclusion criteria, with 25 studies providing cost estimates. Cost estimates primarily focused on direct non-medical out-of-pocket costs or loss of productivity, and there was a paucity of cost estimates for insurance cost-sharing. Available estimates suggest these costs are significant to families, cause significant stress, and may impact care received by patients. More high-quality studies estimating the entirety of out-of-pocket costs are needed, and particular attention should be paid to how these costs directly impact the care of our high-risk population.