medigraphic.com
Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México

2013, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2013; 70 (6)

Integral assessment of the quality of medical care in Neonatal Intensive Care Units financed by Health Insurance for a New Generation of Mexico

Jasso-Gutiérrez L, Durán-Arenas L, Pérez-Cuevas R, Aranza-Doniz CE, Muñoz-Hernández O

Language: Spanish
References: 40
Page: 441-455
PDF size: 134.39 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background. At the request of the program “Medical Insurance for a New Generation in Mexico” (SMNG), we evaluated the quality of care provided to infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) financed by SMNG.
Methods. There were 22 NICUs that were evaluated, with 19 structural indexes, 23 medical staff personnel, and 37 processes and outcomes measured by the mortality of RDS. The indexes were validated and qualified with the Likert metric or dichotomous scale. The average score of the qualifications were categorized as: “good” between 85 and 100 points, “average” between 60 and 84 points and “poor” ≤ 59 points. RDS as a tracer condition was evaluated from the birth of the newborn in level I or II NICU, during transportation and during hospital stay at level III.
Results. Below are some indexes in the “poor” categories in the following components: structure, 11 without gasometer in the NICU and eight in the supply of essential drugs. For medical staff, in 22 NICUs the staff had not read a medical article during the last month, and 17 staff members do not use evidence-based medicine. According to processes, 13 NICU (level I or II) did not administer surfactant to infants, in nine NICU they did not perform blood gas analysis, 12 physicians did not accompany the neonate during transport and several infants arrived at level III NICU with hypothermia. The latter were categorized as “poor” according to several aspects related to the administration of surfactant and in terms of mortality as the result component was higher at lower total score indexes.
Conclusions. The quality of care was poor or average in many NICUs, from the time of birth, during transportation and during the newborn’s stay in Level III NICU


REFERENCES

  1. Secretaría de Salud. Manual del Sistema de Acreditación y Garantía de Calidad en Establecimientos para la Prestación de Servicios de Salud. Disponible en: http://www.calidad.salud.gob.mx/doctos/calidad/manual_acredita.pdf

  2. Secretaría de Salud. Protocolos de Atención Médica. Intervenciones cubiertas por el Programa Seguro Médico para una Nueva Generación. Disponible en: http://www.saludzac.gob.mx/site/images/stories/SeguroPopular/FormatosPDF/SMNG/protocolos2012.pdf

  3. Secretaría de Gobernación. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-007-SSA2-1993. Atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio y del recién nacido. Criterios y procedimientos para la prestación del servicio. Secretaría de Salud, México; 1995. Disponible en: http://www.salud.gob.mx/unidades/cdi/nom/007ssa23.html.

  4. Anderson JG. Health services utilization: framework and review. Health Serv Res 1973;8:184-199.

  5. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694-696.

  6. Hsiao W. Why is a systemic view of health financing necessary? Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:950-961.

  7. Aday LA, Andersen R. A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Serv Res 1974;9:208-220.

  8. Sandín-Vázquez M, Sarría-Santamera A. [Health Impact Assessment: assessing the effectiveness of policies in population health]. Rev Esp Salud Pública 2008;82:261-272.

  9. Bulatao RA, Ross JA. Rating maternal and neonatal health services in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2002;80:721-727.

  10. Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1980.

  11. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q 2005;83:691-729.

  12. Kessner DM, Kalk CE, Singer J. Assessing health quality—the case for tracers. N Eng J Med 1973;288:189-194.

  13. Neuhauser D. Assessing health quality: the case for tracers. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004;9:246-247.

  14. American Health Consultants. Tracer methodology: how it can help you improve quality: quality pros see opportunity to identify system, process problems. American Health Consultants, Inc; 2004. Disponible en: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NUZ/is_6_11/ai_n6183790/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

  15. Phibbs CS, Baker LC, Caughey AB, Danielsen B, Schmitt SK, Phibbs RH. Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2165-2175.

  16. Rogowski JA, Horbar JD, Staiger DO, Kenny M, Carpenter J, Geppert J. Indirect vs direct hospital quality indicators for very low-birth-weight infants. JAMA 2004;291:202-209.

  17. Kaplan HC, Lorch SA, Pinto-Martin J, Putt M, Silber JH. Assessment of surfactant use in preterm infants as a marker of neonatal intensive care unit quality. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:22.

