Prevalence of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis in Febrile Neonates and Infants in the Second Month of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Febrile neonates (persons in the first month of life) are believed to be at higher risk for bacteremia or bacterial meningitis than infants in their second month of life. However, the true prevalence is unclear. Objective: To determine modern rates of bacteremia and bacterial meningitis in febrile neonates and infants in the second month of life presenting to an ambulatory setting. Data Sources: A comprehensive, no-limit search was conducted in PubMed using previously published search terms in February 2015 and repeated in September 2016. Study Selection: Abstracts and full texts were reviewed independently by several investigators. Studies were included if data regarding blood cultures or cerebrospinal fluid cultures from consecutive febrile infants in an ambulatory setting could be extrapolated within the age groups. To limit the analysis to the period after the availability of the Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination, studies that collected data before 1990 were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted in accordance with the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines via independent abstraction by several investigators. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence rates of bacteremia and bacterial meningitis in febrile neonates and infants in the second month of life. In neonates, prevalence rates were also estimated in the era of group B Streptococcus intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (after 1996). Results: In total, 7264 abstracts were screened, resulting in 188 full-text manuscripts reviewed, with 12 meeting inclusion criteria (with 15 713 culture results). For febrile neonates, the prevalence of bacteremia was 2.9% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.7%; I2 = 50%; n = 5145) and the prevalence of bacterial meningitis was 1.2% (95% CI, 0.8%-1.9%; I2 = 27%; n = 3288). In neonates in the era after group B Streptococcus prophylaxis, the prevalence of bacteremia was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.9%; I2 = 6%; n = 2055) and the prevalence of meningitis was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%; I2 = 28%; n = 1739). For febrile infants in the second month of life, the prevalence of bacteremia was 1.6% (95% CI, 0.9%-2.7%; I2 = 78%; n = 4778) and the prevalence of meningitis was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.0%; I2 = 33%; n = 2502). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that febrile neonates have approximately twice the rate of bacteremia and meningitis as febrile infants in their second month of life.

Discordance between resident and faculty perceptions of resident autonomy: can self-determination theory help interpret differences and guide strategies for bridging the divide?

PURPOSE: To identify and interpret differences between resident and faculty perceptions of resident autonomy and of faculty support of resident autonomy. METHOD: Parallel questionnaires were sent to pediatric residents and faculty at the University of Rochester Medical Center in 2011. Items addressed self-determination theory (SDT) constructs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) and asked residents and faculty to rate and/or comment on their own and the other group's behaviors. Distributions of responses to 17 parallel Likert scale items were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Written comments underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Respondents included 62/78 residents (79%) and 71/100 faculty (71%). The groups differed significantly on 15 of 17 parallel items but agreed that faculty sometimes provided too much direction. Written comments suggested that SDT constructs were closely interrelated in residency training. Residents expressed frustration that their care plans were changed without explanation. Faculty reported reluctance to give "passive" residents autonomy in patient care unless stakes were low. Many reported granting more independence to residents who displayed motivation and competence. Some described working to overcome residents' passivity by clarifying and reinforcing expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty and residents had discordant perceptions of resident autonomy and of faculty support for resident autonomy. When faculty restrict the independence of "passive" residents whose competence they question, residents may receive fewer opportunities for active learning. Strategies that support autonomy, such as scaffolding, may help residents gain confidence and competence, enhance residents' relatedness to team members and supervisors, and help programs adapt to accreditation requirements to foster residents' growth in independence.