Skip to main content
PMC home page
Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition
. 1998 May;78(3):F179–F184. doi: 10.1136/fn.78.3.f179

Limited comparability of classifications of levels of neonatal care in UK units

PMCID: PMC1720785  PMID: 9713028

Abstract

AIM—To assess whether different classifications of neonatal care or dependency scales are comparable when used in multicentre studies of cost effectiveness.
METHODS—A survey of classifications was used in a nationally representative group of 57 units in 1990-1, with a retrospective study of 10 354 cot days using patient records from a 5% random sample of 1042 admissions. Local and national classifications were correlated with medical and nursing procedures recorded for up to 26 days after each admission.
RESULTS—Classifications varied substantially. Of the 57 units in our sample, 26 used one of two national classifications, sometimes modified; 17 used the Northern Neonatal Network dependency scale; and the other 14 did not record daily levels of care. In each classification, the highest level was having respiratory support by ventilation or continuous distending pressure through an endotracheal tube, nasal prongs, facemask or negative pressure device. This level of care was consistently comparable between classifications; lower levels were not.
CONCLUSIONS—Retrospective comparisons between units with different classifications can only reliably differentiate between days with and without respiratory support. There is a pressing need to develop and validate more appropriate scales for prospective multicentre studies. These should relate activity to costs and outcome.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (132.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Early versus delayed neonatal administration of a synthetic surfactant--the judgment of OSIRIS. The OSIRIS Collaborative Group (open study of infants at high risk of or with respiratory insufficiency--the role of surfactant. Lancet. 1992 Dec 5;340(8832):1363–1369. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fordham R., Field D. J., Hodges S., Normand C., Mason E., Burton P., Yates J., Male S. Cost of neonatal care across a regional health authority. J Public Health Med. 1992 Jun;14(2):127–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Halliday H. L., Tarnow-Mordi W. O., Corcoran J. D., Patterson C. C. Multicentre randomised trial comparing high and low dose surfactant regimens for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (the Curosurf 4 trial). Arch Dis Child. 1993 Sep;69(3 Spec No):276–280. doi: 10.1136/adc.69.3_spec_no.276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mugford M., Piercy J., Chalmers I. Cost implications of different approaches to the prevention of respiratory distress syndrome. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Jul;66(7 Spec No):757–764. doi: 10.1136/adc.66.7_spec_no.757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mugford M. The cost of neonatal care: reviewing the evidence. Soz Praventivmed. 1995;40(6):361–368. doi: 10.1007/BF01325418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Newns B., Drummond M. F., Durbin G. M., Culley P. Costs and outcomes in a regional neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child. 1984 Nov;59(11):1064–1067. doi: 10.1136/adc.59.11.1064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. O'Neill C., Largey A. Issues in cost function specification for neonatal care: the Fordham case. J Public Health Med. 1997 Mar;19(1):50–54. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ryan S., Sics A., Congdon P. Cost of neonatal care. Arch Dis Child. 1988 Mar;63(3):303–306. doi: 10.1136/adc.63.3.303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sandhu B., Stevenson R. C., Cooke R. W., Pharoah P. O. Cost of neonatal intensive care for very-low-birthweight infants. Lancet. 1986 Mar 15;1(8481):600–603. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)92820-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tarnow-Mordi W., Tucker J., McCabe C., Parry G., Malek M. Issues in cost function specification for neonatal care: an inter-disciplinary perspective. J Public Health Med. 1997 Dec;19(4):479–481. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Tubman T. R., Halliday H. L., Normand C. Cost of surfactant replacement treatment for severe neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1990 Oct 13;301(6756):842–845. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6756.842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Williams S., Whelan A., Weindling A. M., Cooke R. W. Nursing staff requirements for neonatal intensive care. Arch Dis Child. 1993 May;68(5 Spec No):534–538. doi: 10.1136/adc.68.5_spec_no.534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES