A Qualitative Analysis of Challenges and Successes in Retinopathy of Prematurity ScreeningFunding This study was supported by grant K23HD068400, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or National Institutes of Health.
30 October 2017
24 April 2018
11 June 2018 (online)
Objective The objective of this study is to identify characteristics of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) practice that influence successful retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening.
Study Design In this qualitative study, top, improved, and bottom performing NICUs in the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative were identified based on ROP screening rates and invited to participate. NICU personnel were interviewed using a semistructured questionnaire. Using thematic analysis, key factors that influence ROP screening were identified.
Results Themes found in top performing hospitals include a commitment to quality improvement, a committed ophthalmologist, and a system of double checks. Improved NICUs had a common theme of utilizing telemedicine for exams and identification of eligible neonates on admission. The bottom performing hospital struggled with education and identification of eligible neonates and a lack of a dedicated ophthalmologist.
Conclusion Structure, culture, education, and commitment all contribute to the success of ROP screening in the NICU.
- 1 Yonekawa Y, Thomas BJ, Thanos A. , et al. The cutting edge of retinopathy of prematurity care: expanding the boundaries of diagnosis and treatment. Retina 2017; 37 (12) 2208-2225
- 2 Bain LC, Dudley RA, Gould JB, Lee HC. Factors associated with failure to screen newborns for retinopathy of prematurity. J Pediatr 2012; 161 (05) 819-823
- 3 Ludwig CA, Chen TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Moshfeghi AA, Moshfeghi DM. The epidemiology of retinopathy of prematurity in the United States. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2017; 48 (07) 553-562
- 4 Foley G, Timonen V. Using grounded theory method to capture and analyze health care experiences. Health Serv Res 2015; 50 (04) 1195-1210
- 5 Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems 1965; 12 (04) 436-445
- 6 Vartanian RJ, Besirli CG, Barks JD, Andrews CA, Musch DC. Trends in the screening and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics 2017; 139 (01) e20161978
- 7 Kemper AR, Wallace DK, Quinn GE. Systematic review of digital imaging screening strategies for retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics 2008; 122 (04) 825-830
- 8 Weaver DT, Murdock TJ. Telemedicine detection of type 1 ROP in a distant neonatal intensive care unit. J AAPOS 2012; 16 (03) 229-233
- 9 Wang SK, Callaway NF, Wallenstein MB, Henderson MT, Leng T, Moshfeghi DM. SUNDROP: six years of screening for retinopathy of prematurity with telemedicine. Can J Ophthalmol 2015; 50 (02) 101-106
- 10 Quinn GE, Ying GS, Daniel E. , et al; e-ROP Cooperative Group. Validity of a telemedicine system for the evaluation of acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014; 132 (10) 1178-1184
- 11 Gschließer A, Stifter E, Neumayer T. , et al. Inter-expert and intra-expert agreement on the diagnosis and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity. Am J Ophthalmol 2015; 160 (03) 553-560.e3