MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3208346940 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.069

87 Validation of a Costing Algorithm in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Identification of Cost Drivers for Neonates

2021· article· en· W3208346940 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elias Jabbour, Sharina Patel, Juan David Ríos, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Prakesh S. Shah, Marc Beltempo

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitActivity-based costingMedicineGestational ageIntensive carePediatricsCohortEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePregnancyBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Background Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) account for over 35% of pediatric in-hospital clinical costs, thus implying that a better understanding of care expenditures within these units is the first step for improving efficiency of care. The Canadian Neonatal Network (CNN) algorithm is the first to provide case-specific costs based on resource usage among preterm infants born < 37 weeks but has not yet been validated for other populations in the NICU. Objectives To validate the CNN costing algorithm in six case-mix categories with real-time costs obtained from hospital-specific financial software (CPSS) in a tertiary-level NICU and assess the variations in proportion of cost centers across case-mixes. Design/Methods A retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted within 24h of birth to a Level 3 medico-surgical NICU 2016-2019. Patient demographics, clinical information and CNN predicted costs were obtained from the CNN database. Real-time costs were obtained from the hospital financial software (CPSS). Total and daily costs were compared between sources using Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and paired Student’s t-test. Costs were adjusted to account for inter-institutional and -provincial price variations using the Cost of Standard Hospitalization Stay from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Proportions of each cost center across the different case-mix categories were compared using Chi-square analyses. Results Among the 1795 live infants admitted into the NICU, 167 (9.3%) were < 29 weeks gestational age (GA), 193 (11%) were 29-32 weeks GA, 457 (25.5%) were 33-36 weeks GA, 144 (8%) had major congenital anomalies, 179 (10%) were term infants diagnosed with Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) and 672 (37%) were term infants with no HIE or major congenital anomalies. Median NICU costs varied according to each case-mix from $10,025 for term infants without HIE or congenital anomaly to $180,145 for infants born < 29 weeks (Figure 1). Despite high variation in total NICU costs, there were small variations in median daily costs (range: $1,312-$1,941). Overall, the CNN algorithm strongly correlated with CPSS total costs across all 6 case-mix categories (r range 0.90-1.00, p-value < 0 .01) (Figure 2). We report a consistent strong predictive performance of the algorithm in 5/8 pre-specified cost centers among preterm infants (r range 0.77-0.99, p-value < 0 .01). Unit producing personnel (nurses and physicians) consistently comprised the largest proportion of total costs (64-78%) for all case-mix categories. Conclusion The CNN algorithm accurately predicts NICU total costs for six case-mix categories. Costs per day were comparable across different case-mix categories, and unit producing personnel represented the highest proportion of costs suggesting that reductions in length of stay would be the most efficient method to reduce NICU costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→