Intensive care for extreme prematurity--moving beyond gestational age.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding whether to administer intensive care to extremely premature infants are often based on gestational age alone. However, other factors also affect the prognosis for these patients. METHODS: We prospectively studied a cohort of 4446 infants born at 22 to 25 weeks' gestation (determined on the basis of the best obstetrical estimate) in the Neonatal Research Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to relate risk factors assessable at or before birth to the likelihood of survival, survival without profound neurodevelopmental impairment, and survival without neurodevelopmental impairment at a corrected age of 18 to 22 months. RESULTS: Among study infants, 3702 (83%) received intensive care in the form of mechanical ventilation. Among the 4192 study infants (94%) for whom outcomes were determined at 18 to 22 months, 49% died, 61% died or had profound impairment, and 73% died or had impairment. In multivariable analyses of infants who received intensive care, exposure to antenatal corticosteroids, female sex, singleton birth, and higher birth weight (per each 100-g increment) were each associated with reductions in the risk of death and the risk of death or profound or any neurodevelopmental impairment; these reductions were similar to those associated with a 1-week increase in gestational age. At the same estimated likelihood of a favorable outcome, girls were less likely than boys to receive intensive care. The outcomes for infants who underwent ventilation were better predicted with the use of the above factors than with use of gestational age alone. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of a favorable outcome with intensive care can be better estimated by consideration of four factors in addition to gestational age: sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, whether single or multiple birth, and birth weight. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00063063 [ClinicalTrials.gov] and NCT00009633 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Evaluation of Knowledge Regarding Diagnostic Strategies for Genetic Diseases in Select Residents

Genetics education for physicians has been a popular publication topic in the United States and in Europe for over 20 years. Decreasing numbers of medical genetics professionals and an increasing volume of genetic information has created a dire need for increased genetics training in medical school and in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess how well pediatrics-focused primary care physicians apply their general genetics knowledge to clinical genetic testing using scenario-based questions. We chose to specifically focus on knowledge of the diagnostic applicability of Chromosomal Microarray (CMA) technology in pediatrics because of its recent recommendation by the International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium as a first-tier genetic test for individuals with developmental disabilities and/or congenital anomalies. Proficiency in ordering baseline genetic testing was evaluated for eighty-one respondents from four pediatrics-focused residencies (categorical pediatrics, pediatric neurology, internal medicine/pediatrics, and family practice) at two large residency programs in Houston, Texas. Similar to other studies, we found an overall deficit of genetic testing knowledge, especially among family practice residents. Interestingly, residents who elected to complete a genetics rotation in medical school scored significantly better than expected, as well as better than residents who did not elect to complete a genetics rotation. We suspect that the insufficient knowledge among physicians regarding a baseline genetics work-up is leading to redundant (i.e. concurrent karyotype and CMA) and incorrect (i.e. ordering CMA to detect achondroplasia) genetic testing and is contributing to rising health care costs in the United States. Our results provide specific teaching points upon which medical schools can focus education about clinical genetic testing and suggest that increased collaboration between primary care physicians and genetics professionals could benefit patient health care overall.

Editorial: Roles and Expertise

We all take on roles, probably several each day. Parent, worker, consumer, spouse, or shortstop, the roles we play are varied and complex. After one's own family, perhaps the roles of consumer and worker are most important to Family Preservation. How do we come to play these roles, and in what ways are they changing, or should they change? Often, neither the worker or family set out to play their roles, but through the twist and turns of life, the opportunity to serve and preserve a family presents itself. At a recent conference, a group of workers spoke of how, rather than having a career goal to do Family Preservation, Family Preservation found them. Many of the families probably say the same thing! In the fields of mental health, developmental disabilities, and adoption, families may seek Family Preservation services; rarely do families involved in juvenile justice, corrections, or child welfare systems look for Family Preservation. Family Preservation finds them. And thus the roles begin.