Perinatal regionalization: a geospatial view of perinatal critical care, United States, 2010-2013
- PMID: 27773712
- PMCID: PMC11289569
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.011
Perinatal regionalization: a geospatial view of perinatal critical care, United States, 2010-2013
Abstract
Background: Perinatal services exist today as a dyad of maternal and neonatal care. When perinatal care is fragmented or unavailable, excess morbidity and mortality may occur in pregnant women and newborns.
Objective: The objective of the study was to describe spatial relationships between women of reproductive age, individual perinatal subspecialists (maternal-fetal medicine and neonatology), and obstetric and neonatal critical care facilities in the United States to identify gaps in health care access.
Study design: We used geographic visualization and conducted surface interpolation, nearest neighbor, and proximity analyses. Source data included 2010 US Census, October 2013 National Provider Index, 2012 American Hospital Association, 2012 National Center for Health Statistics Natality File, and the 2011 American Academy of Pediatrics directory.
Results: In October 2013, there were 2.5 neonatologists for every maternal-fetal medicine specialist in the United States. In 2012 there were 1.4 level III or higher neonatal intensive care units for every level III obstetric unit (hereafter, obstetric critical care unit). Nationally, 87% of women of reproductive age live within 50 miles of both an obstetric critical care unit and a neonatal intensive care unit. However, 18% of obstetric critical care units had no neonatal intensive care unit, and 20% of neonatal intensive care units had no obstetric critical care unit within a 10 mile radius. Additionally, 26% of obstetric critical care units had no maternal-fetal medicine specialist practicing within 10 miles of the facility, and 4% of neonatal intensive care units had no neonatologist practicing within 10 miles.
Conclusion: Gaps in access and discordance between the availability of level III or higher obstetric and neonatal care may affect the delivery of risk-appropriate care for high-risk maternal fetal dyads. Further study is needed to understand the importance of these gaps and discordance on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Keywords: critical care; geospatial; neonatal; obstetric; perinatal.
Published by Elsevier Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Wang HE, Yealy DM. Distribution of specialized care centers in the United States. Ann Emerg Med 2012;60:632–7.e7. - PubMed
-
- Paneth N, Kiely JL, Wallenstein S, Marcus M, Pakter J, Susser M. Newborn intensive care and neonatal mortality in low-birth-weight infants: a population study. N Engl J Med 1982;307: 149–55. - PubMed
-
- Gortmaker S, Sobol A, Clark C, Walker DK, Geronimus A. The survival of very low-birth weight infants by level of hospital of birth: a population study of perinatal systems in four states. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;152: 517–24. - PubMed
-
- Lasswell SM, Barfield WD, Rochat RW, Blackmon L. Perinatal regionalization for very low-birth-weight and very preterm infants: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2010;304: 992–1000. - PubMed
-
- Menard MK, Liu Q, Holgren EA, Sappenfield WM. Neonatal mortality for very low birth weight deliveries in South Carolina by level of hospital perinatal service. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:374–81. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
