Implementation of a multi-site neonatal simulation improvement program: a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: To improve patient outcomes and provider team practice, the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative (CPQCC) created the Simulating Success quality improvement program to assist hospitals in implementing a neonatal resuscitation training curriculum. This study aimed to examine the costs associated with the design and implementation of the Simulating Success program. METHODS: From 2017-2020, a total of 14 sites participated in the Simulating Success program and 4 of them systematically collected resource utilization data. Using a micro-costing approach, we examined costs for the design and implementation of the program occurring at CPQCC and the 4 study sites. Data collection forms were used to track personnel time, equipment/supplies, space use, and travel (including transportation, food, and lodging). Cost analysis was conducted from the healthcare sector perspective. Costs incurred by CPQCC were allocated to participant sites and then combined with site-specific costs to estimate the mean cost per site, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI). Cost estimates were inflation-adjusted to 2022 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Designing and implementing the Simulating Success program cost $228,148.36 at CPQCC, with personnel cost accounting for the largest share (92.2%), followed by program-related travel (6.1%), equipment/supplies (1.5%), and space use (0.2%). Allocating these costs across participant sites and accounting for site-specific resource utilizations resulted in a mean cost of $39,210.69 per participant site (95% CI: $34,094.52-$44,326.86). In sensitivity analysis varying several study assumptions (e.g., number of participant sites, exclusion of design costs, and useful life span of manikins), the mean cost per site changed from $35,645.22 to $39,935.73. At all four sites, monthly cost of other neonatal resuscitation training was lower during the program implementation period (mean = $1,112.52 per site) than pre-implementation period (mean = $2,504.01 per site). In the 3 months after the Simulating Success program ended, monthly cost of neonatal resuscitation training was also lower than the pre-implementation period at two of the four sites. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a multi-site neonatal in situ simulation program requires investment of sufficient resources. However, such programs may have financial and non-financial benefits in the long run by offsetting the need for other neonatal resuscitation training and improving practice.

In Situ Simulation and Clinical Outcomes in Infants Born Preterm.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate impact of a multihospital collaborative quality improvement project implementing in situ simulation training for neonatal resuscitation on clinical outcomes for infants born preterm. STUDY DESIGN: Twelve neonatal intensive care units were divided into 4 cohorts; each completed a 15-month long program in a stepped wedge manner. Data from California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Infants with very low birth weight between 22 through 31 weeks gestation were included. Primary outcome was survival without chronic lung disease (CLD); secondary outcomes included intubation in the delivery room, delivery room continuous positive airway pressure, hypothermia (<36°C) upon neonatal intensive care unit admission, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, and mortality before hospital discharge. A mixed effects multivariable regression model was used to assess the intervention effect. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and December 2020, a total of 2626 eligible very low birth weight births occurred at 12 collaborative participating sites. Rate of survival without CLD at participating sites was 74.1% in March to August 2017 and 76.0% in July to December 2020 (risk ratio 1.03; [0.94-1.12]); no significant improvement occurred during the study period for both participating and nonparticipating sites. The effect of in situ simulation on all secondary outcomes was stable. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multihospital collaborative providing in situ training for neonatal resuscitation did not result in significant improvement in survival without CLD. Ongoing in situ simulations may have an impact on unit practice and unmeasured outcomes.

Neonatal Healthcare Professionals' Experiences When Implementing a Simulation and Debriefing Program in Neonatal Intensive Care Settings: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training (SBT) and debriefing have increased in healthcare as a method to conduct interprofessional team training in a realistic environment. PURPOSE: This qualitative study aimed to describe the experiences of neonatal healthcare professionals when implementing a patient safety simulation and debriefing program in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: Fourteen NICUs in California and Oregon participated in a 15-month quality improvement collaborative with the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative. Participating sites completed 3 months of preimplementation work, followed by 12 months of active implementation of the simulation and debriefing program. Focus group interviews were conducted with each site 2 times during the collaborative. Content analysis found emerging implementation themes. RESULTS: There were 234 participants in the 2 focus group interviews. Six implementation themes emerged: (1) receptive context; (2) leadership support; (3) culture change; (4) simulation scenarios; (5) debriefing methodology; and (6) sustainability. Primary barriers and facilitators with implementation of SBT centered around having a receptive context at the unit level (eg, availability of resources and time) and multidisciplinary leadership support. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: NICUs have varying environmental (context) factors and consideration of unit-level context factors and support from leadership are integral aspects of enhancing the successful implementation of a simulation and debriefing program for neonatal resuscitation. Additional research regarding implementation methods for overcoming barriers for both leaders and participants, as well as determining the optimal frequency of SBT for clinicians, is needed. A knowledge gap remains regarding improvements in patient outcomes with SBT.

Blood culture procedures and practices in the neonatal intensive care unit: A survey of a large multicenter collaborative in California.

OBJECTIVE: To describe variation in blood culture practices in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). DESIGN: Survey of neonatal practitioners involved with blood culturing and NICU-level policy development. PARTICIPANTS: We included 28 NICUs in a large antimicrobial stewardship quality improvement program through the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative. METHODS: Web-based survey of bedside blood culture practices and NICU- and laboratory-level practices. We evaluated adherence to recommended practices. RESULTS: Most NICUs did not have a procedural competency (54%), did not document the sample volume (75%), did not receive a culture contamination report (57%), and/or did not require reporting to the provider if <1 mL blood was obtained (64%). The skin asepsis procedure varied across NICUs. Only 71% had a written procedure, but ≥86% changed the needle and disinfected the bottle top prior to inoculation. More than one-fifth of NICUs draw a culture from an intravascular device only (if present). Of 13 modifiable practices related to culture and contamination, NICUs with nurse practitioners more frequently adopted >50% of practices, compared to units without (92% vs 50% of units; P < .02). CONCLUSIONS: In the NICU setting, recommended practices for blood culturing were not routinely performed.