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.

Neonatal respiratory care practice among level III and IV NICUs in New England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess respiratory care guidelines and explore variations in management of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants within a collaborative care framework. Additionally, to gather clinical leaders' perspectives on guidelines and preferences for ventilation modalities. STUDY DESIGN: Leaders from each NICU participated in a practice survey regarding the prevalence of unit clinical guidelines, and management, at many stages of care. RESULTS: Units have an average of 4.3 (±2.1) guidelines, of 9 topics queried. Guideline prevalence was not associated with practice or outcomes. An FiO2 requirement of 0.3-0.4 and a CPAP of 6-7 cmH2O, are the most common thresholds for surfactant administration, which is most often done after intubation, and followed by weaning from ventilatory support. Volume targeted ventilation is commonly used. Extubation criteria vary widely. CONCLUSIONS: Results identify trends and areas of variation and suggest that the presence of guidelines alone is not predictive of outcome.

Measuring practice preference variation for quality improvement: development of the Neonatology Survey of Interdisciplinary Groups in Healthcare Tool (NSIGHT).

BACKGROUND: Understanding behavioural psychology and the human side of change are guiding principles for quality improvement (QI). Tools to measure these to guide improvement efforts are lacking. METHODS: We created a clinical vignette-based survey to measure provider preferences for respiratory care in the neonatal intensive care unit. Fourteen vignettes were included, each vignette offering two reasonable practice choices. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from neutral to strong preference for either choice. The survey was completed by physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers and respiratory therapists in 2017 and again in 2019. Net preference was measured as the median value of responses, and agreement was measured as the SD of responses. Net preference and agreement were assessed for all responses, by discipline, and by year. RESULTS: Response rates were 51% of all staff in 2017 and 57% in 2019. Vignettes asking about non-invasive respiratory support showed more defined net preferences and higher agreement between years, coinciding with QI efforts and guideline implementation in this area during the interval time. Results on other areas of practice were consistent between years. Discipline comparisons showed nurses and physicians agreed the least often. Six response patterns were identified, ranging from net preference and high agreement to no net preference and low agreement. CONCLUSION: We propose this survey, called the Neonatology Survey of Interdisciplinary Groups in Healthcare Tool, is a novel method for measurement of hospital unit psychology and culture. Demonstrated improvement where QI efforts were focused and consistency in results in other areas support the validity of this tool. Measuring the human side of change may impact QI efforts.