Optimising neonatal service provision for preterm babies born between 27 and 31 weeks gestation in England (OPTI-PREM), using national data, qualitative research and economic analysis: a study protocol

Thillagavathie Pillay, Neena Modi, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Brad Manktelow, Sarah E Seaton, Natalie Armstrong, Elizabeth S Draper, Kelvin Dawson, Alexis Paton, Abdul Qader Tahir Ismail, Miaoqing Yang, Elaine M Boyle, Thillagavathie Pillay, Neena Modi, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Brad Manktelow, Sarah E Seaton, Natalie Armstrong, Elizabeth S Draper, Kelvin Dawson, Alexis Paton, Abdul Qader Tahir Ismail, Miaoqing Yang, Elaine M Boyle

Abstract

Introduction: In England, for babies born at 23-26 weeks gestation, care in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) as opposed to a local neonatal unit (LNU) improves survival to discharge. This evidence is shaping neonatal health services. In contrast, there is no evidence to guide location of care for the next most vulnerable group (born at 27-31 weeks gestation) whose care is currently spread between 45 NICU and 84 LNU in England. This group represents 12% of preterm births in England and over onr-third of all neonatal unit care days. Compared with those born at 23-26 weeks gestation, they account for four times more admissions and twice as many National Health Service bed days/year.

Methods: In this mixed-methods study, our primary objective is to assess, for babies born at 27-31 weeks gestation and admitted to a neonatal unit in England, whether care in an NICU vs an LNU impacts on survival and key morbidities (up to age 1 year), at each gestational age in weeks. Routinely recorded data extracted from real-time, point-of-care patient management systems held in the National Neonatal Research Database, Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics, for January 2014 to December 2018, will be analysed. Secondary objectives are to assess (1) whether differences in care provided, rather than a focus on LNU/NICU designation, drives gestation-specific outcomes, (2) where care is most cost-effective and (3) what parents' and clinicians' perspectives are on place of care, and how these could guide clinical decision-making. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations, in collaboration with national bodies, to inform clinical practice, commissioning and policy-making. The project is supported by a parent advisory panel and a study steering committee.

Ethics and dissemination: Research ethics approval has been obtained (IRAS 212304). Dissemination will be through publication of findings and development of recommendations for care.

Trial registration number: NCT02994849 and ISRCTN74230187.

Keywords: health economics; neonatal intensive & critical care; neonatology; organisation of health services.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall aims and objectives for OPTI-PREM. BAPM, British Association of Perinatal Medicine; LNU, local neonatal unit; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; NHS, National Health Service.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of OPTI-PREM workstreams. BAPM, British Association of Perinatal Medicine; LNU, local neonatal unit; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; NNRD, National Neonatal Research Database; ODNs, operational delivery network;
Figure 3
Figure 3
Diagram of a valid instrumental variable (IV). NICU, neonatal intensive care unit.

References

    1. Operational Delivery Networks Available: [Accessed 02 Jan 2019].
    1. BAPM : Service standards for hospitals providing neonatal care (third edition) , 2010. Available: [Accessed 28 Dec 2018].
    1. Department of Health Toolkit for high quality neonatal services, 2009. Available: [Accessed 28 Dec 2018].
    1. British Association of Perinatal Medicine Neonatal networks. Available: [Accessed 17 Jun 2019].
    1. Marlow N, Bennett C, Draper ES, et al. . Perinatal outcomes for extremely preterm babies in relation to place of birth in England: the EPICure 2 study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2014;99:F181–F188. 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305555
    1. Watson SI, Arulampalam W, Petrou S, et al. . The effects of designation and volume of neonatal care on mortality and morbidity outcomes of very preterm infants in England: retrospective population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004856 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004856
    1. British association of perinatal medicine. optimal arrangements for neonatal intensive care units in the UK including guidance on their medical staffing. A Framework for Practice 2014.
    1. Office For National Statistics Gestation specific infant mortality in England and Wales, 2013. Published 14 Oct 2015 Available: [Accessed 28 Dec 2018].
    1. NDAU 2014 Report Available: [Accessed 28 Dec 2018].
    1. National Institute For Health and Clinical Excellence : Neonatal specialist care: quality standard QS4 Available: [Accessed 02 Jan 2019].
    1. Where to give birth: the options-NHS Available: [Accessed 17 Jun 2019].
    1. Booking an appointment using the NHS e-referral service Available: [Accessed 17 Jun 2019].
    1. Mangham LJ, Petrou S, Doyle LW, et al. . The cost of preterm birth throughout childhood in England and Wales. Pediatrics 2009;123:e312–27. 10.1542/peds.2008-1827
    1. Department of Health Nhs reference cost, 2017. Available: [Accessed 23 Jan 2019].
    1. Aliaga S, Boggess K, Ivester TS, et al. . Influence of neonatal practice variation on outcomes of late preterm birth. Am J Perinatol 2014;31:659–66.
    1. Rysavy MA, Li L, Bell EF, et al. . Between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1801–11. 10.1056/NEJMoa1410689
    1. Wong J, Shah P, Yoon E, et al. . Inotrope use among extremely preterm infants in Canadian neonatal intensive care units: variation and outcomes. Am J Perinatol 2015;32:009–14. 10.1055/s-0034-1371703
    1. Boyle EM, Johnson S, Manktelow B, et al. . Neonatal outcomes and delivery of care for infants born late preterm or moderately preterm: a prospective population-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;100:F479–F485. 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307347
    1. Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd Edition Sage Publications Ltd, 2002.
    1. Silverman D. Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. Second Edition SAGE Publications Ltd, 2004.
    1. Gale C, Morris I. On behalf of the neonatal data analysis unit (NDAU) steering board. the UK national neonatal research database: using neonatal data for research, quality improvement and more. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Education and Practice 2016;101:216–8.
    1. Webbe J, Brunton G, Ali S, et al. . Parent, patient and clinician perceptions of outcomes during and following neonatal care: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Paediatrics Open 2018;2:e000343 10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000343
    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41–55. 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
    1. D'Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265–81. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::AID-SIM918>;2-B
    1. Medlock S, Ravelli ACJ, Tamminga P, et al. . Prediction of mortality in very premature infants: a systematic review of prediction models. PLoS One 2011;6:e23441 10.1371/journal.pone.0023441
    1. Lorch SA, Baiocchi M, Ahlberg CE, et al. . The differential impact of delivery Hospital on the outcomes of premature infants. Pediatrics 2012;130:270–8. 10.1542/peds.2011-2820
    1. Diamond A, Sekhon JS. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2013;3:932–45.
    1. Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol 2000;29:722–9. 10.1093/ije/29.4.722
    1. Watson S, Arulampalam W, Petrou S, et al. . The effect of health care expenditure on patient outcomes: evidence from English neonatal care. Health Econ 2017;26:e274–84. 10.1002/hec.3503
    1. Yang F, Lorch SA, Small DS. Estimation of causal effects using instrumental variables with nonignorable missing covariates: application to effect of type of delivery NICU on premature infants. Ann Appl Stat 2014;8:48–73. 10.1214/13-AOAS699
    1. Sekhon JS, Grieve RD. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses. Health Econ 2012;21:695–714. 10.1002/hec.1748
    1. Kreif N, Grieve R, Sadique MZ. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data: a critical appraisal tool and review of current practice. Health Econ 2013;22:486–500. 10.1002/hec.2806
    1. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:377–401. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534
    1. Glaser BG. Discovery of Grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. 2Ed Aldine Transaction, 2000.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever