Care practices and neonatal survival in 52 neonatal intensive care units in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: A cross-sectional study.
Cross-Sectional Studies
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated
/ trends
Guideline Adherence
/ trends
Healthcare Disparities
/ trends
Hospital Mortality
/ trends
Hospitals, Private
/ trends
Hospitals, Public
/ trends
Humans
India
Infant
Infant Mortality
/ trends
Intensive Care Units, Neonatal
/ trends
Intensive Care, Neonatal
/ trends
Patient Admission
/ trends
Personnel Staffing and Scheduling
/ trends
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Quality Indicators, Health Care
/ trends
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
23
01
2019
accepted:
21
06
2019
entrez:
24
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
20
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Indian government supports both public- and private-sector provision of hospital care for neonates: neonatal intensive care is offered in public facilities alongside a rising number of private-for-profit providers. However, there are few published reports about mortality levels and care practices in these facilities. We aimed to assess care practices, causes of admission, and outcomes from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in public secondary and private tertiary hospitals and both public and private medical colleges enrolled in a quality improvement collaborative in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh-2 Indian states with a respective population of 35 and 50 million. We conducted a cross-sectional study between 30 May and 26 August 2016 as part of a baseline evaluation in 52 consenting hospitals (26 public secondary hospitals, 5 public medical colleges, 15 private tertiary hospitals, and 6 private medical colleges) offering neonatal intensive care. We assessed the availability of staff and services, adherence to evidence-based practices at admission, and case fatality after admission to the NICU using a range of tools, including facility assessment, observations of admission, and abstraction of registers and telephone interviews after discharge. Our analysis is adjusted for clustering and weighted for caseload at the hospital level and presents findings stratified by type and ownership of hospitals. In total, the NICUs included just over 3,000 admissions per month. Staffing and infrastructure provision were largely according to government guidelines, except that only a mean of 1 but not the recommended 4 paediatricians were working in public secondary NICUs per 10 beds. On admission, all neonates admitted to private hospitals had auscultation (100%, 19 of 19 observations) but only 42% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-62%, p-value for difference is 0.361) in public secondary hospitals. The most common single cause of admission was preterm birth (25%) followed by jaundice (23%). Case-fatality rates at age 28 days after admission to a NICU were 4% (95% CI 2%-8%), 15% (9%-24%), 4% (2%-8%) and 2% (1%-5%) (Chi-squared p = 0.001) in public secondary hospitals, public medical colleges, private tertiary hospitals, and private medical colleges, respectively, according to facility registers. Case fatality according to postdischarge telephone interviews found rates of 12% (95% CI 7%-18%) for public secondary hospitals. Roughly 6% of admitted neonates were referred to another facility. Outcome data were missing for 27% and 8% of admissions to private tertiary hospitals and private medical colleges. Our study faced the limitation of missing data due to incomplete documentation. Further generalizability was limited due to the small sample size among private facilities. Our findings suggest differences in quality of neonatal intensive care and 28-day survival between the different types of hospitals, although comparison of outcomes is complicated by differences in the case mix and referral practices between hospitals. Uniform reporting of outcomes and risk factors across the private and public sectors is required to assess the benefits for the population of mixed-care provision.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Indian government supports both public- and private-sector provision of hospital care for neonates: neonatal intensive care is offered in public facilities alongside a rising number of private-for-profit providers. However, there are few published reports about mortality levels and care practices in these facilities. We aimed to assess care practices, causes of admission, and outcomes from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in public secondary and private tertiary hospitals and both public and private medical colleges enrolled in a quality improvement collaborative in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh-2 Indian states with a respective population of 35 and 50 million.