From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Variations in Mortality Rates at Neonatal ICUs

Significant differences in neonatal mortality at different centers could help us find ways to improve practice.

Data from the Canadian neonatal network allowed researchers to examine the deaths of 19,265 infants who were admitted to 17 tertiary level neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) between January 1996 and October 1997. Using multivariate analysis, the researchers were able to adjust for risk factors associated with baseline population characteristics and severity of illness at the time of admission; this approach enabled meaningful comparison of variations in mortality rates among the NICUs.

The overall mortality was 4%; 40% of deaths occurred within 2 days of NICU admission. Five-minute Apgar scores and severity of illness on admission (according to the Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology-II [SNAP-II]) provided the best means of evaluating the equivalence of illness severity. There was significant variation in the risk-adjusted mortality among the NICUs (range, 1.6%-5.5%). Preterm birth, birth at a hospital other than the one in which the NICU is located, and congenital anomalies were the variables most often associated with death in the NICU.

Comment: Canada's healthcare system provides an ideal opportunity for comparing different centers. SNAP-II is a useful tool for comparing outcomes at the individual centers and for evaluating specific practices that affect outcomes. This approach can help institutions determine whether changes in their practices could improve care.

— Judith G. Hall, OC, MD

Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine May 28, 2002

Citation(s):

Sankaran K et al. Variations in mortality rates among Canadian neonatal intensive care units. CMAJ 2002 Jan 22; 166:173-8.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Sign-In

Forgot your password? Login via Athens
or your institution

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2002. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.