Comparing neonatal morbidity and mortality estimates across specialty in periviable counseling

Abstract

Objective

To describe and compare estimates of neonatal morbidity and mortality communicated by neonatologists and obstetricians in simulated periviable counseling encounters. Methods

A simulation-based study of 16 obstetricians (OBs) and 15 neonatologists counseling standardized patients portraying pregnant women with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. Two investigators tabulated all instances of numerically-described risk estimates across individuals and by specialty. Results

Overall, 12/15 (80%) neonatologists utilized numeric estimates of survival; 6/16 (38%) OBs did. OBs frequently deferred the discussion of “exact numbers” to neonatologists. The twelve neonatologists provided 13 unique numeric estimates, ranging from 3% to 50% survival. Half of those neonatologists provided 2-3 different estimates in a single encounter. By comparison, six OBs provided 4 unique survival estimates (“50%”, “30-40%”, “1/3-1/2”, “<10%”). Only 2/15 (13%) neonatologists provided numeric estimates of survival without impairment. None of the neonatologists used the term ‘intact’ survival, while 5 OBs did. Three neonatologists gave numeric estimates of long-term disability and one OB did. Conclusion

We found substantial variation in estimates and noteworthy omissions of discussions related to long-term morbidity. Across specialties, we noted inconsistencies in the use and meaning of terms like ‘intact survival.’ More tools and training are needed to improve the quality and consistency of periviable risk-communication.