Development of consensus guidelines for classification of emergent neonatal transports using a Delphi process.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Luke Viehl, Elisabeth Anson, Vedanta Dariya, Daniel Dirnberger, Rebecca Martinez-Hannon, Tetyana Nesterenko, Shamik Trivedi, Samuel Wong, Kyong-Soon Lee
{"title":"Development of consensus guidelines for classification of emergent neonatal transports using a Delphi process.","authors":"Luke Viehl, Elisabeth Anson, Vedanta Dariya, Daniel Dirnberger, Rebecca Martinez-Hannon, Tetyana Nesterenko, Shamik Trivedi, Samuel Wong, Kyong-Soon Lee","doi":"10.1038/s41372-026-02900-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The transport of neonates to tertiary and quaternary neonatal intensive care units occurs frequently in North America, particularly for neonates requiring emergent intervention. The timely stabilization and transfer of a critically ill neonate requiring higher level of care is imperative for optimal clinical outcomes. There is no consensus on the definition of \"emergent\" related to dispatch of a transport team. However, some utilize a time frame of 30 minutes from referral center request based on illness severity and/or risk. Current definitions of illness severity and/or risk are institution-specific, lacking standardization. The development of consensus-driven guidelines for emergent neonatal transport criteria will provide a framework adaptable across diverse healthcare settings to standardize decision making, resulting in comparable data and outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this project is to develop expert consensus criteria for neonatal emergent interfacility transport.</p><p><strong>Design/methods: </strong>Following review of available literature and institution-specific guidelines and policies, a subset of neonatologists within the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium (CHNC) Transport Focus Group compiled a proposed list of emergent neonatal criteria. These criteria were divided into three categories: (1) diagnosis, (2) clinical sign, or (3) specialized equipment and/or resources required. Using the Delphi process, CHNC transport leaders voted in two rounds for consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Round 1 of surveys received responses from 31 of 49 (63%) CHNC sites and achieved 100% agreement on criteria, defined as >80% consensus of each criterion. Revisions and additions suggested by participants in Round 1 were incorporated into the Round 2 survey. Round 2 of surveys received responses from 40 of 49 (82%) CHNC sites and again received 100% agreement on criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion(s): </strong>All proposed conditions reached consensus for inclusion, falling into one of three major categories. Consensus-derived criteria for emergent neonatal transport will provide a standardized framework for triage, prioritization and resource utilization. Additionally, these guidelines should facilitate national and international benchmarking, improve efficiency and support neonatal outcome-based research across North America.</p>","PeriodicalId":16690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-026-02900-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The transport of neonates to tertiary and quaternary neonatal intensive care units occurs frequently in North America, particularly for neonates requiring emergent intervention. The timely stabilization and transfer of a critically ill neonate requiring higher level of care is imperative for optimal clinical outcomes. There is no consensus on the definition of "emergent" related to dispatch of a transport team. However, some utilize a time frame of 30 minutes from referral center request based on illness severity and/or risk. Current definitions of illness severity and/or risk are institution-specific, lacking standardization. The development of consensus-driven guidelines for emergent neonatal transport criteria will provide a framework adaptable across diverse healthcare settings to standardize decision making, resulting in comparable data and outcome measures.

Objective: The aim of this project is to develop expert consensus criteria for neonatal emergent interfacility transport.

Design/methods: Following review of available literature and institution-specific guidelines and policies, a subset of neonatologists within the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium (CHNC) Transport Focus Group compiled a proposed list of emergent neonatal criteria. These criteria were divided into three categories: (1) diagnosis, (2) clinical sign, or (3) specialized equipment and/or resources required. Using the Delphi process, CHNC transport leaders voted in two rounds for consensus.

Results: Round 1 of surveys received responses from 31 of 49 (63%) CHNC sites and achieved 100% agreement on criteria, defined as >80% consensus of each criterion. Revisions and additions suggested by participants in Round 1 were incorporated into the Round 2 survey. Round 2 of surveys received responses from 40 of 49 (82%) CHNC sites and again received 100% agreement on criteria.

Conclusion(s): All proposed conditions reached consensus for inclusion, falling into one of three major categories. Consensus-derived criteria for emergent neonatal transport will provide a standardized framework for triage, prioritization and resource utilization. Additionally, these guidelines should facilitate national and international benchmarking, improve efficiency and support neonatal outcome-based research across North America.

采用德尔菲法制定紧急新生儿转运分类的共识指南。
背景:在北美,将新生儿送到三级和四级新生儿重症监护病房的情况经常发生,特别是需要紧急干预的新生儿。需要更高水平护理的危重新生儿的及时稳定和转移是最佳临床结果的必要条件。对于与派遣运输队有关的“紧急情况”的定义没有达成共识。然而,有些医院根据病情严重程度和/或风险,从转诊中心的请求开始,利用30分钟的时间框架。目前对疾病严重程度和/或风险的定义是针对机构的,缺乏标准化。制定以共识为导向的紧急新生儿转运标准指南,将提供一个适用于不同医疗保健环境的框架,使决策标准化,从而产生可比较的数据和结果测量。目的:该项目的目的是制定新生儿紧急设施间运输的专家共识标准。设计/方法:在回顾了现有文献和特定机构的指导方针和政策后,儿童医院新生儿联盟(CHNC)运输焦点小组的一组新生儿专家编制了一份建议的新生儿紧急标准清单。这些标准分为三类:(1)诊断,(2)临床体征,或(3)所需的专门设备和/或资源。采用德尔菲法,中国全国交通运输委员会领导进行了两轮投票,以达成共识。结果:第一轮调查收到了来自49个CHNC站点中的31个(63%)的回复,对标准达成了100%的一致,定义为每个标准达成80%的共识。第一轮参与者提出的修改和补充建议被纳入第二轮调查。第二轮调查收到了来自49个CHNC站点中的40个(82%)的回复,并且再次获得了100%的标准一致性。结论:所有提议的条件都达成了共识,可分为三大类之一。紧急新生儿运输的共识标准将为分类、优先排序和资源利用提供标准化框架。此外,这些指南应促进国家和国际基准制定,提高效率并支持整个北美地区基于新生儿结局的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Perinatology
Journal of Perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.90%
发文量
284
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perinatology provides members of the perinatal/neonatal healthcare team with original information pertinent to improving maternal/fetal and neonatal care. We publish peer-reviewed clinical research articles, state-of-the art reviews, comments, quality improvement reports, and letters to the editor. Articles published in the Journal of Perinatology embrace the full scope of the specialty, including clinical, professional, political, administrative and educational aspects. The Journal also explores legal and ethical issues, neonatal technology and product development. The Journal’s audience includes all those that participate in perinatal/neonatal care, including, but not limited to neonatologists, perinatologists, perinatal epidemiologists, pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, surgeons, neonatal and perinatal nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, dieticians, speech and hearing experts, other allied health professionals, as well as subspecialists who participate in patient care including radiologists, laboratory medicine and pathologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书