Racial/Ethnic Disparity in NICU Quality of Care Delivery

Jochen Profit, Jeffrey B Gould, Mihoko Bennett, Benjamin A Goldstein, David Draper, Ciaran S Phibbs, Henry C Lee, Jochen Profit, Jeffrey B Gould, Mihoko Bennett, Benjamin A Goldstein, David Draper, Ciaran S Phibbs, Henry C Lee

Abstract

Background: Differences in NICU quality of care provided to very low birth weight (<1500 g) infants may contribute to the persistence of racial and/or ethnic disparity. An examination of such disparities in a population-based sample across multiple dimensions of care and outcomes is lacking.

Methods: Prospective observational analysis of 18 616 very low birth weight infants in 134 California NICUs between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. We assessed quality of care via the Baby-MONITOR, a composite indicator consisting of 9 process and outcome measures of quality. For each NICU, we calculated a risk-adjusted composite and individual component quality score for each race and/or ethnicity. We standardized each score to the overall population to compare quality of care between and within NICUs.

Results: We found clinically and statistically significant racial and/or ethnic variation in quality of care between NICUs as well as within NICUs. Composite quality scores ranged by 5.26 standard units (range: -2.30 to 2.96). Adjustment of Baby-MONITOR scores by race and/or ethnicity had only minimal effect on comparative assessments of NICU performance. Among subcomponents of the Baby-MONITOR, non-Hispanic white infants scored higher on measures of process compared with African Americans and Hispanics. Compared with whites, African Americans scored higher on measures of outcome; Hispanics scored lower on 7 of the 9 Baby-MONITOR subcomponents.

Conclusions: Significant racial and/or ethnic variation in quality of care exists between and within NICUs. Providing feedback of disparity scores to NICUs could serve as an important starting point for promoting improvement and reducing disparities.

Conflict of interest statement

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study population flowchart.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Baby-MONITOR scores with and without adjustment for race and/or ethnicity. Baby-Monitor scores are expressed in SD units, unadjusted (o) and adjusted (x) for race and/or ethnicity. NICUs with more than 20 infants during the study periods are shown (120 NICUs). Adjustment for race and/or ethnicity has a minimal effect on NICU rankings (Pearson correlation = 0.995 [P < .0001]).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Baby-MONITOR subcomponent score by race and/or ethnicity. Each subcomponent is listed on the x-axis; standardized observed minus expected z scores are shown on the y-axis. Scores >0 indicate better than expected performance. Comparison of African American and white infants. HM, human milk. ** P < .05, * P < .1.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Baby-MONITOR subcomponent score by race and/or ethnicity. Each subcomponent is listed on the x-axis; standardized observed minus expected z scores are shown on the y-axis. Comparison of Hispanic and white infants. CLD, chronic lung disease; DC, discharge; HAI, health care–associated infection; HM, human milk. ** P < .05, * P < .1.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Baby-MONITOR scores for each NICU by race and/or ethnicity. NICUs with at least 10 infants in each race are shown in the graphs. Race- and/or ethnicity-specific Baby-MONITOR scores standardized against all infants are used (y-axis). The overall composite score (not race- and/or ethnicity-adjusted) is used on x-axis. The correlations with the overall Baby-MONITOR score are as follows: white = 0.88; African American = 0.70; Hispanic = 0.89; Asian American = 0.69; all P < .0001. Overall and white versus African American (n =53).
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Baby-MONITOR scores for each NICU by race and/or ethnicity. NICUs with at least 10 infants in each race are shown in the graphs. Race- and/or ethnicity-specific Baby-MONITOR scores standardized against all infants are used (y-axis). The overall composite score (not race- and/or ethnicity-adjusted) is used on x-axis. The correlations with the overall Baby-MONITOR score are as follows: white = 0.88; African American = 0.70; Hispanic = 0.89; Asian American = 0.69; all P < .0001. Overall and white versus Hispanic (n = 88).
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Baby-MONITOR scores for each NICU by race and/or ethnicity. NICUs with at least 10 infants in each race are shown in the graphs. Race- and/or ethnicity-specific Baby-MONITOR scores standardized against all infants are used (y-axis). The overall composite score (not race- and/or ethnicity-adjusted) is used on x-axis. The correlations with the overall Baby-MONITOR score are as follows: white = 0.88; African American = 0.70; Hispanic = 0.89; Asian American = 0.69; all P < .0001. Overall and white versus Asian American (n = 53).
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Baby-MONITOR scores for each NICU by race and/or ethnicity. NICUs with at least 10 infants in each race are shown in the graphs. Race- and/or ethnicity-specific Baby-MONITOR scores standardized against all infants are used (y-axis). The overall composite score (not race- and/or ethnicity-adjusted) is used on x-axis. The correlations with the overall Baby-MONITOR score are as follows: white = 0.88; African American = 0.70; Hispanic = 0.89; Asian American = 0.69; all P < .0001. Overall and all races and/or ethnicities (n = 40).

