Practices and education surrounding anticipated periviable deliveries among neonatal-perinatal medicine and maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs

Practices and education surrounding anticipated periviable deliveries among neonatal-perinatal medicine and maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs


Play all audios:


ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES: To explore national practices of periviable decision-making and care, and to determine and compare trainee education in this domain, within neonatal-perinatal medicine


(NPP) and maternal-fetal medicine (MFMP) fellowship programs. STUDY DESIGN: A 75-item survey was sent to NPP and MFMP program directors in the United States. RESULTS: In all, 79 of 168


surveys were completed (47%). MFMPs reported offering active interventions for bigger or more mature fetuses (versus NPPs). Variability exists in estimated frequency of simultaneous


antenatal counseling by both specialties (range 0 to 90%) and of inter-specialty communication before consultation (range 5 to 100%). One-quarter of MFMPs reported no fellow education


regarding periviable deliveries, versus 2% of NPPs (_P_=0.002); 40% of MFMPs teach fellows about periviable ethics, versus 63% of NPPs (_P_=0.05). NPPs more frequently utilize role modeling


(_P_=0.01) and simulation (_P_=0.01) as learning methods. CONCLUSION: NPPs and MFMPs report different, often asynchronous, practices and fellow education regarding antenatal counseling and


resuscitation at periviability. Access through your institution Buy or subscribe This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your


institution Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 print issues and online access $259.00 per year only $21.58 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access


to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read


our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS ESSENTIALS OF NEONATAL-PERINATAL MEDICINE FELLOWSHIP: PART 2 - CLINICAL EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE Article 13 April


2021 ESSENTIALS OF NEONATAL-PERINATAL MEDICINE FELLOWSHIP: AN OVERVIEW Article 01 March 2021 JOINT PERIVIABILITY COUNSELING BETWEEN NEONATOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS IS A RARE OCCURRENCE Article 28


August 2020 REFERENCES * Raju TNK, Mercer BM, Burchfield DJ, Joseph GF Jr . Periviable birth: executive summary of a Joint Workshop by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child


Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. _J Perinatol_ 2014; 34: 333–3342.


Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * deLeeuw R, Cuttini M, Nadai M, Berbik I, Hansen G, Kucinskas A _et al_. Treatment choices for extremely preterm infants: an international perspective. _J


Pediatr_ 2000; 137: 608–615. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Singh J, Fanaroff J, Andrews B, Caldarelli L, Lagatta J, Plesha-Troyke S _et al_. Resuscitation in the “gray zone” of viability:


determining physician preferences and predicting infant outcomes. _Pediatrics_ 2007; 120 (3): 519–526. Article  Google Scholar  * Brownsyne TE, Krasny S, Srinivas S, Shea J . Obstetric


decision-making and counseling at the limits of viability. _Am J Obstet Gynecol._ 2012; 206 (248): e1–e5. Google Scholar  * Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Walsh MC


_et al_. Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm infants from the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. _Pediatrics_ 2010; 126: 443–456. Article  Google Scholar  * Batton DG . American Academy of


Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation at an extremely low gestational age. _Pediatrics_ 2009; 124: 422–427. Article  Google Scholar  *


American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin No. 38: perinatal care at the threshold of viability. _Int J Gynaecol Obstet_ 2002; 79: 181–188. Article  Google


Scholar  * Arzuaga BH, Meadow W . National variability in neonatal resuscitation practices at the limit of viability. _Am J Perinatol_ 2014; 31 (6): 521–528. Google Scholar  * Janvier A,


Barrington KJ, Deschenes M, Couture E, Nadeau S, Lantos J _et al_. Relationship between site of training and attitudes about neonatal resuscitation. _Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med_ 2008; 162 (6):


532–537. Article  Google Scholar  * Tucker-Edmonds B, Srinivas S, Lorch S . Racial and ethnic differences in use of intubation for periviable neonates. _Pediatrics_ 2011; 127: e1120–e1127.


Article  Google Scholar  * Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington KJ . The best-interest standard is not applied for neonatal resuscitation decisions. _Pediatrics_ 2008; 121: 963–969. Article 


Google Scholar  * Guinsburg R, Branco de Almeida MF, dos Santos Rodrigues Sadeck L, Marba ST, Suppo de Souza Rugolo LM, Luz JH _et al_. Proactive management of extreme prematurity:


disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists. _J Perinotol_ 2012; 32: 913–919. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG .


Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. _J Biomed Inform_ 2009; 42 (2):


377–381. Article  Google Scholar  * United States Census Bureau Regional Divisions (2012). Available at: http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf (accessed on


12 February 2015). * Fanaroff JM, Hascoët JM, Hansen TWR, Levene M, Norman M, Papageorgiou A _et al_. The ethics and practice of neonatal resuscitation at the limits of viability: an


international perspective. _Acta Paediatr_ 2014; 103 (7): 701–708. PubMed  Google Scholar  * Shinwell ES . Ethics of birth at the limits of viability: the risky business of prediction.


_Neonatology_ 2015; 107 (4): 317–320. Article  Google Scholar  * Berger TM, Bernet V, El Alama S, Fauchère JC, Hösli I, Irion O _et al_. Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22


and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland. _Swiss Med Wkly_ 2011; 141: w13280. PubMed  Google Scholar  * Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Walsh MC, Carlo WA, Shankaran S _et al_.


Trends in care practices, morbidity, and mortality of extremely preterm neonates, 1993-2012. _JAMA_ 2015; 314 (10): 1039–1051. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wereszczak J, Miles MS,


Holditch-Davis D . Maternal recall of the neonatal intensive care unit. _Neonatal Network_ 1997; 16 (4): 33–40. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Paul DA, Epps S, Leef KH, Stefano JL . Prenatal


consultation with a neonatologist prior to preterm delivery. _J Perinatol_ 2000; 21 (7): 431–437. Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Steven Ralston, MD,


MPH, for providing current contact information for maternal-fetal medicine program directors, as well as Wenyang Mao, MSc, for her help with statistical analysis of the data. No funding was


utilized for the completion of this project. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA B H Arzuaga *


Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA B H Arzuaga & C L Cummings * Division of Newborn Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA C L Cummings


Authors * B H Arzuaga View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * C L Cummings View author publications You can also search for this author


inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to B H Arzuaga. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no conflict of interest. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS


Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Arzuaga, B., Cummings, C. Practices and education surrounding anticipated periviable deliveries among neonatal-perinatal


medicine and maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs. _J Perinatol_ 36, 699–703 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.68 Download citation * Received: 11 December 2015 * Revised: 11


January 2016 * Accepted: 19 January 2016 * Published: 05 May 2016 * Issue Date: September 2016 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.68 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following


link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature


SharedIt content-sharing initiative