Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Expansion of Community-Based Perinatal Care in California

Journal of Perinatology volume 22, pages 630–640 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In California, hospitals with Community Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) increased from 17 in 1990 to 52 in 1997. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of their growth on level-specific distribution of births, acuity, and neonatal mortality.

STUDY DESIGN: A total of 4,563,900 infants born from 1990 to 1997 were analyzed by levels of care. We examined shifts in birth location and acuity. Neonatal mortality for singleton very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants without congenital abnormalities was used to assess differences in level-specific survival.

RESULTS: Live births at hospitals with Community NICUs increased from 8.6% to 28.6%, and VLBW births increased from 11.7% to 37.4%. Births and VLBW births at Regional NICUs decreased, whereas acuity was unchanged. There were no differences in neonatal mortality of VLBW infants born at Community or Regional NICU hospitals. Mortality for VLBW births at other levels of care was significantly higher.

CONCLUSION: The rapid growth of monitored Community NICUs supported by a regionalized system of neonatal transport represents an evolving face of regionalization. Survival of VLBW births was similar at Community and Regional hospitals and higher than in other birth settings. Reducing VLBW births at Primary Care and Intermediate NICU hospitals continues to be an important goal of regionalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee on Perinatal Health. Toward Improving the Outcome of Pregnancy: Recommendations for the Regional Development of Maternal and Perinatal Health Services White Plains, NY: National Foundation — March of Dimes 1976

  2. Bode MM, O'Shea TM, Metzguer KR, Stiles AD . Perinatal regionalization and neonatal mortality in North Carolina 1968–1994 Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001 184: 1302–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pollack LD . An effective model for reorganization of perinatal services in a metropolitan area: a descriptive analysis and historical perspective J Perinatol 1996 16: 3–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Richardson DK, Reed K, Cutler JC et al. Perinatal regionalization versus hospital competition: the Hartford example Pediatrics 1995 96: 417–23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yeast JD, Poskin M, Stockbauer JW, Shaffer S . Changing patterns in regionalization of perinatal care and the impact on neonatal mortality Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998 178: 131–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hein HA . Regionalization of perinatal health care: a lesson learned but lost J Perinatol 1999 19: 584–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hernández JA, Hall DM, Goldson EJ, Chase M, Garrett C . Impact of infants born at the threshold of viability on the neonatal mortality rate in Colorado J Perinatol 2000 20: 21–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCormick MC, Richardson DK . Access to neonatal intensive care Future Child 1995 5: 162–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tashiro M . File Documentation of Perinatal Record Format California Birth Cohort, 1997 Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch 2000

    Google Scholar 

  11. California Children's Services. CCS Approved Neonatal Intensive Care Units (Reference Material) Sacramento, CA: Department of Health Services, Children's Medical Services, California Children's Services 2000 1–29

  12. The Annual Utilization Report of Hospitals for Calendar Year 1997: Internet and Personal Computer Diskette Documentation Sacramento, CA: State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Healthcare Information Resource Center 1998

  13. Mehta S, Atherton HD, Schoettker PJ, Hornung RW, Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR . Differential markers for regionalization J Perinatol 2000 20: 366–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hexter AC, Harris JA . Bias in congenital malformations information from the birth certificate Teratology 1991 44: 177–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8 Cary, NC: SAS Institute 1999 3884

  16. Richardson D, Tarnow-Mordi WO, Lee SK . Risk adjustment for quality improvement Pediatrics 1999 103: 255–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tyson JE, Younes N, Verter J, Wright LL . Viability, morbidity, and resource use among newborns of 501- to 800-g birth weight. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network JAMA 1996 276: 1645–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilcox LS, Marks JS . From Data to Action: CDC's Public Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Children Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1993 412

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bowes WA Jr . A review of perinatal mortality in Colorado, 1971 to 1978, and its relationship to the regionalization of perinatal services Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981 141: 1045–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shenai JP, Major CW, Gaylord MS et al. A successful decade of regionalized perinatal care in Tennessee: the neonatal experience J Perinatol 1991 11: 137–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McCormick MC, Shapiro S, Starfield BH . The regionalization of perinatal services. Summary of the evaluation of a national demonstration program JAMA 1985 253: 799–804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Paneth N, Kiely JL, Wallenstein S, Susser M . The choice of place of delivery. Effect of hospital level on mortality in all singleton births in New York City Am J Dis Child 1987 141: 60–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Williams RL, Chen PM . Identifying the sources of the recent decline in perinatal mortality rates in California N Engl J Med 1982 306: 207–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mayfield JA, Rosenblatt RA, Baldwin LM, Chu J, Logerfo JP . The relation of obstetrical volume and nursery level to perinatal mortality [see comments] Am J Public Health 1990 80: 819–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kirby RS . Perinatal mortality: the role of hospital of birth J Perinatol 1996 16: 43–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Powell SL, Holt VL, Hickok DE, Easterling T, Connell FA . Recent changes in delivery site of low-birth-weight infants in Washington: impact on birth weight–specific mortality Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995 173: 1585–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cifuentes J, Bronstein J, Phibbs CS, Phibbs RH, Schmitt SK, Carlo WA . Mortality in low birth weight infants according to level of neonatal care at hospital of birth Pediatrics 2002 109: 745–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Maternal and Child Health Branch, California Department of Health Services, for their support of the Perinatal Profiles project (contract 99-85027). We thank Zebo Gregory for her help in preparing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Jeffrey B Gould MD, MPH & Amy R Marks MPH

  2. California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Gilberto Chavez MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Jeffrey B Gould MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy R Marks MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gilberto Chavez MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gould, J., Marks, A. & Chavez, G. Expansion of Community-Based Perinatal Care in California. J Perinatol 22, 630–640 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210824

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210824

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links