Effect of routine first-trimester combined screening for pre-eclampsia on small-for-gestational-age birth: secondary interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a first-trimester combined screening program for pre-eclampsia, based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm, on the rate of small-for-gestational age (SGA) at birth and adverse pregnancy outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of data obtained from a London tertiary hospital between January 2017 and March 2019. The data were derived from a secondary analysis of the cohort evaluated in a clinical-effectiveness study on the implementation of a first-trimester screening program for pre-eclampsia. The cohort included 7720 women screened according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) risk-based approach and 4841 women screened by the FMF multimodal approach, which combines maternal risk factors, blood pressure, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A and uterine artery Doppler indices. The care package for the FMF-screened group included 150-mg aspirin prophylaxis, ultrasound scans at 28 and 36 weeks' gestation and scheduled delivery at 40 weeks. Outcome measures included the rates of SGA neonates at birth, admission to the neonatal unit, intrauterine demise, neonatal death and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy assessed by interrupted time series analysis (ITSA). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rates of intrauterine demise, neonatal death and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy between the FMF-screened and NICE-screened cohorts. ITSA showed a significant reduction in the rate of term SGA birth < 10th percentile at 21 months following implementation of the FMF screening program, with a relative effect reduction of 45.1% (P = 0.004). However, there was no significant relative effect reduction in term SGA birth < 5th or < 3rd percentile. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening for pre-eclampsia based on the FMF algorithm accompanied by a care package including serial ultrasound scans for growth evaluation and elective birth from 40 weeks' gestation resulted in a significant 45% relative effect reduction in term SGA birth < 10th percentile but did not affect term SGA birth < 5th or < 3rd percentile. Further screening strategies to detect and improve the outcome of cases with SGA birth < 5th percentile need to be considered. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Interdisciplinary Consensus Statement on Neuraxial Procedures in Obstetric Patients With Thrombocytopenia.

Because up to 12% of obstetric patients meet criteria for the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in pregnancy, it is not infrequent that the anesthesiologist must decide whether to proceed with a neuraxial procedure in an affected patient. Given the potential morbidity associated with general anesthesia for cesarean delivery, thoughtful consideration of which patients with thrombocytopenia are likely to have an increased risk of spinal epidural hematoma with neuraxial procedures, and when these risks outweigh the relative benefits is important to consider and to inform shared decision making with patients. Because there are substantial risks associated with withholding a neuraxial analgesic/anesthetic procedure in obstetric patients, every effort should be made to perform a bleeding history assessment and determine the thrombocytopenia etiology before admission for delivery. Whereas multiple other professional societies (obstetric, interventional pain, and hematologic) have published guidelines addressing platelet thresholds for safe neuraxial procedures, the US anesthesia professional societies have been silent on this topic. Despite a paucity of high-quality data, there are now meta-analyses that provide better estimations of risks. An interdisciplinary taskforce was convened to unite the relevant professional societies, synthesize the data, and provide a practical decision algorithm to help inform risk-benefit discussions and shared decision making with patients. Through a systematic review and modified Delphi process, the taskforce concluded that the best available evidence indicates the risk of spinal epidural hematoma associated with a platelet count ≥70,000 × 106/L is likely to be very low in obstetric patients with thrombocytopenia secondary to gestational thrombocytopenia, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the absence of other risk factors. Ultimately, the decision of whether to proceed with a neuraxial procedure in an obstetric patient with thrombocytopenia occurs within a clinical context. Potentially relevant factors include, but are not limited to, patient comorbidities, obstetric risk factors, airway examination, available airway equipment, risk of general anesthesia, and patient preference.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) update.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee first adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system in 2013. This document provides an update on the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee process for creating evidence-based practice recommendations and describes the GRADE process as it is currently implemented in the SMFM Consult and Guidelines series.

The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Cochrane Neonatal was first established in 1993, as one of the original review groups of the Cochrane Collaboration. In fact, the origins of Cochrane Neonatal precede the establishment of the collaboration. In the 1980's, the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, led by Dr. Iain Chalmers, established the "Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials" (ODPT), a register of virtually all randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine to provide a resource for reviews of the safety and efficacy of interventions used in perinatal care and to foster cooperative and coordinated research efforts in the perinatal field [1]. An effort that was clearly ahead of its time, ODPT comprised four main elements: a register of published reports of trials; a register of unpublished trials; a register of ongoing and planned trials; and data derived from pooled overviews (meta-analyses) of trials. This core effort grew into the creation of the seminal books, "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" as well as "Effective Care of the Newborn Infant" [2,3]. As these efforts in perinatal medicine grew, Iain Chalmers thought well beyond perinatal medicine into the creation of a worldwide collaboration that became Cochrane [4]. The mission of the Cochrane Collaboration is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence (www.cochrane.org). Cochrane Neonatal has continued to be one of the most productive review groups, publishing between 25 tpo to 40 new or updated systematic reviews each year. The impact factor has been steadily increasing over four years and now rivals most of the elite journals in pediatric medicine. Cochrane Neonatal has been a worldwide effort. Currently, there are 404 reviews involving 1206 authors from 52 countries. What has Cochrane done for babies? Reviews from Cochrane Neonatal have informed guidelines and recommendations worldwide. From January 2018 through June 2020, 77 international guidelines cited 221 Cochrane Neonatal reviews. These recommendations have included recommendations of the use of postnatal steroids, inhaled nitric oxide, feeding guidelines for preterm infants and other core aspects of neonatal practice. In addition, Cochrane Reviews has been the impetus for important research, including the large-scale trial of prophylactic indomethacin therapy, a variety of trials of postnatal steroids, trials of emollient ointment and probiotic trials [6]. While justifiably proud of these accomplishments, one needs to examine the future contribution of Cochrane Neonatal to the neonatal community. The future of Cochrane Neonatal is inexorably linked to the future of neonatal research. Obviously, there is no synthesis of trials data if, as a community, we fail to provide the core substrate for that research. As we look at the current trials' environment, fewer randomized controlled trial related to neonates are being published in recent years. A simple search of PubMed, limiting the search to "neonates" and "randomized controlled trials" shows that in the year 2000, 321 randomized controlled trials were published. These peaked five years ago, in 2015, with close to 900 trials being published. However, in 2018, only 791 studies are identified. Does this decrease represent a meaningful change in the neonatal research environment? Quite possibly. There are shifting missions of clinical neonatology at academic medical institutions, at least in the United States, with a focus on business aspects as well as other important competing clinical activities. Quality improvement has taken over as one of the major activities at both private and academic neonatal practices. Clearly, this is a needed improvement. All units at levels need to be dedicated to improving the outcomes of the sick and fragile population we care for. However, this need not be at the expense of formal clinical trials. It is understandable that this approach would be taken. Newer interventions frequently relate to complex systems of care and not the simple single interventions. Even trials that might traditionally have been done as randomized controlled trials, such as the introduction of a new mode of ventilation, are in reality complex challenges to the ability of institutions to create systems to adapt to these new technologies. Cost of doing trials has always been a barrier. The challenging regulatory and ethical environment contributes to these problems as well [7]. Despite these barriers, how does the research agenda of the neonatal community move forward in the 21st Century? We need to reassess how we create and disseminate our research findings. Innovative trial designs will allow us to address complex issues that we may not have tackled with conventional trials. Adaptive designs may allow us to look at potentially life-saving therapies in a way that feel more efficient and more ethical [8]. Clarifying issues such as the use of inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants would be greatly served if we even knew whether or not there are hypoxemic preterm infant who would benefit from this therapy [9]. Current trials do not suggest so, yet current practice tells us that a significant number of these babies will receive inhaled nitric oxide [10-13]. Adaptive design, such as those done with trials of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), would allow us to quickly assess whether, in fact, these therapies are life-saving and allow us to consider whether or not further trials are needed [14,15]. Our understanding that many interventions involve entire systems approaches does not relegate us only to doing quality improvement work. Cluster designs may allow us to test more complex interventions that have usually been under the purview of quality improvement [16-18]. Cluster trials are well suited for such investigations and can be done with the least interruption to ongoing care. Ultimately, quality improvement is the application of the best evidence available (evidence-based medicine is "what to do" and evidence-based practice is "how to do"). [19,20]. Nascent efforts, such as the statement on "embedding necessary research into culture and health" (the ENRICH statement) call for the conduct of large, efficient pragmatic trials to evaluate neonatal outcomes, as in part called for in the ALPHA Collaboration [21,22]. This statement envisions an international system to identify important research questions by consulting regularly with all stakeholders, including patients, public health professionals, researchers, providers, policy makers, regulators, funders of industry. The ENRICH statement envisions a pathway to enable individuals, educational institutions, hospitals and health-care facilities to confirm their status as research-friendly by integrating an understanding of trials, other research and critical thinking and to teaching learning and culture, as well as an engagement with funders, professional organizations and regulatory bodies and other stake holders to raise awareness of the value of efficient international research to reduce barriers to large international pragmatic trials and other collaborative studies. In the future, if trials are to be done on this scale or trials are prospectively designed to be analyzed together, core outcome measures must be identified and standardized. That clinical trials supply estimates of outcomes that are relevant to patients and their families is critical. In addition, current neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. A given measure can have multiple widely used definitions. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (or chronic lung disease just to add to the confusion) quickly comes to mind [23,24]. The use of multiple definitions when attempting to measure the same outcome prevents synthesis of trial results and meta-analysis and hinders efforts to refine our estimates of effects. Towards that end, Webbe and colleagues have set out to develop a core outcome set for neonatal research [25]. Key stakeholders in the neonatal community reviewed multiple outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies. Based on consensus, key outcome measures were identified, including survival, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, retinopathy or prematurity, gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment or blindness, hearing impairment or deafness, chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Trials registration has to be a continued focus of the neonatal community. Trials registration allows for systematic reviewers to understand whether or not reporting bias has occurred [26]. It also allows for transparent incorporation of these core outcome measures. Ultimately, trials registration should include public reporting of all of these core outcomes and, in the future, access to data on an individual level such that more sophisticated individual patient data meta-analysis could occur. Lastly, there is no reason to see clinical trials and quality improvement as separate or exclusive activities. In fact, in the first NICQ Collaborative, conducted by Vermont Oxford Network, participation in a trial of postnatal steroids was considered part of the quality improvement best practices as opposed to simply choosing an as-of-yet unproven approach to use of this potent drug [27]. What role will Cochrane Neonatal play as we move forward in the 21st Century? As the neonatal community moves forward with its' research agenda, Cochrane Neonatal must not only follow but also lead with innovative approaches to synthesizing research findings. Cochrane Neonatal must continue to work closely with guideline developers. The relationship between systematic review production and guideline development is clearly outlined inreports from the Institute of Medicine [28,29]. Both are essential to guideline development; the systematic review group culling the evidence for the benefits and harms of a given intervention and the guideline group addressing the contextual issues of cost, feasibility, implementation and the values and preferences of individuals and societies. Most national and international guidelines groups now routinely use systematic reviews as the evidence basis for their guidelines and recommendations. Examples of the partnership between Cochrane Neonatal and international guideline development can be seen in our support of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the use of vitamin A or the soon to be published recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) on cord management in preterm and term infants [30]. In the future, we need to collaborate early in the guideline development process so that the reviews are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the guideline developers and the end users. Towards this end, all Cochrane Neonatal reviews now contain GRADE assessments of the key clinical findings reported in the systematic review [31]. Addition of these assessments addresses the critical issue of our confidence in the findings. We are most confident in evidence provided by randomized controlled trials but this assessment can be can be downgraded if the studies that reported on the outcome in question had a high risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency of results, or imprecision, or where there is evidence of reporting bias. Information provided by GRADE assessments is seen as critical in the process of moving from the evidence to formal recommendations [32]. We need to explore complex reviews, such as network (NMA) or multiple treatment comparison (MCT) meta-analyses, to address issues not formally addressed in clinical trials [33]. In conditions where there are multiple effective interventions, it is rare for all possible interventions to have been tested against each other [34]. A solution could be provided by network meta-analysis, which allows for comparing all treatments with each other, even if randomized controlled trials are not available for some treatment comparisons [34]. Network meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions [35]. However, Mills and colleagues note that the methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex [35]. Cochrane Neonatal must take a role in both the creation of such analyses and the education of the neonatal community regarding the pitfalls of such an approach. The availability of individual patient data will make more sophisticated analyses more available to the community. Although the current crop of individual patient data meta-analyses (including the reviews of elective high frequency ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide and oxygen targets) have not differed substantially from the findings of the trials level reviews (suggesting that, in fact, sick neonates are more alike that unalike), there still will be a large role for individual patient data meta-analysis, at least to end the unfound conclusions that these therapies are effective in various subgroups (be it issues of sex, disease severity, or clinical setting) [36-39]. Future trials should take a lesson from the NeOProM Collaborative [37,39]. Given the difficulty in generating significant sample size and creating funding in any single environment, trials with similar protocols should be conducted in a variety of healthcare settings with an eye towards both study level and individual patient level meta-analysis at the conclusion of those trials, allowing for broader contribution to the trials data, more rapid accrual of sample size, and more precise results. We need to educate the neonatal community regarding the use and abuse of diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests are a critical component of healthcare but also contribute greatly to the cost of medical care worldwide. These costs include the cost of the tests themselves and the costs of misdiagnosis and treatment of individuals who will not benefit from those treatments. Clinicians may have a limited understanding of diagnostic test accuracy, the ability of a diagnostic test to distinguish between patients with and without the disease or target condition [41,42]. Efforts such as Choosing Wisely have tried to identify these deficiencies [40]. As Cochrane has increased the general literacy of both the medical and general population regarding the interpretation of the results of interventions on various diseases, so should Cochrane move forward and improve the understanding of diagnostic testing. We need to become more efficient at creating and maintaining our reviews. The time spent to produce systematic reviews is far too great. In average, it takes between 2½ to 6½ years to produce a systematic review, requiring intense time input for highly trained and expensive experts. Innovations in the ways in which we produce systematic reviews can make the review process more efficient by outsourcing some of the tasks or crowdsourcing to machine learning. We need to let the crowd and machine learning innovations help us sort the massive amounts of information needed to conduct systematic reviews. It can also allow for "live" updating of critical reviews where the research landscape is quickly changing [43]. Lastly, Cochrane Neonatal must focus more on users of the reviews and not necessarily authors of the reviews. Current Cochrane programming speaks of Cochrane training with an eye towards developing the skills of individuals who will conduct systematic reviews. While this is clearly needed and laudable, the fact of the matter is that most of the community will be "users" of the reviews. Individuals who need to understand how to use and interpret the findings of systematic reviews. These review users include clinicians, guideline developers, policy makers and families. Incorporation of GRADE guidelines has been a huge step in adding transparency to the level of uncertainty we have in our findings. From a family's perspective, we need to overcome the environment of mistrust or misunderstanding of scientific evidence and how we convey what we know, and our uncertainty about what we know, to parents and families.