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a cross-sectional study between 30 May and 26 August 2016 as part of a baseline evaluation in 52 consenting hospitals (26 public secondary hospitals, 5 public medical colleges, 15 private tertiary hospitals, and 6 private medical colleges) offering neonatal intensive care. We assessed the availability of staff and services, adherence to evidence-based practices at admission, and case fatality after admission to the NICU using a range of tools, including facility assessment, observations of admission, and abstraction of registers and telephone interviews after discharge. Our analysis is adjusted for clustering and weighted for caseload at the hospital level and presents findings stratified by type and ownership of hospitals. In total, the NICUs included just over 3,000 admissions per month. Staffing and infrastructure provision were largely according to government guidelines, except that only a mean of 1 but not the recommended 4 paediatricians were working in public secondary NICUs per 10 beds. On admission, all neonates admitted to private hospitals had auscultation (100%, 19 of 19 observations) but only 42% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-62%, p-value for difference is 0.361) in public secondary hospitals. The most common single cause of admission was preterm birth (25%) followed by jaundice (23%). Case-fatality rates at age 28 days after admission to a NICU were 4% (95% CI 2%-8%), 15% (9%-24%), 4% (2%-8%) and 2% (1%-5%) (Chi-squared p = 0.001) in public secondary hospitals, public medical colleges, private tertiary hospitals, and private medical colleges, respectively, according to facility registers. Case fatality according to postdischarge telephone interviews found rates of 12% (95% CI 7%-18%) for public secondary hospitals. Roughly 6% of admitted neonates were referred to another facility. Outcome data were missing for 27% and 8% of admissions to private tertiary hospitals and private medical colleges. Our study faced the limitation of missing data due to incomplete documentation. Further generalizability was limited due to the small sample size among private facilities.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest differences in quality of neonatal intensive care and 28-day survival between the different types of hospitals, although comparison of outcomes is complicated by differences in the case mix and referral practices between hospitals. Uniform reporting of outcomes and risk factors across the private and public sectors is required to assess the benefits for the population of mixed-care provision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31335869
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002860
pii: PMEDICINE-D-19-00265
pmc: PMC6650044
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1002860Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Indian Pediatr. 2016 Sep 8;53(9):793-795
pubmed: 27771647
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Jun 1;95(6):419-429
pubmed: 28603308
Glob Health Action. 2019;12(1):1581466
pubmed: 30849300
Lancet. 2014 Jul 26;384(9940):347-70
pubmed: 24853604
PLoS Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):e1000433
pubmed: 21532746
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Mar;30 Suppl 1:i46-58
pubmed: 25759454
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Sep;31 Suppl 2:ii25-ii34
pubmed: 27591203
J Perinatol. 2009 Feb;29(2):150-5
pubmed: 18946480
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Nov 8;16(1):345
pubmed: 27825321
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):613-21
pubmed: 27358250
J Health Popul Nutr. 2009 Feb;27(1):62-71
pubmed: 19248649
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 May;101(3):F260-5
pubmed: 26944066
BMC Public Health. 2018 Nov 27;18(1):1299
pubmed: 30482180
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Oct;31(8):1117-32
pubmed: 27198979
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 May 18;16(1):116
pubmed: 27193837
Lancet. 2002 Jan 12;359(9301):99-107
pubmed: 11809250
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 19;10(10):e0140448
pubmed: 26479476
Lancet. 2017 Oct 28;390(10106):1972-1980
pubmed: 28939096
PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001244
pubmed: 22723748
BMC Med. 2018 Mar 1;16(1):32
pubmed: 29495961
BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 9;7(6):e015077
pubmed: 28601830
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Jun;13(2):66-76
pubmed: 26057650
Lancet. 2015 Dec 12;386(10011):2422-35
pubmed: 26700532
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Aug;2(8):610-620
pubmed: 30119720
Natl Med J India. 2011 Nov-Dec;24(6):335-41
pubmed: 22680257
J Health Popul Nutr. 2011 Oct;29(5):500-9
pubmed: 22106756
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 4;8(6):e020532
pubmed: 29866726
Lancet. 2013 May 18;381(9879):1747-55
pubmed: 23683641
Lancet. 2011 Feb 12;377(9765):587-98
pubmed: 21227499
J Family Med Prim Care. 2017 Jul-Sep;6(3):477-481
pubmed: 29416992
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):606-12
pubmed: 27358251