1 / 23

Medically Involved Infants in the Early Intervention Program: Implications for Policy

Medically Involved Infants in the Early Intervention Program: Implications for Policy. Roy Grant MA 1 Molly Nozyce PhD 2 (1) The Children’s Health Fund (2) Jacobi Medical Center New York, New York. Early Intervention (EI) Program.

leia
Download Presentation

Medically Involved Infants in the Early Intervention Program: Implications for Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Medically Involved Infants in the Early Intervention Program: Implications for Policy Roy Grant MA1 Molly Nozyce PhD2 (1) The Children’s Health Fund (2) Jacobi Medical Center New York, New York

  2. Early Intervention (EI) Program • Authorized under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) • Entitlement to developmental screening, evaluation and services for infants and toddlers birth to 36 months of age • Focus on infants – earliest identification and referral for developmental delay

  3. Early Intervention (EI) Program, 2 • Eligibility is based on developmental status OR • Diagnosis of a medical condition with a high probability of developmental delay • Pediatricians and other health care providers are “primary referral sources” required to refer infants and toddlers with suspected developmental delay to their local EI Program

  4. Early Intervention (EI) Program, 3 • EI evaluations and services are generally provided at home or community settings, rarely in hospitals or other health facilities • EI providers are generally not affiliated with health care systems or networks • This situation frequently leads to fragmentation of developmental intervention from health care services – even if a pediatrician made the developmental referral

  5. Goals of this study • Describe medical issues affecting infants and toddlers referred by their pediatrician for EI evaluation • Describe developmental status of referred infants and toddlers • Discuss implications of these findings for EI programs and policy • Discuss implications of these findings for pediatric practices

  6. Outline of the study • Cohort: 575 infants and toddlers consecutively evaluated following pediatrician referral to determine EI eligibility • Setting: a NYC tertiary care teaching hospital • Methods: chart review; consultation with referring pediatricians; coded data analyzed in SPSS • Consistent multi-disciplinary evaluation protocol • Included neurodevelopmental assessment; testing with norm-referenced instruments unless contra-indicated; social work assessment; informed clinical opinion • Comparison later made for a subset of this cohort with similarly referred patients evaluated at a community hospital

  7. Tertiary care hospital cohort:demographics (N=575) • Mean age at evaluation: 20 months (range, 2 – 35 months) • Gender: male, 62%; female: 38% • Poverty: 66% at or below FPL • Defined as median household income for zip code of residence at or below federal poverty level (FPL) based on U.S. Census Bureau data • Medicaid not a reliable proxy in this population because of “special needs” eligibility status independent of income eligibility

  8. Age distribution

  9. Tertiary care cohort results: medical involvement • Medically involved: 57% • Prematurity: 16% • Genetic syndrome / inborn metabolic disorder: 11% • Organ system anomaly: 13% • Neurological disorder: 16% • Infectious disease: 2% • More common medical conditions were excluded, e.g., otitis media, asthma, pneumonia

  10. Medical involvement categories: examples • Prematurity: ~75% were “extreme” (gestation< 26 weeks and/or BW< 1000 g); perinatal morbidities included BPD, ROP, grade 3 or 4 IVH • Genetic syndrome / inborn metabolic disorder: Down, DiGeorge, Sotos syndromes / galactosemia, prune belly syndrome • Organ system anomaly: hypoplastic left heart, tetralogy of fallot, biliary atresia • Neurological disorder: epilepsy, cerebral palsy, microcephaly, sensorineural hearing loss • Infectious disease: congenital syphilis, meningitis, CMV

  11. Medical involvement by age

  12. Developmental status • Testing included Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID; N=490) and PT, OT, Sp-L evaluations as needed • 30% had a BSID Mental Development Index (MDI) >3 standard deviations (SD) below the mean • The mean MDI was >2 SD below the mean • Children in poverty households had a significantly lower mean MDI (p<0.05) • Children with [poverty and no medical involvement] had a lower mean MDI than children with [medical involvement and no poverty] (not significant) • 17% of children 18 months and older were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

  13. Community comparison: method • To control for tertiary care sample bias, a subset was compared with a cohort of infants and toddlers referred by their pediatrician and evaluated at a community hospital • The tertiary care hospital was a regional pediatric surgery and transplant center • Multi-disciplinary evaluation protocol and data capture were similar • The tertiary care comparison subset was comprised of the most recently evaluated patients • Referral and evaluation period was matched for the two cohorts

  14. Results: demographics (N=221) • Distribution: tertiary care cohort, n=128; community hospital cohort, n=93 • Neither gender nor age differed significantly between the two cohorts • Mean age=23 months • Significantly higher percentage of community hospital patients lived in poor households (85% to 68%, p<0.05)

  15. Results: medical involvement and developmental status • Significantly lower overall degree of medical involvement in community hospital cohort (p<0.05) • However, the difference was not significant for age <18 months • Most frequent medical diagnosis: prematurity with perinatal morbidities • Significantly lower developmental status in community hospital cohort compared to tertiary care cohort (p<0.05)

  16. Conclusions • Among infants and toddlers through18 months of age, there is a significant association between medical involvement and developmental delay • The most frequently occurring medical diagnosis is prematurity with perinatal morbidities • A wide range of serious medical conditions is associated with developmental delay among EI referred patients from a tertiary care hospital • Poverty is a major risk factor for delayed development, comparable in potential impact to biomedical risk factors

  17. Implications for policy & practice: Early Intervention Programs • The special needs of medically involved infants and toddlers must be met when providing EI assessment and intervention • Examples: • Ensuring safe handling of medically fragile infants • Facilitating access to medical diagnoses, e.g., cerebral palsy, hearing loss • Government lead agencies for EI Programs should ensure that their EI workforce includes personnel specially trained to work with high-risk infants

  18. Implications for policy & practice: coordination of care • Developmental intervention in EI Programs should be coordinated with medical care for these young children with special health care needs (CSHCN) • The “medical home” model was developed to describe optimal care for CSHCN • Elements of medical home include care that is comprehensive, coordinated, continuous, and culturally effective • Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1545-1547 • EI service coordinators should ensure that CSHCN are engaged in a medical home

  19. Implications for policy & practice: pediatric care • Developmental surveillance, screening, and EI referral should be integrated into pediatric care for high risk patients • Risk assessment should include both biomedical and psychosocial issues • Pediatricians and other health care providers should know EI procedures and become involved with their local EI Program • Recommended by American Academy of Pediatrics • Pediatrics. 1999;104(1 Pt 1):124-127

  20. Direction for future research • In this study the typical degree of developmental delay was moderate to severe, suggesting the potential value of EI services in reducing long-term special care needs including long-term special education • This should be tested by conducting multi-site developmental outcome research with long-term follow-up • Establishing program efficacy and cost savings would greatly assist advocacy efforts to preserve and enhance public funding for EI Programs

  21. Acknowledgment Other key participants in this study were • John Garwood MD, Chief, Developmental Pediatrics, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York City • Elizabeth Kucera, PhD

  22. For more information contact • Roy Grant MA, Director Applied Research & Policy Development The Children’s Health Fund 215 West 125th Street New York, NY 10027 http://www.childrenshealthfund.org/

More Related