Abuse of Antibiotics in Perinatology: Negative Impact for Health and the Economy.

To use medications appropriately, patients need to be treated based on their clinical conditions, in doses that are based on their individual requirements, for an adequate amount of time, and at the lowest expense. The perinatal period is characterized by an excessive use of antibiotics. This antibiotic abuse can lead to antibiotic resistance, microbiome alterations, and dysbiosis, which have been associated with serious complications such as infections, abnormal brain development, allergies, autoimmune disorders, obesity, and an increase in mortality as well as an increase in health care expenditures. The need to optimize antibiotic utilization in perinatal medicine has never been more urgent; there is not much more time to wait.

What Do NICU Fellows Identify as Important for Achieving Competency in Neonatal Intubation?

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation (TI) is one of the most important interventions for the stabilization of critically ill neonates. Competency in airway management is essential for neonatal fellows. No studies have assessed which educational models, techniques, or instructions are perceived by neonatal fellows as the most beneficial for achieving competency in TI. OBJECTIVES: This study identifies which factors are considered most helpful in achieving intubation competency. METHOD: This was a mixed-method study. Semi-structured phone interviews addressed training experience for neonatal intubation. Through qualitative analysis, common themes were identified. RedCap electronic surveys and procedure logs were used to assess procedural experience. RESULTS: Forty-two fellows from 5 programs completed phone interviews. Fellows recalled 6-10 intubation attempts before fellowship. Independent statements related to achieving intubation competency were analyzed and coded into 5 main themes (Procedure, Practice, Perceptual Environment, Personnel, and Preparation). A large proportion of the statements focused on the use of video laryngoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The themes identified by neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM) fellows as being the most beneficial in achieving proficiency in neonatal TI are categorized as "The 5 Ps." Careful review of these themes may be utilized to develop validated curriculums that enhance the teaching of TI and optimize the achievement of TI competency among NPM fellows.

Validation of Fetal Medicine Foundation algorithm for prediction of pre-eclampsia in the first trimester in an unselected Brazilian population.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the predictive performance of the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm for prediction of preeclampsia (PE) between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation in an unselected Brazilian population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study with 617 singleton pregnancies of unselected risk. Biophysical markers (mean pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure) and biochemical markers (placental growth factor (PLGF) and PAPP-A) were inserted into the FMF software and converted into multiples of the median (MoM). The subjects were divided into five groups: early-onset PE, parturition <34 weeks' gestation; preterm PE, parturition <37 weeks; PE, parturition at any gestational age; gestational hypertension (GH); and control group. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were calculated for the outcomes. RESULTS: Among 617 patients, seven developed early-onset PE, 18 developed preterm PE (seven early PE plus 11 delivered between 34 and 36 + 6 weeks gestation), 34 developed PE (18 preterm PE plus 16 delivered after 37-week gestation), 12 pregnant women developed GH, and 517 women comprised the control group. The best predictive performance using the FMF algorithm occurred in the early-onset PE group, with AUC = 0.946 (95% CI 0.919-0.973) and the detection rate of 28.6% and 85.7% for 5% and 10% false-positive (FP), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FMF algorithm to predict PE was effective in a Brazilian population, mainly in the early-onset form of the disease at 10% FP.

Features of randomised trials designed by the NPEU Perinatal Trials Service during Adrian Grant's directorship.

Adrian Grant pioneered methodological innovations in the randomised trials organised by the Perinatal Trials Service established at the national Perinatal Epidemiology Unit in Oxford, UK. This Commentary discusses these innovations, and shows the wide range of trials designed under his directorship.

Adrian Grant's pioneering use of evidence synthesis in perinatal medicine, 1980-1992.

Systematic reviews of existing research are needed to help reduce the enormous amount of wasted resources in biomedical research. Whether already available or needed but unavailable, systematic reviews are a key element in prioritising questions for new research, and for informing the design of additional studies. One of the most important of Adrian Grant's many contributions was to recognise this a decade before it began to become more widely accepted. In this sphere, as well as in many others, he was a real pioneer.

The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Consensus Statement on the Anesthetic Management of Pregnant and Postpartum Women Receiving Thromboprophylaxis or Higher Dose Anticoagulants.

Venous thromboembolism is recognized as a leading cause of maternal death in the United States. Thromboprophylaxis has been highlighted as a key preventive measure to reduce venous thromboembolism-related maternal deaths. However, the expanded use of thromboprophylaxis in obstetrics will have a major impact on the use and timing of neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia for women undergoing vaginal or cesarean delivery and other obstetric surgeries. Experts from the Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia, and hematology have collaborated to develop this comprehensive, pregnancy-specific consensus statement on neuraxial procedures in obstetric patients receiving thromboprophylaxis or higher dose anticoagulants. To date, none of the existing anesthesia societies' recommendations have weighed the potential risks of neuraxial procedures in the presence of thromboprophylaxis, with the competing risks of general anesthesia with a potentially difficult airway, or maternal or fetal harm from avoidance or delayed neuraxial anesthesia. Furthermore, existing guidelines have not integrated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticoagulants in the obstetric population. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide a practical guide of how to appropriately identify, prepare, and manage pregnant women receiving thromboprophylaxis or higher dose anticoagulants during the ante-, intra-, and postpartum periods. The tactics to facilitate multidisciplinary communication, evidence-based pharmacokinetic and spinal epidural hematoma data, and Decision Aids should help inform risk-benefit discussions with patients and facilitate shared decision making.

Postpartum hemorrhage with transfusion: Trends, near misses, risk factors and management at the scale of a perinatal network.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze temporal trends and management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) with transfusion and its related maternal near-miss (MNM) cases between 2006 and 2014 and to study risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from two prospective databases included 156,047 women giving birth in all the maternity hospitals of Burgundy. We analyzed temporal trends and the distribution of PPH with transfusion, the circumstances of transfer of patients between hospitals and factors associated with PPH with transfusion. PPH with massive blood transfusion and/or non-medical treatment was defined as MNM. Statistical analysis included Chi2 tests and logistic regression for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The overall rate of PPH with transfusion was 7.3‰ and globally increased during the study period whereas the MNM rate did not. MNM represented 37% of patients with PPH with transfusion and 71% of transferred patients, but surgical treatments were performed before transfer. Factors associated with PPH with transfusion were maternal age>35 years (odds ratio [OR]=1.3), prematurity (OR=5.0), cesarean section (OR=4.8), placenta previa (OR=22.0), twin pregnancy (OR=6.6), HELLP syndrome (OR=17.9) and severe small-for-gestational-age infants (OR=2.0). The first four were also associated with MNM. CONCLUSION: MNM cases of PPH rates were steady in Burgundy while rates of PPH with transfusion increased moderately.

