Loading…
Survey shows marked variations in approaches to redirection of care for critically ill very preterm infants in 11 countries
Aim We surveyed care practices for critically ill very preterm infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes in Neonates (iNeo) to identify differences relevant to outcome comparisons. Methods We conducted an online survey on care prac...
Saved in:
Published in: | Acta Paediatrica 2020-07, Vol.109 (7), p.1338-1345 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Aim
We surveyed care practices for critically ill very preterm infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes in Neonates (iNeo) to identify differences relevant to outcome comparisons.
Methods
We conducted an online survey on care practices for critically ill very preterm infants and infants with severe intracranial haemorrhage (ICH). The survey was distributed in 2015 to representatives of 390 NICUs in 11 countries. Survey replies were compared with network incidence of death and severe ICH for infants born between 230/7 and 286/7 weeks of gestation from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015.
Results
Most units in Israel, Japan and Tuscany, Italy, favoured withholding care when care was considered futile, whereas most units in other networks favoured redirection of care. For infants with bilateral grade 4 ICH, redirection of care was very frequently (≥90% of cases) offered in the majority of units in Australia and New Zealand and Switzerland, but rarely in other networks. Networks where redirection of care was frequently offered for severe ICH had lower rates of survivors with severe ICH.
Conclusion
We identified marked inter‐network differences in care approaches that need to be considered when comparing outcomes. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0803-5253 1651-2227 1651-2227 |
DOI: | 10.1111/apa.15069 |