Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement
Objective Compare state policies with standards outlined in the 2012 AAP Policy Statement on Levels of Neonatal Care. Study design Systematic, web-based review of publicly available policies on levels of care in all states in 2014. Infant risk information, equipment capabilities, and specialty staff...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of perinatology 2018-04, Vol.38 (4), p.411-420 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 420 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 411 |
| container_title | Journal of perinatology |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Kroelinger, Charlan D. Okoroh, Ekwutosi M. Goodman, David A. Lasswell, Sarah M. Barfield, Wanda D. |
| description | Objective
Compare state policies with standards outlined in the 2012 AAP Policy Statement on Levels of Neonatal Care.
Study design
Systematic, web-based review of publicly available policies on levels of care in all states in 2014. Infant risk information, equipment capabilities, and specialty staffing were abstracted from published rules, statutes, and regulations.
Result
Twenty-two states had a policy on regionalized perinatal care. State policies vary in consistency with the AAP Policy, with 60% of states including standards consistent with Level I criteria, 48% Level II, 14% Level III, and one state with Level IV. Ventilation capability standards are highly consistent (66–100%), followed by imaging capability standards (50–90%). Policy language on specialty staffing (44–68%), and subspecialty staffing (39–50%) are moderately consistent.
Conclusion
State policies vary in consistency, a potentially significant barrier to monitoring, regulation, uniform care provision and measurement, and reporting of national-level measures on risk-appropriate care. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5955781</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1973453281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-289568c1dec013dea795f4e255b0d5981aa42bb9236433c7087b099a15381e163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtv1DAUhS0EosPAD2BTWWLDxnD9jjeVRiOgSJXaRbvFcjyeTkoSp3aGqv--TlP6QGJl2efzuffoIPSRwhcKvPqaBeWaEaCaAIAi6hVaUKEVkVLw12gBWnBScaEO0LucrwAmUb9FB8wwMMDZAv1ax25wqcmxx3GL8-jGgMv1N3HDkOKQmumhD7F3o2uxdyngIbaNb0LGN824w-MuYAaU4dXqbJZuZ5su9ON79Gbr2hw-PJxLdPH92_n6mJyc_vi5Xp0QLzSMhFVGqsrTTfBA-SY4beRWBCZlDRtpKuqcYHVtGFeCc6-h0jUY46jkFQ1U8SU6mn2Hfd2FjS-jk2ttWb9z6dZG19iXSt_s7GX8Y6WRUle0GHx-MEjxeh_yaLsm-9C2rmTfZ0uN5kJydo9--ge9ivvUl3iWATdMgSrkEtGZ8inmnML2cRkKdmrPzu3Z0p6d2rNTisPnKR5__K2rAGwGcpH6y5CeRv_f9Q7bgKRf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2039260645</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Kroelinger, Charlan D. ; Okoroh, Ekwutosi M. ; Goodman, David A. ; Lasswell, Sarah M. ; Barfield, Wanda D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kroelinger, Charlan D. ; Okoroh, Ekwutosi M. ; Goodman, David A. ; Lasswell, Sarah M. ; Barfield, Wanda D.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
Compare state policies with standards outlined in the 2012 AAP Policy Statement on Levels of Neonatal Care.
Study design
Systematic, web-based review of publicly available policies on levels of care in all states in 2014. Infant risk information, equipment capabilities, and specialty staffing were abstracted from published rules, statutes, and regulations.
Result
Twenty-two states had a policy on regionalized perinatal care. State policies vary in consistency with the AAP Policy, with 60% of states including standards consistent with Level I criteria, 48% Level II, 14% Level III, and one state with Level IV. Ventilation capability standards are highly consistent (66–100%), followed by imaging capability standards (50–90%). Policy language on specialty staffing (44–68%), and subspecialty staffing (39–50%) are moderately consistent.
Conclusion
State policies vary in consistency, a potentially significant barrier to monitoring, regulation, uniform care provision and measurement, and reporting of national-level measures on risk-appropriate care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0743-8346</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5543</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29209032</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Nature Publishing Group US</publisher><subject>692/308/174 ; 692/700/1538 ; 692/700/228 ; Consistency ; Health care policy ; Hospitals ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neonatal care ; Neonates ; Newborn babies ; Pediatric Surgery ; Pediatrics ; Policies ; Risk ; State policies ; States ; Ventilation ; Workforce planning</subject><ispartof>Journal of perinatology, 2018-04, Vol.38 (4), p.411-420</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Nature America, Inc., part of Springer Nature 2017</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Apr 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-289568c1dec013dea795f4e255b0d5981aa42bb9236433c7087b099a15381e163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-289568c1dec013dea795f4e255b0d5981aa42bb9236433c7087b099a15381e163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209032$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kroelinger, Charlan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okoroh, Ekwutosi M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodman, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lasswell, Sarah M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barfield, Wanda D.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement</title><title>Journal of perinatology</title><addtitle>J Perinatol</addtitle><addtitle>J Perinatol</addtitle><description>Objective
Compare state policies with standards outlined in the 2012 AAP Policy Statement on Levels of Neonatal Care.
Study design
Systematic, web-based review of publicly available policies on levels of care in all states in 2014. Infant risk information, equipment capabilities, and specialty staffing were abstracted from published rules, statutes, and regulations.
