Jochen Profit1, Marc A Kowalkowski2, John A F Zupancic3, Kenneth Pietz4, Peter Richardson4, David Draper5, Sylvia J Hysong3, Eric J Thomas6, Laura A Petersen3, Jeffrey B Gould7. 1. Perinatal Epidemiology and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital; Palo Alto, California;California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative; Palo Alto, California; profit@stanford.edu. 2. Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina; 3. Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts;Division of Newborn Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 4. Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas;Houston Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Health Policy and Quality Program, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center; Houston, Texas; 5. Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Baskin School of Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California;eBay Research Labs, San Jose, California; 6. University of Texas at Houston - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas. 7. Perinatal Epidemiology and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital; Palo Alto, California;California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative; Palo Alto, California;
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: NICUs vary in the quality of care delivered to very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. NICU performance on 1 measure of quality only modestly predicts performance on others. Composite measurement of quality of care delivery may provide a more comprehensive assessment of quality. The objective of our study was to develop a robust composite indicator of quality of NICU care provided to VLBW infants that accurately discriminates performance among NICUs. METHODS: We developed a composite indicator, Baby-MONITOR, based on 9 measures of quality chosen by a panel of experts. Measures were standardized, equally weighted, and averaged. We used the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative database to perform across-sectional analysis of care given to VLBW infants between 2004 and 2010. Performance on the Baby-MONITOR is not an absolute marker of quality but indicates overall performance relative to that of the other NICUs. We used sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the composite indicator, by varying assumptions and methods. RESULTS: Our sample included 9023 VLBW infants in 22 California regional NICUs. We found significant variations within and between NICUs on measured components of the Baby-MONITOR. Risk-adjusted composite scores discriminated performance among this sample of NICUs. Sensitivity analysis that included different approaches to normalization, weighting, and aggregation of individual measures showed the Baby-MONITOR to be robust (r = 0.89-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The Baby-MONITOR may be a useful tool to comprehensively assess the quality of care delivered by NICUs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: NICUs vary in the quality of care delivered to very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. NICU performance on 1 measure of quality only modestly predicts performance on others. Composite measurement of quality of care delivery may provide a more comprehensive assessment of quality. The objective of our study was to develop a robust composite indicator of quality of NICU care provided to VLBW infants that accurately discriminates performance among NICUs. METHODS: We developed a composite indicator, Baby-MONITOR, based on 9 measures of quality chosen by a panel of experts. Measures were standardized, equally weighted, and averaged. We used the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative database to perform across-sectional analysis of care given to VLBW infants between 2004 and 2010. Performance on the Baby-MONITOR is not an absolute marker of quality but indicates overall performance relative to that of the other NICUs. We used sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the composite indicator, by varying assumptions and methods. RESULTS: Our sample included 9023 VLBW infants in 22 California regional NICUs. We found significant variations within and between NICUs on measured components of the Baby-MONITOR. Risk-adjusted composite scores discriminated performance among this sample of NICUs. Sensitivity analysis that included different approaches to normalization, weighting, and aggregation of individual measures showed the Baby-MONITOR to be robust (r = 0.89-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The Baby-MONITOR may be a useful tool to comprehensively assess the quality of care delivered by NICUs.
Authors: Eric D Peterson; Elizabeth R Delong; Frederick A Masoudi; Sean M O'Brien; Pamela N Peterson; John S Rumsfeld; David M Shahian; Richard E Shaw; David C Goff; Kathleen Grady; Lee A Green; Kathy J Jenkins; Ann Loth; Martha J Radford Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elizabeth H Bradley; Jeph Herrin; Brian Elbel; Robert L McNamara; David J Magid; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Yongfei Wang; Sharon-Lise T Normand; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Profit; J B Gould; J A F Zupancic; A R Stark; K M Wall; M A Kowalkowski; M Mei; K Pietz; E J Thomas; L A Petersen Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: T P Meehan; M J Fine; H M Krumholz; J D Scinto; D H Galusha; J T Mockalis; G F Weber; M K Petrillo; P M Houck; J M Fine Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-12-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gabriel J Escobar; John D Greene; Peter Scheirer; Marla N Gardner; David Draper; Patricia Kipnis Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jochen Profit; Jeffrey B Gould; David Draper; John A F Zupancic; Marc A Kowalkowski; LeChauncy Woodard; Kenneth Pietz; Laura A Petersen Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Jochen Profit; Jeffrey B Gould; Mihoko Bennett; Benjamin A Goldstein; David Draper; Ciaran S Phibbs; Henry C Lee Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jochen Profit; Jeffrey B Gould; Mihoko Bennett; Benjamin A Goldstein; David Draper; Ciaran S Phibbs; Henry C Lee Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jessica Liu; Margaret G Parker; Tianyao Lu; Shannon M Conroy; John Oehlert; Henry C Lee; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco; Jochen Profit Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Jessica Liu; Charlotte Sakarovitch; Krista Sigurdson; Henry C Lee; Jochen Profit Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jochen Profit; Paul J Sharek; Peiyi Kan; Joseph Rigdon; Manisha Desai; Courtney C Nisbet; Daniel S Tawfik; Eric J Thomas; Henry C Lee; J Bryan Sexton Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Susan Gachau; Edmund Njeru Njagi; Nelson Owuor; Paul Mwaniki; Matteo Quartagno; Rachel Sarguta; Mike English; Philip Ayieko Journal: J Appl Stat Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 1.416