Publications

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the trends of 1-year mortality and neonatal morbidities in preterm infants with serious congenital heart disease (CHD). Study design: This cohort study used a population-based administrative dataset of all liveborn infants of 26-36 weeks gestational age with serious CHD born in California between 2011 and 2017. We assessed 1-year mortality and major neonatal morbidities (ie, retinopathy of prematurity, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage grade >2, and periventricular leukomalacia) across the study period and compared these outcomes with those in infants without CHD. Results: We identified 1921 preterm infants with serious CHD. The relative risk (RR) of death decreased by 10.6% for each year of the study period (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95), and the RR of major neonatal morbidity increased by 8.3% for each year (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15). Compared with preterm neonates without any CHD (n = 234 522), the adjusted risk difference (ARD) for mortality was highest at 32 weeks of gestational age (9.7%; 95% CI, 8.3%-11.2%), that for major neonatal morbidity was highest at 28 weeks (21.9%; 95% CI, 17.0%-26.9%), and that for the combined outcome was highest at 30 weeks (26.7%; 95% CI, 23.3%-30.1%). Conclusions: Mortality in preterm neonates with serious CHD decreased over the last decade, whereas major neonatal morbidities increased. Preterm infants with a gestational age of 28-32 weeks have the highest mortality or morbidity compared with their peers without CHD. These results support the need for specialized and focused medical neonatal care in preterm neonates with serious CHD.

Abstract

Background: Identifying preterm infants at risk for mortality or major morbidity traditionally relies on gestational age, birth weight, and other clinical characteristics that offer underwhelming utility. We sought to determine whether a newborn metabolic vulnerability profile at birth can be used to evaluate risk for neonatal mortality and major morbidity in preterm infants. Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born between 2005 and 2011 in California. We created a newborn metabolic vulnerability profile wherein maternal/infant characteristics along with routine newborn screening metabolites were evaluated for their association with neonatal mortality or major morbidity. Results: Nine thousand six hundred and thirty-nine (9.2%) preterm infants experienced mortality or at least one complication. Six characteristics and 19 metabolites were included in the final metabolic vulnerability model. The model demonstrated exceptional performance for the composite outcome of mortality or any major morbidity (AUC 0.923 (95% CI: 0.917–0.929). Performance was maintained across mortality and morbidity subgroups (AUCs 0.893–0.979). Conclusions: Metabolites measured as part of routine newborn screening can be used to create a metabolic vulnerability profile. These findings lay the foundation for targeted clinical monitoring and further investigation of biological pathways that may increase the risk of neonatal death or major complications in infants born preterm. Impact: We built a newborn metabolic vulnerability profile that could identify preterm infants at risk for major morbidity and mortality.Identifying high-risk infants by this method is novel to the field and outperforms models currently in use that rely primarily on infant characteristics.Utilizing the newborn metabolic vulnerability profile for precision clinical monitoring and targeted investigation of etiologic pathways could lead to reductions in the incidence and severity of major morbidities associated with preterm birth.

Abstract

Background: The Republic of Liberia has experienced many barriers to maintaining the quality of its healthcare workforce. The Resilient and Responsive Health Systems (RRHS) Initiative supported by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has responded to Liberian identified health priorities. Liberia’s maternal morbidity and mortality rates continue to rank among the highest in the world. Recent country regulations have put forth required continuing professional development (CPD) for all licensed healthcare workers for re-licensure. Methods: The Model for Improvement was the guiding framework for this CPD to improve midwifery and nursing competencies in assisting birthing women. Two novel activities were used in the CPD. We tested the formal CPD application and approval process as this is a recent regulatory body policy. We also included the use of simulation and its processes as a pedagogical method. Over a two-year period, we developed a two-day CPD module, using didactic training and clinical simulation, for Liberian midwives. We then piloted the module in Liberia, training a group of 21 participants, including midwives and nurses, including pre-and post-test surveys as well as observational evaluation of participant skills. Findings: There were no significant changes in knowledge acquisition noted in the post-test. Small tests of change were implemented during the program, supporting the stages of the Model of Improvement. Observation of skill acquisition was done; however, using a formal observation checklist, such as an Observed Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE), would add more robust findings. The CPD and follow-up activity highlighted the need for human and financial support to maintain the simulation kits and to create sustainability for future trainings. Videotaping the didactic and simulation two-day continuing professional development train-the-trainer workshop expands the sustainability beyond newly prepared trainers. Simultaneous with this CPD, the Liberian Board for Nursing and Midwifery (LBNM) worked with a partner to create a CPD portal. The CPD partners created modules from the videos and have uploaded these modules to the LBNM’s new CPD portal. Conclusions: Using a quality improvement model as a framework for developing and implementing CPDs provides a clear structure and supports the dynamic interactions in learning and clinical care. It is too soon to determine measurable health outcomes resulting from this project. Anecdotal feedback from clinicians and leaders was not directly related to the content of the CPD; however, it does demonstrate an increased awareness of examining changes in practice to support expanded health outcomes. Further research to examine methods and processes to determine the quality and safety outcomes of CPD trainings is necessary.