PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2018; 35(10): 940-945
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1629899
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Programmatic and Administrative Barriers to High-Risk Infant Follow-Up Care

Brian G. Tang
1   Department of Pediatrics (Developmental and Behavioral), Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Los Altos, California
2   Department of Pediatrics (Neonatal and Developmental Medicine), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Henry C. Lee
2   Department of Pediatrics (Neonatal and Developmental Medicine), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
3   California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative, Stanford, California
,
Erika E. Gray
2   Department of Pediatrics (Neonatal and Developmental Medicine), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
3   California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative, Stanford, California
,
Jeffrey B. Gould
2   Department of Pediatrics (Neonatal and Developmental Medicine), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
3   California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative, Stanford, California
,
Susan R. Hintz
2   Department of Pediatrics (Neonatal and Developmental Medicine), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
3   California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative, Stanford, California
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

11. Dezember 2017

08. Januar 2018

Publikationsdatum:
13. Februar 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article characterizes programmatic features of a population-based network of high-risk infant follow-up programs and identifies potential challenges associated with attendance from the providers' perspective.

Study Design A web-based survey of high-risk infant follow-up program directors, coordinators, and providers of a statewide high-risk infant follow-up system. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe the survey responses.

Results Of the 68 high-risk infant follow-up programs in California, 56 (82%) responded to the survey. The first visit no-show rate between 10 and 30% was estimated by 44% of programs with higher no-show rates for subsequent visits. Common strategies to remind families of appointments were phone calls and mailings. Most programs (54%) did not have a strategy to help families who lived distant to the high-risk infant follow-up clinic.

Conclusion High-risk infant follow-up programs may lack resources and effective strategies to enhance follow-up, particularly for those living at a distance.

Keywords

preterm infants - health services - neonatal follow-up - high-risk infants
 

  • References

  • 1 Bhutta AT, Cleves MA, Casey PH, Cradock MM, Anand KJ. Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2002; 288 (06) 728-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D. , et al. Chronic conditions, functional limitations, and special health care needs of school-aged children born with extremely low-birth-weight in the 1990s. JAMA 2005; 294 (03) 318-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Marlow N, Rose AS, Rands CE, Draper ES. Neuropsychological and educational problems at school age associated with neonatal encephalopathy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90 (05) F380-F387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shillingford AJ, Glanzman MM, Ittenbach RF, Clancy RR, Gaynor JW, Wernovsky G. Inattention, hyperactivity, and school performance in a population of school-age children with complex congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2008; 121 (04) e759-e767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Campbell MK, Halinda E, Carlyle MJ, Fox AM, Turner LA, Chance GW. Factors predictive of follow-up clinic attendance and developmental outcome in a regional cohort of very low birth weight infants. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 138 (09) 704-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ballantyne M, Stevens B, Guttmann A, Willan AR, Rosenbaum P. Transition to neonatal follow-up programs: is attendance a problem?. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2012; 26 (01) 90-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Slater MA, Naqvi M, Andrew L, Haynes K. Neurodevelopment of monitored versus nonmonitored very low birth weight infants: the importance of family influences. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1987; 8 (05) 278-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tyson JE, Lasky RE, Rosenfeld CR, Dowling S, Gant Jr N. An analysis of potential biases in the loss of indigent infants to follow-up. Early Hum Dev 1988; 16 (01) 13-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harmon SL, Conaway M, Sinkin RA, Blackman JA. Factors associated with neonatal intensive care follow-up appointment compliance. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2013; 52 (05) 389-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ballantyne M, Stevens B, Guttmann A, Willan AR, Rosenbaum P. Maternal and infant predictors of attendance at neonatal follow-up programmes. Child Care Health Dev 2014; 40 (02) 250-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ballantyne M, Benzies K, Rosenbaum P, Lodha A. Mothers' and health care providers' perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to attendance at Canadian neonatal follow-up programs. Child Care Health Dev 2015; 41 (05) 722-733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kuppala VS, Tabangin M, Haberman B, Steichen J, Yolton K. Current state of high-risk infant follow-up care in the United States: results of a national survey of academic follow-up programs. J Perinatol 2012; 32 (04) 293-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bockli K, Andrews B, Pellerite M, Meadow W. Trends and challenges in United States neonatal intensive care units follow-up clinics. J Perinatol 2014; 34 (01) 71-74 . Doi: 10.1038/jp.2013.136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Department of Health Care Services. High risk infant follow up. Available at: http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/ccs/Pages/HRIF.aspx . Accessed November 25, 2017
    PubMed
  • 15 Tang BG, Feldman HM, Huffman LC, Kagawa KJ, Gould JB. Missed opportunities in the referral of high-risk infants to early intervention. Pediatrics 2012; 129 (06) 1027-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hintz SR, Gould JB, Bennett MV. , et al. Referral of very low birth weight infants to high-risk follow-up at neonatal intensive care unit discharge varies widely across California. J Pediatr 2015; 166 (02) 289-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vohr B, Wright L, Hack M, Aylward G, Hirtz D. Follow-up care of high-risk infants. Pediatrics 2004; 114 (05) 1377-1397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Hospital discharge of the high-risk neonate. Pediatrics 2008; 122 (05) 1119-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12 (12) CD007458
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Strickland B, McPherson M, Weissman G, van Dyck P, Huang ZJ, Newacheck P. Access to the medical home: results of the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. Pediatrics 2004; 113 (5, Suppl): 1485-1492
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kaiser Family Foundation. The California Health Care Landscape. Available at: http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/the-california-health-care-landscape/ . Accessed December 26, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar