Niveaux de preuves versus pratiques cliniques : l’exemple de l’extrême prématurité

Developing routinely recorded clinical data from electronic patient records as a national resource to improve neonatal health care: the Medicines for Neonates research programme

Background

Clinical data offer the potential to advance patient care. Neonatal specialised care is a high-cost NHS service received by approximately 80,000 newborn infants each year.

Objectives

(1) To develop the use of routinely recorded operational clinical data from electronic patient records (EPRs), secure national coverage, evaluate and improve the quality of clinical data, and develop their use as a national resource to improve neonatal health care and outcomes. To test the hypotheses that (2) clinical and research data are of comparable quality, (3) routine NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years reliably identifies children with neurodevelopmental impairment and (4) trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be reliably conducted using clinical data. (5) To test methods to link NHS data sets and (6) to evaluate parent views of personal data in research.

Design

Six inter-related workstreams; quarterly extractions of predefined data from neonatal EPRs; and approvals from the National Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group, Caldicott Guardians and lead neonatal clinicians of participating NHS trusts.

Setting

NHS neonatal units.

Participants

Neonatal clinical teams; parents of babies admitted to NHS neonatal units.

Interventions

In workstream 3, we employed the Bayley-III scales to evaluate neurodevelopmental status and the Quantitative Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) to evaluate social communication skills. In workstream 6, we recruited parents with previous experience of a child in neonatal care to assist in the design of a questionnaire directed at the parents of infants admitted to neonatal units.

Data sources

Data were extracted from the EPR of admissions to NHS neonatal units.

Main outcome measures

We created a National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) containing a defined extract from real-time, point-of-care, clinician-entered EPRs from all NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland (n = 200), established a UK Neonatal Collaborative of all NHS trusts providing neonatal specialised care, and created a new NHS information standard: the Neonatal Data Set (ISB 1595) (see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1595/amd-32–2012/index_html; accessed 25 June 2018).

Results

We found low discordance between clinical (NNRD) and research data for most important infant and maternal characteristics, and higher prevalence of clinical outcomes. Compared with research assessments, NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years has lower sensitivity but higher specificity for identifying children with neurodevelopmental impairment. Completeness and quality are higher for clinical than for administrative NHS data; linkage is feasible and substantially enhances data quality and scope. The majority of hospital resource inputs for economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be extracted reliably from the NNRD. In general, there is strong parent support for sharing routine clinical data for research purposes.

Limitations

We were only able to include data from all English neonatal units from 2012 onwards and conduct only limited cross validation of NNRD data directly against data in paper case notes. We were unable to conduct qualitative analyses of parent perspectives. We were also only able to assess the utility of trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions using a single trial. We suggest that results should be validated against other trials.

Conclusions

We show that it is possible to obtain research-standard data from neonatal EPRs, and achieve complete population coverage, but we highlight the importance of implementing systematic examination of NHS data quality and completeness and testing methods to improve these measures. Currently available EPR data do not enable ascertainment of neurodevelopmental outcomes reliably in very preterm infants. Measures to maintain high quality and completeness of clinical and administrative data are important health service goals. As parent support for sharing clinical data for research is underpinned by strong altruistic motivation, improving wider public understanding of benefits may enhance informed decision-making.

Future work

We aim to implement a new paradigm for newborn health care in which continuous incremental improvement is achieved efficiently and cost-effectively by close integration of evidence generation with clinical care through the use of high-quality EPR data. In future work, we aim to automate completeness and quality checks and make recording processes more ‘user friendly’ and constructed in ways that minimise the likelihood of missing or erroneous entries. The development of criteria that provide assurance that data conform to prespecified completeness and quality criteria would be an important development. The benefits of EPR data might be extended by testing their use in large pragmatic clinical trials. It would also be of value to develop methods to quality assure EPR data including involving parents, and link the NNRD to other health, social care and educational data sets to facilitate the acquisition of lifelong outcomes across multiple domains.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017439 (workstream 1) and PROSPERO CRD42012002168 (workstream 3).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (£1,641,471). Unrestricted donations were supplied by Abbott Laboratories (Maidenhead, UK: £35,000), Nutricia Research Foundation (Schiphol, the Netherlands: £15,000), GE Healthcare (Amersham, UK: £1000). A grant to support the use of routinely collected, standardised, electronic clinical data for audit, management and multidisciplinary feedback in neonatal medicine was received from the Department of Health and Social Care (£135,494).

A systematic review of administrative and clinical databases of infants admitted to neonatal units

OBJECTIVES

High quality information, increasingly captured in clinical databases, is a useful resource for evaluating and improving newborn care. We conducted a systematic review to identify neonatal databases, and define their characteristics.

METHODS

We followed a preregistered protocol using MesH terms to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and OVID Maternity and Infant Care Databases for articles identifying patient level databases covering more than one neonatal unit. Full-text articles were reviewed and information extracted on geographical coverage, criteria for inclusion, data source, and maternal and infant characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 82 databases from 2037 publications. Of the country-specific databases there were 39 regional and 39 national. Sixty databases restricted entries to neonatal unit admissions by birth characteristic or insurance cover; 22 had no restrictions. Data were captured specifically for 53 databases; 21 administrative sources; 8 clinical sources. Two clinical databases hold the largest range of data on patient characteristics, USA's Pediatrix BabySteps Clinical Data Warehouse and UK's National Neonatal Research Database.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of neonatal databases exist that have potential to contribute to evaluating neonatal care. The majority is created by entering data specifically for the database, duplicating information likely already captured in other administrative and clinical patient records. This repetitive data entry represents an unnecessary burden in an environment where electronic patient records are increasingly used. Standardisation of data items is necessary to facilitate linkage within and between countries.

[Variables determining the amount of care for very preterm neonates: the concept of medical stance]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the amount of medical interventions on very preterm neonates (24-31 weeks of gestation) in two French university tertiary care centers, one of which is involved in a Neonatal Developmental Care program. A secondary objective is to assess whether this difference in medical interventions can be linked to a difference in mortality and morbidity rates.

METHODS

We prospectively included all very preterm neonates free from lethal malformation born live in these two centers between 2006 and 2010. These inclusion criteria were met by 1286 patients, for whom we compared the rate of five selected medical interventions: birth by caesarean section, chest intubation in the delivery room, surfactant therapy, pharmacological treatment of patent ductus arteriosus, and red blood cell transfusion.

RESULTS

The rates of the five medical interventions were systematically lower in the center that is involved in Neonatal Developmental Care. There was no significant difference in survival at discharge with no severe cerebral ultrasound scan abnormalities between the two centers. There were, however, significantly higher rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and nosocomial sepsis and longer hospital stays when the patients were not involved in a Neonatal Developmental Care program.

DISCUSSION

This benchmarking study shows that in France, in the first decade of the 21st century, there are as many ways to handle very preterm neonates as there are centers in which they are born. This brings to light the concept of medical stance, which is the general care approach prior to the treatment itself. This medical stance creates the overall framework for the staff's decision-making regarding neonate care. The different parameters structuring medical stance are discussed. Moreover, this study raises the problematic issue of the aftermath of benchmarking studies when the conclusion is an increase of morbidity in cases where procedure leads to more interventions.