Result
Twenty-two states had a policy on regionalized perinatal care. State policies vary in consistency with the AAP Policy, with 60% of states including standards consistent with Level I criteria, 48% Level II, 14% Level III, and one state with Level IV. Ventilation capability standards are highly consistent (66–100%), followed by imaging capability standards (50–90%). Policy language on specialty staffing (44–68%), and subspecialty staffing (39–50%) are moderately consistent.
Conclusion
State policies vary in consistency, a potentially significant barrier to monitoring, regulation, uniform care provision and measurement, and reporting of national-level measures on risk-appropriate care.</description><subject>692/308/174</subject><subject>692/700/1538</subject><subject>692/700/228</subject><subject>Consistency</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neonatal care</subject><subject>Neonates</subject><subject>Newborn babies</subject><subject>Pediatric Surgery</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>State policies</subject><subject>States</subject><subject>Ventilation</subject><subject>Workforce planning</subject><issn>0743-8346</issn><issn>1476-5543</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtv1DAUhS0EosPAD2BTWWLDxnD9jjeVRiOgSJXaRbvFcjyeTkoSp3aGqv--TlP6QGJl2efzuffoIPSRwhcKvPqaBeWaEaCaAIAi6hVaUKEVkVLw12gBWnBScaEO0LucrwAmUb9FB8wwMMDZAv1ax25wqcmxx3GL8-jGgMv1N3HDkOKQmumhD7F3o2uxdyngIbaNb0LGN824w-MuYAaU4dXqbJZuZ5su9ON79Gbr2hw-PJxLdPH92_n6mJyc_vi5Xp0QLzSMhFVGqsrTTfBA-SY4beRWBCZlDRtpKuqcYHVtGFeCc6-h0jUY46jkFQ1U8SU6mn2Hfd2FjS-jk2ttWb9z6dZG19iXSt_s7GX8Y6WRUle0GHx-MEjxeh_yaLsm-9C2rmTfZ0uN5kJydo9--ge9ivvUl3iWATdMgSrkEtGZ8inmnML2cRkKdmrPzu3Z0p6d2rNTisPnKR5__K2rAGwGcpH6y5CeRv_f9Q7bgKRf</recordid><startdate>20180401</startdate><enddate>20180401</enddate><creator>Kroelinger, Charlan D.</creator><creator>Okoroh, Ekwutosi M.</creator><creator>Goodman, David A.</creator><creator>Lasswell, Sarah M.</creator><creator>Barfield, Wanda D.</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group US</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180401</creationdate><title>Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement</title><author>Kroelinger, Charlan D. ; Okoroh, Ekwutosi M. ; Goodman, David A. ; Lasswell, Sarah M. ; Barfield, Wanda D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-289568c1dec013dea795f4e255b0d5981aa42bb9236433c7087b099a15381e163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>692/308/174</topic><topic>692/700/1538</topic><topic>692/700/228</topic><topic>Consistency</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neonatal care</topic><topic>Neonates</topic><topic>Newborn babies</topic><topic>Pediatric Surgery</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>State policies</topic><topic>States</topic><topic>Ventilation</topic><topic>Workforce planning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kroelinger, Charlan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okoroh, Ekwutosi M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodman, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lasswell, Sarah M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barfield, Wanda D.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of perinatology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kroelinger, Charlan D.</au><au>Okoroh, Ekwutosi M.</au><au>Goodman, David A.</au><au>Lasswell, Sarah M.</au><au>Barfield, Wanda D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement</atitle><jtitle>Journal of perinatology</jtitle><stitle>J Perinatol</stitle><addtitle>J Perinatol</addtitle><date>2018-04-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>411</spage><epage>420</epage><pages>411-420</pages><issn>0743-8346</issn><eissn>1476-5543</eissn><abstract>Objective
Compare state policies with standards outlined in the 2012 AAP Policy Statement on Levels of Neonatal Care.
Study design
Systematic, web-based review of publicly available policies on levels of care in all states in 2014. Infant risk information, equipment capabilities, and specialty staffing were abstracted from published rules, statutes, and regulations.
Result
Twenty-two states had a policy on regionalized perinatal care. State policies vary in consistency with the AAP Policy, with 60% of states including standards consistent with Level I criteria, 48% Level II, 14% Level III, and one state with Level IV. Ventilation capability standards are highly consistent (66–100%), followed by imaging capability standards (50–90%). Policy language on specialty staffing (44–68%), and subspecialty staffing (39–50%) are moderately consistent.
Conclusion
State policies vary in consistency, a potentially significant barrier to monitoring, regulation, uniform care provision and measurement, and reporting of national-level measures on risk-appropriate care.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group US</pub><pmid>29209032</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0743-8346 |
| ispartof | Journal of perinatology, 2018-04, Vol.38 (4), p.411-420 |
| issn | 0743-8346 1476-5543 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5955781 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | 692/308/174 692/700/1538 692/700/228 Consistency Health care policy Hospitals Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neonatal care Neonates Newborn babies Pediatric Surgery Pediatrics Policies Risk State policies States Ventilation Workforce planning |
| title | Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T09%3A30%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20state%20risk-appropriate%20neonatal%20care%20policies%20with%20the%202012%20AAP%20policy%20statement&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20perinatology&rft.au=Kroelinger,%20Charlan%20D.&rft.date=2018-04-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=411&rft.epage=420&rft.pages=411-420&rft.issn=0743-8346&rft.eissn=1476-5543&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1973453281%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2039260645&rft_id=info:pmid/29209032&rfr_iscdi=true |