WIP 92 - Improving Follow-up Rates at a High-Risk Infant Clinic: A Quality Improvement (QI) Study Analyzing the Medical and Social Barriers for Follow-Up

Poster Number: WIP 92
Publication Number: WIP 92.2475

Background: High-risk infant clinics are vital in monitoring the growth and neurodevelopment of infants discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). These clinics are multidisciplinary, with goals to prevent and intervene early to ameliorate the outcomes. They provide resources to support infants and parents and help coordinate complex medical care. Previous studies report that infants with low attendance rates in the clinic have increased risk of neurodevelopmental challenges. There may be different medical and social barriers for follow-up in clinics serving a high-risk population. Studying these barriers is essential to improving neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the current follow-up rate in our clinic and to examine the factors related to low attendance.

Design/Methods: This study is part of a larger quality improvement project to improve follow-up in our high-risk infant clinic, Bright Beginnings. This study is a retrospective chart review of patients discharged from a level IIIB NICU from January 2019 to December 2021 and scheduled for follow-up at Bright Beginnings. Demographic maternal and infant data, birth related data, as well as information on neonatal morbidities, socioeconomic factors, standardized measures of neurodevelopment, and healthcare utilization were collected. Attendance at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, and 18-26 months corrected gestational age was documented. The rate of follow-up at these points was calculated. Factors related to low attendance rates will be analyzed by multiple regression analyses once the data collection is complete. The results of this study will be used to design specific interventions to target these factors to improve follow-up rate at 2 years of age by 20%. As part of a QI study, the institutional review board (IRB) concluded that it did not constitute as human subject research, and therefore, it did not require approval.