Impact of service changes on neonatal transfer patterns over 10 years

Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2007, Pages

  Cusack, Jonathan ^a   Field, David ^b   Manktelow, Bradley ^b  

^a LEICESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN CARE; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; PATIENT TRANSPORT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

ENGLAND; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH SERVICES MISUSE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INTENSIVE CARE, NEONATAL; PATIENT TRANSFER; PERINATAL CARE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RISK FACTORS; TRANSPORTATION OF PATIENTS;

EID: 34247858988     PISSN: 13592998     EISSN: 14682052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2006.105098     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Parmanum J, Field D, Rennie J, et al. National census for the availability of neonatal intensive care. British Association for Perinatal Medicine. BMJ 2000;321:727-9.
2. British Association of Perinatal Medicine. Standards for hospitals providing neonatal intensive and high dependency care and categories of babies requiring neonatal care, 2nd edn., London: British Association of Perinatal Medicine 2001.
3. Department of Health. Report of the Neonatal Intensive Care Services Review Group. London: Department of Health, 2003.
4. Gill AB, Bottomley L, Chatfield S, et al. Perinatal transport: problems in intensive care capacity. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F220-3.
5. Kempley ST, Sinha AK. Census of neonatal transfers in London and the South East of England. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F521-6.
6. Clinical Standards Advisory Group. Neonatal intensive care: access to and availability of specialist services. London: HMSO, 1993.
7. International Neonatal Network. The CRIB (clinical risk index for babies) score: a tool for assessing initial neonatal risk and comparing the performance of neonatal intensive care units. Lancet 1993;342:193- 8.
8. Report of the Working Group of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and Neonatal Nurses Association. Categories of babies requiring neonatal care. Arch Dis Child 1992;67:868-9.
9. Trent Neonatal Survey Annual Reports - 1995-2004. Available from: Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester).
10. Bennett CC, Lal MK, Field DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity and pregnancy outcome in a cohort of mothers transferred out of perinatal centres during a national census. BJOG 2002;109:663-6.
11. Field D, Draper ES. Survival and place of delivery following preterm birth: 1994-96. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999;80:F111-15.
12. Tucker J, Parry G, McCabe C, et al. Patient volume, staffing, and workload in relation to risk-adjusted outcomes in a random stratified sample of UK neonatal intensive care units: a prospective evaluation. Lancet 2002;359:99-107.
13. Thompson LA, Goodman DC, Little GA. Is more neonatal intensive care always better? Insights from cross-national comparison of reproductive care. Pediatrics 2002;109:1036-43.
14. Clinical Standards Advisory Group 1995. Neonatal intensive care:access to and availability of specialist services. London: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 1996.
15. Field D, Milligan D, Skeoch C, et al. Neonatal transport: time to change? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1997;76:F1-2.
16. Fenton AC, Leslie A, Skeoch CH. Optimising neonatal transfer. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F215-19.
17. Rashid A, Bhuta T, Berry A. A regionalised transport service, the way ahead? Arch Dis Child 1999;80:488-92.
18. Agostino R, Fenton AC, Kollee LAA, et al. Organisation of neonatal transport in Europe. Prenat Neonatal Med 1999;4(Suppl 1):20-34.
19. Langhoff-Roos J, Kesmodel U, Jacobsson B, et al. Spontaneous preterm delivery in primiparous women at low risk in Denmark: population based study. BMJ 2006;332:937-9.