Neonatal intensive care unit report cards

Assessing mortality risk in very low birthweight infants: a comparison of CRIB, CRIB-II, and SNAPPE-II

BACKGROUND

Illness severity scores are increasingly used for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality assessment. Recently, a simplified version of the score for neonatal acute physiology (SNAPPE-II) and a revised clinical risk index for babies (CRIB-II) score have been published.

AIM

To compare the discriminatory ability and goodness of fit of CRIB, CRIB-II, and SNAPPE-II in a cohort of neonates < 1500 g birth weight (VLBWI).

METHODS

Data from 720 VLBWI, admitted to 12 neonatal units in Lombardy (Northern Italy) participating in a regional network, were analysed. The discriminatory ability of the scores was assessed measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Outcome measure was in-hospital death.

RESULTS

CRIB and CRIB-II showed greater discrimination than SNAPPE-II (AUC 0.90 and 0.91 v 0.84, p < 0.0004), partly because of the poor quality of some of the data required for the SNAPPE-II calculation-for example, urine output-but also because of the relative weight given to some items. In addition to each score, several variables significantly influenced survival in logistic regression models. Antenatal steroid prophylaxis, singleton birth, absence of congenital anomalies, and gestational age were independent predictors of survival for all scores, in addition to caesarean section and not being small for gestation (for SNAPPE-II) and a five minute Apgar score of > or = 7 (for SNAPPE-II and CRIB).

CONCLUSIONS

CRIB and CRIB-II had greater discriminatory ability than SNAPPE-II. Risk adjustment using all scores is imperfect, and other perinatal factors significantly influence VLBWI survival. CRIB-II seems to be less confounded by these factors.

"Thinking upstream" to evaluate and to improve the daily work of the newborn intensive care unit

One may divide patient care problem-solving approaches into two categories: (1) "Ready, aim, fire" and (2) "Ready, fire, aim." The present paper invites the reader to think about these distinctions and to identify which of these categories might apply to the reader's daily work experience. Espousing the first of these categories, and anchored in the notions of systems thinking, this paper offers the reader a framework to better understand and implement the daily work of the newborn intensive care unit. This knowledge and competence may be achieved by "thinking upstream," connecting "downstream" outcomes with "upstream" work process steps. The central elements that govern and inform the process of "thinking upstream" are articulated here in actionable terms.

A critical evaluation of clinical practice guidelines in neonatal medicine: does their use improve quality and lower costs?

Clinical practice guidelines and care pathways have become a focus of quality improvement efforts in Neonatology. Health care administrators believe that using clinical practice parameters reduces health care costs, improves quality of care, and limits malpractice liability. Practice guidelines and surveys of consumer satisfaction have grown in use partly because third-party payers, insurers, and health maintenance organizations, as well as hospital administrators bent on reducing variable costs of care and contracting for capitated care have championed their development, implementation, and monitoring. Overall there is minimal evidence-based medicine to support that neonatal outcomes have benefitted from their implementation, although some studies show affirmative effects in limited populations or in a limited number of centres. For highly autonomous physicians and nurses this standardization of medical decision making may represent a difficult transition into efforts to improve quality, based on evidence-based care, and in some instances into corporate medicine. By realigning the traditional values of patient relationships, including parent involvement, the implementation of guidelines has been fast-tracked in some institutions, without appropriate audit to determine their effectiveness in achieving their goals. However, because guidelines and clinical pathways are here to stay, neonatologists need to think critically about how their content and method of implementation, monitoring and modification may influence medical and nursing teaching and decision making in the future. If guidelines are introduced primarily as a cost savings or containment tool that ignores their impact on the quality of medical care and thereby restricts needed care, then neonatologists must be quick to challenge the potentially damaging and inappropriate use of guidelines and care pathways. Several international efforts are underway to study both the impact of evidence-based guidelines and to determine if they can be imported from one care system into another. Furthermore, there are many medico-legal implications of guideline and clinical pathway implementation that may not favour physicians and other neonatal care practitioners, and leave to hospitals, insurers, and ultimately the courts, decisions regarding evidence-based care. Neonatologists and other practitioners in neonatal care centres should critically analyse the goals of guideline development, implementation and monitoring and should restrict themselves to guideline directed care only at those practices for which there is evidence supporting their implementation and continuous monitoring.