National Quality Measures in Perinatal Medicine.

There are numerous measures of perinatal quality endorsed by national agencies such as the National Quality Forum (NQF). The sheer number of metrics may lead to confusion about what these measures truly assess, and how to interpret variation in these measures across hospitals, health care systems, and geographic regions. This review presents a conceptual model for the numerous validated measures, an overview of the types of measures endorsed for perinatal quality by NQF in 2016, and potential measures absent from endorsement by these national bodies.

[A proposal for introduction of Europeristat-compatible information system aiming a unified quality control of obstetrical and perinatological care in Hungary]. / Javaslat a terhesgondozás és perinatológiai ellátás egységes minoségkontrollját célzó, Europeristat-konform adatszolgáltatási rendszer bevezetésére Magyarországon.

It is a regrettable deficiency in the Hungarian healthcare that the culture and the system of quality control of cure have not been formed (except for a few subspecialties, units or wards). If hospital wards do not have a national, professionally unified and modern information system presenting the most important quantity and quality indicators of their medicinal activity annually, a stable basis for definition of future tasks is absent. The author puts forward a proposal for the establishment of the information systems for different professional fields. On the basis of experience of perinatological information system operating for over 3 decades in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county, he also proposes introduction of a nationally unified, Europeristat-compatible information system following Tauffer-statistics which may serve as a uniform quality control of obstetrics and perinatological care, as well as introduction of its base, the dataform "TePERA" (Form of Obstetrics and Perinatological Care Risk).

Neonatal-perinatal medicine fellow procedural experience and competency determination: results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Ensuring that neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM) fellows attain competency in performing neonatal procedures is a requirement of training-competent neonatologists. STUDY DESIGN: A survey of NPM fellows was performed to determine the procedural experience of current fellows, investigate techniques used to track procedural experience and examine the methods programs use to verify procedural competency. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three fellows in 57 accredited training programs responded to the survey. Reported number of procedures provide contemporary normative data on procedural experience during training. The majority of fellows reported using an online reporting system to track experience. The most common technique to verify procedural competency was supervised practice until an arbitrary number of procedures had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: NPM fellow procedural experience increases significantly for most, but not all, procedures duration training. We speculate that supplemental simulation training for rare neonatal procedures would help ensure the competency of graduating NPM fellows. Experience alone is insufficient to verify competency. Further work on the accurate tracking of experience and verification of procedural competency is needed.

Drop in one-to-one nursing linked with infant mortality.

A REDUCTION in one-to-one nursing in neonatal intensive care units has been linked in a new study to a higher death rate.

Increased Incidence of Late-Onset Circulatory Collapse after Changing Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Investigation of Causative Factors.

OBJECTIVE: Acute primary profound circulatory failure responsive to glucocorticoid therapy after the first week of age in preterm infants is termed late-onset circulatory collapse (LCC). This study was performed to identify factors that notably increased the incidence of LCC after various management practices were changed. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively studied the clinical characteristics of infants (<29 weeks' gestation) before (n=26) and after (n=35) implementing the following practice changes: stress reduction, conservative replacement of thyroid hormone, positive antenatal glucocorticoid administration, sedation with fentanyl (<7 days after birth), and hydrocortisone therapy for hypotension. RESULTS: After the aforementioned changes, the incidence of LCC increased from 4 to 43%, and that of intraventricular hemorrhage decreased from 42 to 9%. Antenatal glucocorticoids (75 vs. 20%), fentanyl (94 vs. 53%), and hydrocortisone (63 vs. 31%) (<2 weeks of age) were given to infants with LCC and non-LCC. After the practice changes, infants with LCC had lower serum sodium levels than did infants without LCC at 7 to 14 days of age. CONCLUSION: Relative hyponatremia was an early sign of imminent LCC. In addition to adrenal prematurity, the antenatal administration of glucocorticoids and fentanyl, which influence adrenal function, might increase the incidence of LCC.

Sustainability of improvements in perinatal teamwork and safety climate.

The purposes of this study were to describe changes in perinatal nurse (n = 70) and physician (n = 88) perceptions of teamwork and safety climate after implementing a 6-month Crew Resource Management training program and compare responses between nurses and physicians. The Teamwork and Safety Climate Survey was administered prior to and 1 year after the intervention. There were significant improvements in nurse and physician perceptions of teamwork and safety climate; however, physicians perceived teamwork more positive than nurses.