References

    1. Wise PH. The anatomy of a disparity in infant mortality. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:341–362
    1. Smedley B, Stith A. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2003
    1. Morales LS, Staiger D, Horbar JD, et al. . Mortality among very low-birthweight infants in hospitals serving minority populations. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(12):2206–2212
    1. Howell EA, Hebert P, Chatterjee S, Kleinman LC, Chassin MR. Black/white differences in very low birth weight neonatal mortality rates among New York City hospitals. Pediatrics. 2008;121(3). Available at:
    1. Lee HC, Lyndon A, Blumenfeld YJ, Dudley RA, Gould JB. Antenatal steroid administration for premature neonates in California. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):603–609
    1. Lee HC, Gould JB. Factors influencing breast milk versus formula feeding at discharge for very low birth weight infants in California. J Pediatr. 2009;155(5):657–62.e1, 2
    1. National Quality Forum Composite measure evaluation framework and national voluntary consensus standards for mortality and safety–composite measures: a consensus report. 2009. Available at:
    1. Profit J, Kowalkowski MA, Zupancic JA, et al. . Baby-MONITOR: a composite indicator of NICU quality. Pediatrics. 2014;134(1):74–82
    1. Profit J, Zupancic JA, Gould JB, et al. . Correlation of neonatal intensive care unit performance across multiple measures of quality of care. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(1):47–54
    1. Kowalkowski M, Gould JB, Bose C, Petersen LA, Profit J. Do practicing clinicians agree with expert ratings of neonatal intensive care unit quality measures? J Perinatol. 2012;32(4):247–252
    1. Profit J, Gould JB, Zupancic JA, et al. . Formal selection of measures for a composite index of NICU quality of care: Baby-MONITOR. J Perinatol. 2011;31(11):702–710
    1. Gould JB. The role of regional collaboratives: the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative model. Clin Perinatol. 2010;37(1):71–86
    1. Peerzada JM, Richardson DK, Burns JP. Delivery room decision-making at the threshold of viability. J Pediatr. 2004;145(4):492–498
    1. Profit J, Gould JB, Bennett M, et al. . The association of level of care with NICU quality. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20144210.
    1. Patel AL, Engstrom JL, Meier PP, Kimura RE. Accuracy of methods for calculating postnatal growth velocity for extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1466–1473
    1. Draper D, Gittoes M. Statistical analysis of performance indicators in UK higher education. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2004;167(3):449–474
    1. National Quality Forum Risk adjustment for socioeconomic status or other sociodemographic factors. 2014. Available at: .
    1. Taylor R, Bower A, Girosi F, Bigelow J, Fonkych K, Hillestad R. Promoting health information technology: is there a case for more-aggressive government action? There are sufficient reasons for the federal government to invest now in policies to speed HIT adoption and accelerate its benefits. Health Aff. 2005;24(5):1234–1245
    1. Lake ET, Staiger D, Horbar J, et al. . Association between hospital recognition for nursing excellence and outcomes of very low-birth-weight infants. JAMA. 2012;307(16):1709–1716
    1. Behrman RE, Stith Butler A, eds. Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007
    1. Profit J, Goldstein BA, Tamaresis J, Kan P, Lee HC. Regional variation in antenatal corticosteroid use: a network-level quality improvement study. Pediatrics. 2015;135(2). Available at:
    1. Dereddy NR, Talati AJ, Smith A, Kudumula R, Dhanireddy R. A multipronged approach is associated with improved breast milk feeding rates in very low birth weight infants of an inner-city hospital. J Hum Lact. 2015;31(1):43–46
    1. Profit J, Gould JB, Draper D, et al. . Variations in definitions of mortality have little influence on neonatal intensive care unit performance ratings. J Pediatr. 2013;162(1):50–55.e2
    1. Profit J, Typpo KV, Hysong SJ, Woodard LD, Kallen MA, Petersen LA. Improving benchmarking by using an explicit framework for the development of composite indicators: an example using pediatric quality of care. Implement Sci. 2010;5:13.
    1. Lee HC, Powers RJ, Bennett MV, et al. . Implementation methods for delivery room management: a quality improvement comparison study. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5). Available at:

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj