Outcomes Associated With Care Models for Neonates With Complex Medical Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonates with complex medical needs (NCMNs) are a small proportion of neonatal intensive care unit admissions but are high healthcare utilizers. Since 2018, NCMNs at our hospital have been cared for by the Neonatal Complex Care Team. This model has yet to be evaluated. PURPOSE: To inform the evaluation of our care model, we examined literature on care practices for the management of NCMNs and utilized that to define outcome measures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched. Inclusion dates: January 1, 1993, until July 15, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was used. The population was neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit, the concept was models of care, and the context was medical complexity. Two reviewers performed the title/abstract screening and full-text review. A total of 148 articles were screened, 17 fully reviewed, and 5 articles included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was completed by one reviewer utilizing resources from the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: Care practices ranged from structured discharge meetings with families to an inpatient care model. Few reported new clinical models, and long-term health outcome data were limited. Multidisciplinary care teams emerged as crucial to in-hospital care and smooth discharge. Length of stay and readmission were identified as key outcomes for clinical program evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: There is limited literature on this topic; however, we identified themes and outcomes that are useful for clinical program evaluation. Long-term evaluation of novel models of care is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".