Retinopathy of prematurity in English neonatal units: A national population-based analysis using NHS operational data
Authors: Wong, H.S. et al.
Journal: Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition
Volume: 99
Issue: 3
eISSN: 1468-2052
ISSN: 1359-2998
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304508
Abstract:Objectives: To report on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening compliance against a national guideline, factors associated with non-compliance and effect on ROP treatment. Design: National cohort study using operational NHS data from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) for the period 2009-2011. Setting: 161 (94%) neonatal units in England. Population: Infants born below 32 weeks' gestation and/or with a birth weight below 1501 g. Main outcome measures: ROP screening status ('on-time', 'early', 'late', 'unknown') and associated infant and neonatal unit characteristics, ROP treatment. Results: The proportion of infants screened on-time increased over the study period (p<0.001). Of 19 821 eligible infants, 7602 (38.4%) were recorded to have received ROP screening in accordance with the national guideline; 7474 (37.8%) received screening outside the recommended time period; data were missing for 4745 (16.7%) infants. For 16 411 infants in neonatal care during the recommended screening period, late screening was significantly associated with lower gestational age (relative risk ratio (RRR) (95% credible interval) for late versus on-time screening 0.83 (0.80 to 0.86) for each increased week of gestation) and care in a neonatal unit providing less than 500 days of intensive care per annum (2.48 (0.99 to 4.99)). Infants screened late were almost 40% more likely to receive ROP treatment (OR (95% CI) 1.36 (1.05 to 1.76)). Conclusions: Understanding organisational differences between neonatal units may help improve ROP screening. Patient-level electronic NHS clinical data offer opportunity for future rapid, low cost, population-based evaluations but require improved data entry.
Source: Scopus
Preferred by: Minesh Khashu
Retinopathy of prematurity in English neonatal units: a national population-based analysis using NHS operational data.
Authors: Wong, H.S., Santhakumaran, S., Statnikov, Y., Gray, D., Watkinson, M., Modi, N. and UK Neonatal Collaborative
Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
Volume: 99
Issue: 3
Pages: F196-F202
eISSN: 1468-2052
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304508
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To report on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening compliance against a national guideline, factors associated with non-compliance and effect on ROP treatment. DESIGN: National cohort study using operational NHS data from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) for the period 2009-2011. SETTING: 161 (94%) neonatal units in England. POPULATION: Infants born below 32 weeks' gestation and/or with a birth weight below 1501 g. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ROP screening status ('on-time', 'early', 'late', 'unknown') and associated infant and neonatal unit characteristics, ROP treatment. RESULTS: The proportion of infants screened on-time increased over the study period (p<0.001). Of 19 821 eligible infants, 7602 (38.4%) were recorded to have received ROP screening in accordance with the national guideline; 7474 (37.8%) received screening outside the recommended time period; data were missing for 4745 (16.7%) infants. For 16 411 infants in neonatal care during the recommended screening period, late screening was significantly associated with lower gestational age (relative risk ratio (RRR) (95% credible interval) for late versus on-time screening 0.83 (0.80 to 0.86) for each increased week of gestation) and care in a neonatal unit providing less than 500 days of intensive care per annum (2.48 (0.99 to 4.99)). Infants screened late were almost 40% more likely to receive ROP treatment (OR (95% CI) 1.36 (1.05 to 1.76)). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding organisational differences between neonatal units may help improve ROP screening. Patient-level electronic NHS clinical data offer opportunity for future rapid, low cost, population-based evaluations but require improved data entry.
Source: PubMed
Retinopathy of prematurity in English neonatal units: a national population-based analysis using NHS operational data.
Authors: Wong, H.S., Santhakumaran, S., Statnikov, Y., Gray, D., Watkinson, M., Modi, N. and UK Neonatal Collaborative
Journal: Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition
Volume: 99
Issue: 3
Pages: F196-F202
eISSN: 1468-2052
ISSN: 1359-2998
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304508
Abstract:Objectives
To report on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening compliance against a national guideline, factors associated with non-compliance and effect on ROP treatment.Design
National cohort study using operational NHS data from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) for the period 2009-2011.Setting
161 (94%) neonatal units in England.Population
Infants born below 32 weeks' gestation and/or with a birth weight below 1501 g.Main outcome measures
ROP screening status ('on-time', 'early', 'late', 'unknown') and associated infant and neonatal unit characteristics, ROP treatment.Results
The proportion of infants screened on-time increased over the study period (p<0.001). Of 19 821 eligible infants, 7602 (38.4%) were recorded to have received ROP screening in accordance with the national guideline; 7474 (37.8%) received screening outside the recommended time period; data were missing for 4745 (16.7%) infants. For 16 411 infants in neonatal care during the recommended screening period, late screening was significantly associated with lower gestational age (relative risk ratio (RRR) (95% credible interval) for late versus on-time screening 0.83 (0.80 to 0.86) for each increased week of gestation) and care in a neonatal unit providing less than 500 days of intensive care per annum (2.48 (0.99 to 4.99)). Infants screened late were almost 40% more likely to receive ROP treatment (OR (95% CI) 1.36 (1.05 to 1.76)).Conclusions
Understanding organisational differences between neonatal units may help improve ROP screening. Patient-level electronic NHS clinical data offer opportunity for future rapid, low cost, population-based evaluations but require improved data entry.Source: Europe PubMed Central