You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Reliability of NNAP's RoP screening data
  1. Neil Finer1,
  2. Vivienne van Someren2,
  3. Saurabh Jain1
  1. 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  2. 2 Department of Paediatrics, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Neil Finer, Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG, UK; neil.finer{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307127

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We were concerned by the data in the most recent National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP) annual report (2012),1 showing that our unit screened only a small minority of eligible babies for retinopathy of prematurity (RoP). We reanalysed the data to explain these findings, and found them to be inaccurate. In doing so, we identified flaws in NNAP's data collection processes that have implications for all units.

    NNAP sets a standard for 100% of babies <32 weeks’ gestation or <1501 g birth weight to be screened within a defined period. Babies are screened by an ophthalmologist. Neonatal clinicians then upload the data onto Clevermed's ‘Badger’ (or upgraded ‘Badgernet’) platform, for analysis by the Neonatal …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NF and SJ planned the work reported in this letter. NF collected and analysed the data, and wrote the first draft of the letter. SJ and VvS contributed amendments to the draft.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.