Dataset Information

Variation in United States COVID-19 newborn care practices: results of an online physician survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Newborn care practices that best promote the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads after birth while minimizing transmission of COVID-19 were uncertain at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

Examine variation in COVID-19 newborn care practices among U.S. birth hospitals and by hospital characteristics (U.S. census region, highest level of neonatal level of care, and Baby-Friendly hospital status).

Study design

We surveyed physicians via American Academy of Pediatrics email listservs and social media between 5/26/2020-6/8/2020. Physicians identified the birth hospital in which they provided newborn care and their hospital's approach to obstetrical and newborn care related to COVID-19. Chi-square tests were used to examine variation in hospital practices by U.S. census region, highest level of neonatal care, and Baby-Friendly hospital status.

Results

Four hundred thirty three physicians responded from 318 hospitals across 46 states. Variation in care of SARS-CoV-2 positive mother-infant dyads was greatest for approaches to location of newborn care (31% separation, 17% rooming-in, and 51% based on shared-decision making), early skin-to-skin care (48% prohibited/discouraged, 11% encouraged, and 40% based on shared-decision making) and direct breastfeeding (37% prohibited/discouraged, 15% encouraged, and 48% based on shared-decision making). Among presumed uninfected dyads, 59% of hospitals discharged at least some mother-infant dyads early. We found variation in practices by U.S. census region.

Conclusion

Approaches to newborn care and breastfeeding support for mother-infant dyads with positive SARS-CoV-2 testing differed across U.S. birth hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early discharge of presumed uninfected mother-infant dyads was common.

SUBMITTER: Parker MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8776982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Understanding Psoriatic Disease Leveraging Insights for Treatment (UPLIFT) survey study was conducted globally in 2020 to understand how disease perceptions, including disease severity, treatment goals, and quality of life (QoL), have evolved recently, especially for mild-to-moderate psoriatic disease. Here, key findings from the UPLIFT survey based on respondents located in the US are presented. Leveraging results from the UPLIFT survey could lead to more effective interactions between patients and physicians and greater patient satisfaction.MethodsUPLIFT was a multinational web-based survey of dermatologists, rheumatologists, and patients who self-reported a healthcare provider diagnosis of psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) conducted from March 2, 2020, to June 3, 2020.ResultsUS respondents included 1006 patients (26.4% of global population; PsO only, n = 535; PsA only, n = 72; PsO and PsA, n = 399) and 216 physicians (dermatologists, n = 115; rheumatologists, n = 101). Most patients (66.4%) reported a body surface area (BSA; assessed by number of palms) of ≤ 3; of these, 56.2% rated their disease as moderate or severe. Most patients with PsO felt they were somewhat (40.1%) or very (49.3%) closely aligned with their dermatologists regarding treatment goals. Alternately, most patients with PsA felt that they were not too closely (32.1%) or not at all (59.3%) aligned with their rheumatologists. Most patients reported either a moderate (PsO, 35.5%; PsA, 31.8%) or strong (PsO, 47.7%; PsA, 53.9%) need for better treatments. Across BSA subgroups, most patients (60.8% to 86.1%) had a Dermatology Life Quality Index score ≥ 6, indicating at least a moderately impacted QoL.ConclusionsDespite more treatment options, management of psoriatic disease remains suboptimal, with many patients reporting moderate-to-severe disease and impaired QoL, even with limited skin involvement. Results further suggest an unmet need for alignment between patients and physicians in the US to optimize the management of PsO and PsA.

Project description:BackgroundPatient engagement strategies can equip patients with tools to navigate treatment decisions and improve patient-centered outcomes. Despite increased recognition about the importance of patient engagement, little is known about the extent of physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies nationally.MethodsWe analyzed data collected from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS) on physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies. Stratified-cluster sampling was used to select physician practices operating under different organizational structures. Multivariable linear regression models estimated the association of practice ownership, health information technology functionality, use of screening activities, patient responsiveness, chronic care management processes, and the adoption of patient engagement strategies, including shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and shared medical appointments. All regression models controlled for participation in payment reforms, practice size, Medicaid revenue percentage, and geographic region.ResultsWe found modest and varied adoption of patient engagement strategies by practices of different ownership types, with health system-owned practices having the lowest adoption of ownership types. Practice capabilities, including chronic care management processes, routine screening of medical and social risks, and patient care dissemination strategies were associated with greater practice-level adoption of patient engagement strategies.ConclusionsThis national study is the first to characterize the adoption of patient engagement strategies by US physician practices. We found modest adoption of shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, and low adoption of shared medical appointments. Risk-based payment reform has the potential to motivate greater practice-level patient engagement, but the extent to which it occurs may depend on internal practice capabilities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care providers (PCPs) are typically the first to screen and evaluate patients for neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), including mild cognitive impairment and dementia. However, data on PCP attitudes and evaluation and management practices are sparse. Our objective was to quantify perspectives and behaviors of PCPs and neurologists with respect to NCD evaluation and management. METHODS:A cross-sectional survey with 150 PCPs and 50 neurologists in the United States who evaluated more than 10 patients over age 55 per month. The 51-item survey assessed clinical practice characteristics, and confidence, perceived barriers, and typical practices when diagnosing and managing patients with NCDs. RESULTS:PCPs and neurologists reported similar confidence and approaches to general medical care and laboratory testing. Though over half of PCPs performed cognitive screening or referred patients for cognitive testing in over 50% of their patients, only 20% reported high confidence in interpreting results of cognitive tests. PCPs were more likely to order CT scans than MRIs, and only 14% of PCPs reported high confidence interpreting brain imaging findings, compared to 70% of specialists. Only 21% of PCPs were highly confident that they correctly recognized when a patient had an NCD, and only 13% were highly confident in making a specific NCD diagnosis (compared to 72 and 44% for neurologists, both p < 0.001). A quarter of all providers identified lack of familiarity with diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes as a barrier to clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates how PCPs approach diagnosis and management of patients with NCDs, and identified areas for improvement in regards to cognitive testing and neuroimaging. This study also identified all providers' lack of familiarity with published diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes. These findings may inform the development of new policies and interventions to help providers improve the efficacy of their decision processes and deliver better quality care to patients with NCDs.