  18. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, National Neonatal Audit Programme Project Board. Annual Report. National Neonatal Audit Programme 2011. Imperial College London: Neonatal Data Analysis Unit; 2012. pp. 3-65. Disponible en: http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/system/files/protected/page/RCPCHNNAPAnnuaReport2012.pdf

  19. Jasso GL. Insuficiencia respiratoria en niño con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria. En: Jasso GL. Neonatología Práctica. México: El Manual Moderno; 2008. pp. 228-246.

  20. Pollack MM, Koch MA; NIH-District of Columbia Neonatal Network. Association of outcomes with organizational characteristics of neonatal intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2003;31:1620-1629.

  21. American Academy of Pediatrics, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2007.

  22. Lasswell SM, Barfield WD, Rochat RW, Blackmon L. Perinatal regionalization for very low-birth-weight and very preterm infants: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2010;304:992-1000.

  23. Committee on Perinatal Health. Toward Improving the Outcome of Pregnancy: Recommendations for the Regional Development of Maternal and Perinatal Health Services. White Plains, NY: The National Foundation—March of Dimes; 1976.

  24. Committee on Perinatal Health. Toward Improving the Outcome of Pregnancy: The 90s and Beyond. White Plains, NY: The National Foundation—March of Dimes; 1993.

  25. Gilstrap LC, Oh W, Greene MF, Lemons JA (eds). Guidelines for Perinatal Care. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics and Committee on Obstetric Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2002.

  26. NHS Department of Health. Toolkit for high quality neonatal services. Disponible en: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/@sta/@perf/documents/digitalasset/dh_108435.pdf

  27. NHS Department of health. Impact assessment of principles for quality neonatal services. No 4, 2009. Disponible en: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_115546.pdf

  28. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Centre for Clinical Practice. Quality Standards Programme. Specialist neonatal care. Output: Quality standard advice to the Secretary of State for Health. Disponible en: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/17A/A8/SpecialistNeonatalQualityStandardRevisedOct10.pdf

  29. Gale C, Santhakumaran S, Nagarajan S, Statnikov Y, Modi N. Impact of managed clinical networks on NHS specialist neonatal services in England: population based study. BMJ 2012;344:e2105.

  30. Brown MS, Ohlinger J, Rusk C, Delmore P, Ittmann P; CARE Group. Implementing potentially better practices for multidisciplinary team building: creating a neonatal intensive care unit culture of collaboration. Pediatrics 2003;111:e482-e488.

  31. Ohlinger J, Brown MS, Laudert S, Swanson S, Fofah O; CARE Group. Development of potentially better practices for the neonatal intensive care unit as a culture of collaboration: communication, accountability, respect and empowerment. Pediatrics 2003;111:e471-e481.

  32. Consejo Nacional de Población. Índices de marginación por entidad federativa y municipio, 2010. Disponible en: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/work/models/CONAPO/indices_margina/mf2010/CapitulosPDF/1_4.pdf

  33. Conner JM, Nelson EC. Neonatal intensive care: satisfaction measured from a parent’s perspective. Pediatrics1999;103(suppl E1):336-349.

  34. McCormick MC, Escobar GJ, Zheng Z. Richardson DK. Factors influencing parental satisfaction with neonatal intensive care among the families of moderately premature infants. Pediatrics 2008;121:1111-1118.

  35. The Joint Commission’s Electronic Accreditation and Certification Manuals. Disponible en: http://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/edition.aspx

  36. Blackmon LR, Barfield WD, Stark AR. Hospital neonatal services in the United States: variation in definitions, criteria, and regulatory status, 2008. J Perinatol 2009;29:788-794.

  37. Profit J, Gould JB, Zupancic JA, Stark AR, Wall KM, Kowalkowski MA, et al. Formal selection of measures for a composite index of NICU quality of care: Baby-MONITOR. J Perinatol 2011;31:702-710.

  38. Profit J, Gould JB, Draper D, Zupancic JA, Kowalkowski MA, Woodard L, et al. Variations in definitions of mortality have little influence on neonatal intensive care unit performance ratings. J Pediatr 2013;162:50-55.e2.

  39. Hallsworth M, Farrands A, Oortwijn WS, Hatziandreu E. The provision of neonatal services. Data for international comparasions. RAND Corporation; 2007. Disponible en: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR515.html?doc=TR-515-NAO

  40. Bancalari EH, Jobe AH. The respiratory course of extremely preterm infants: a dilemma for diagnosis and terminology. J Pediatr 2012;161:585-588.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com