ArticleBMJ open2025
Impact assessment of neonatal care interventions on regional neonatal care capacity: a simulation study based on clinical data in the Netherlands.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the impact of selected neonatal care interventions on regional care capacity.
settingNeonatal care in the southwest of the Netherlands, consisting of one tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), four hospitals with high-care neonatal (HCN) wards and six with medium-care neonatal (MCN) wards.
participants44 461 neonates admitted to at least one hospital within the specified region or admitted outside of the region but with a residential address inside the region between 2016 and 2021.
interventionsThe impact of three interventions was simulated: (1) home-based phototherapy for hyperbilirubinaemia, (2) oral antibiotic switch for culture-negative early onset infection and (3) changing tertiary-level NICU admission guidelines.
main outcome measureRegional neonatal capacity defined as: (1) occupancy per ward level, (2) required operational beds per ward level to provide care to all inside region patients at maximum 85% occupancy, (3) proportion rejected, defined as outside region transfers due to no capacity to provide local care and (4) the weekly rejections in relation to occupancy to provide a combined analysis.
resultsIn the current situation, with many operational beds closed due to nurse shortages, occupancy was extremely high at the NICU and HCNs (respectively 91.7% (95% CI 91.4 to 92.0) and 98.1% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.2)). The number of required beds exceeded available beds, resulting in >20% rejections for both NICU and HCN patients. Although the three interventions individually demonstrated effect on capacity, clinical impact was marginal. In combination, NICU occupancy was reduced below the 85% government recommendation at the cost of an increased burden for HCNs, highlighting the need for redistribution to MCNs.
conclusionOur model confirmed the severity of current neonatal capacity strain and demonstrated the potential impact of three interventions on regional capacity. The model showed to be a low-cost and easy-to-use method for regional capacity impact assessment and could provide the basis for making informed decisions for other interventions and future scenarios, supporting data-driven neonatal capacity planning and policy development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.