The Vermont oxford neonatal encephalopathy registry: Rationale, methods, and initial results

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Vermont Oxford Network (VON) established the Neonatal Encephalopathy Registry (NER) to characterize infants born with neonatal encephalopathy, describe evaluations and medical treatments, monitor hypothermic therapy (HT) dissemination, define clinical research questions, and identify opportunities for improved care. METHODS: Eligible infants were ≥ 36 weeks with seizures, altered consciousness (stupor, coma) during the first 72 hours of life, a 5 minute Apgar score of ≤ 3, or receiving HT. Infants with central nervous system birth defects were excluded. RESULTS: From 2006–2010, 95 centers registered 4232 infants. Of those, 59% suffered a seizure, 50% had a 5 minute Apgar score of ≤ 3, 38% received HT, and 18% had stupor/coma documented on neurologic exam. Some infants experienced more than one eligibility criterion. Only 53% had a cord gas obtained and only 63% had a blood gas obtained within 24 hours of birth, important components for determining HT eligibility. Sixty-four percent received ventilator support, 65% received anticonvulsants, 66% had a head MRI, 23% had a cranial CT, 67% had a full channel encephalogram (EEG) and 33% amplitude integrated EEG. Of all infants, 87% survived. CONCLUSIONS: The VON NER describes the heterogeneous population of infants with NE, the subset that received HT, their patterns of care, and outcomes. The optimal routine care of infants with neonatal encephalopathy is unknown. The registry method is well suited to identify opportunities for improvement in the care of infants affected by NE and study interventions such as HT as they are implemented in clinical practice

Success of blinding a procedural intervention in a randomised controlled trial in preterm infants receiving respiratory support

Background: Blinding of treatment allocation from treating clinicians in neonatal randomised controlled trials can minimise performance bias, but its effectiveness is rarely assessed. // Methods: To examine the effectiveness of blinding a procedural intervention from treating clinicians in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive surfactant therapy versus sham treatment in preterm infants of gestation 25–28 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome. The intervention (minimally invasive surfactant therapy or sham) was performed behind a screen within the first 6 h of life by a ‘study team’ uninvolved in clinical care including decision-making. Procedure duration and the study team’s words and actions during the sham treatment mimicked those of the minimally invasive surfactant therapy procedure. Post-intervention, three clinicians completed a questionnaire regarding perceived group allocation, with the responses matched against actual intervention and categorised as correct, incorrect, or unsure. Success of blinding was calculated using validated blinding indices applied to the data overall (James index, successful blinding defined as > 0.50), or to the two treatment allocation groups (Bang index, successful blinding: −0.30 to 0.30). Blinding success was measured within staff role, and the associations between blinding success and procedural duration and oxygenation improvement post-procedure were estimated. // Results: From 1345 questionnaires in relation to a procedural intervention in 485 participants, responses were categorised as correct in 441 (33%), incorrect in 142 (11%), and unsure in 762 (57%), with similar proportions for each of the response categories in the two treatment arms. The James index indicated successful blinding overall 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.70). The Bang index was 0.28 (95% CI 0.23–0.32) in the minimally invasive surfactant therapy group and 0.17 (95% CI 0.12–0.21) in the sham arm. Neonatologists more frequently guessed the correct intervention (47%) than bedside nurses (36%), neonatal trainees (31%), and other nurses (24%). For the minimally invasive surfactant therapy intervention, the Bang index was linearly related to procedural duration and oxygenation improvement post-procedure. No evidence of such relationships was seen in the sham arm. // Conclusion: Blinding of a procedural intervention from clinicians is both achievable and measurable in neonatal randomised controlled trials

Evidence-Based Practice : Improving the Quality of Perinatal Care

BACKGROUND: For clinical research findings to improve the quality of care and outcomes for newborn infants and their families, they need to be implemented in policy and adopted in practice. METHODS: We describe the principles of effective dissemination and implementation of research findings and highlight examples of collaborative quality improvement strategies to ensure that guidelines, protocols, policies and practices reflect research-informed evidence. RESULTS: Passive dissemination of research findings is generally ineffective in driving change. Implementation strategies that use multi-faceted approaches acting on different barriers to change are better at driving improvements in the quality of care practices. These initiatives are increasingly embedded within regional, national and international networks of neonatal care centres that collaborate in conducting research, implementing its findings and auditing its uptake. Examples of successful network-based collaborative quality improvement programmes include efforts to increase use of evidence-based strategies to prevent hospital-acquired bloodstream infections, optimise surfactant replacement for preterm infants, reduce the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, improve antibiotic stewardship and promote the use of human milk to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very-low-birth-weight infants. CONCLUSIONS: Effective dissemination and implementation are essential for research evidence to improve quality of care and outcomes for newborn infants and their families. Multifaceted initiatives within network-based collaborative quality improvement programmes facilitate continuous audit and benchmarking cycles to ensure equity of access to evidence-based care practices