Abstract
There are a great deal of variability in the structure of neonatal follow-up clinics and no clear standards. In California, there is an established Title V program referred to as California Children’s Services (CCS) which has a High-Risk Infant Follow-Up program as a diagnostic service to ensure NICU graduates are connected to medical specialty practices and early intervention services at the earliest signs of difficulty or developmental delay. Key to the program is a dedicated coordinator who makes certain that the child accesses follow-up services. Medical eligibility is determined by risk factors for neurodevelopmental disabilities. HRIF evaluations include assessments of complex care needs, growth, development and the neurological examination. Many ill children need EI services, but states are variable in their criteria required to access these services and many do not accept an “at-risk” eligibility category. A recommended follow-up schedule is included.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chyi, L. J., et al. (2008). School outcomes of late preterm infants: Special needs and challenges for infants born at 32 to 36 weeks gestation. The Journal of Pediatrics, 153(1), 25–31.
Peterson, B. S., et al. (2000). Regional brain volume abnormalities and long-term cognitive outcome in preterm infants. JAMA, 284(15), 1939–1947.
Loe, I. M., et al. (2011). Behavior problems of 9 to 16 year old preterm children: Biological, sociodemographic, and intellectual contributions. Early Human Development, 87(4), 247–252.
Loe, I. M., et al. (2012). Executive function skills are associated with reading and parent-rated child function in children born prematurely. Early Human Development, 88(2), 111–118.
Shaw, R. J., et al. (2013). Parental coping in the neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 20(2), 135–142.
De Ocampo, A. C., et al. (2003). Caretaker perception of child vulnerability predicts behavior problems in NICU graduates. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 34(2), 83–96.
Pediatrics, A.A.o. Preemie Milestones. (2013). [Cited last Updated12/3/20 Source Supporting you and your preemie: Milestone guidelines for premature babies (Copyright © 2008 American Academy of Pediatrics © Copyright 2013 American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Retrieved from http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/preemie/Pages/Preemie-Milestones.aspx.
D’Agostino, J. A. (2010). An evidentiary review regarding the use of chronological and adjusted age in the assessment of preterm infants. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 15(1), 26–32.
Wilson, S. L., & Cradock, M. M. (2004). Review: Accounting for prematurity in developmental assessment and the use of age-adjusted scores. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29(8), 641–649.
Luu, T. M., et al. (2011). Evidence for catch-up in cognition and receptive vocabulary among adolescents born very preterm. Pediatrics, 128(2), 313–322.
Hack, M. (2009). Adult outcomes of preterm children. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 30(5), 460–470.
Saigal, S., et al. (2007). Comparison of current health, functional limitations, and health care use of young adults who were born with extremely low birth weight and normal birth weight. Pediatrics, 119(3), e562–e573.
D’Agostino, J. A., et al. (2013). Provider use of corrected age during health supervision visits for premature infants. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 27(3), 172–179.
Albers, C. A., & Grieve, A. J. (2007). Test review: Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of infant and toddler development—Third edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(2), 180–190.
Mackin, R., Fadel, N. B., Feberova, J., et al. (2017). ASQ3 and/or the Bayley-III to support clinicians’ decision making. PLoS One, 12(2), e0170171.
Hintz, S. R., et al. (2005). Changes in neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months’ corrected age among infants of less than 25 weeks’ gestational age born in 1993–1999. Pediatrics, 115(6), 1645–1651.
Vohr, B. R., et al. (2000). Neurodevelopmental and functional outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, 1993–1994. Pediatrics, 105(6), 1216–1226.
Rosenberg, S. A., et al. (2013). Part C early intervention for infants and toddlers: Percentage eligible versus served. Pediatrics, 131(1), 38–46.
Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. J. (2006). Developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental neuroscience (Vol. 2, p. 875). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Services, C.D.o.H.C. (2017). Medical therapy program. Retrieved from http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/ccs/Pages/MTP.aspx.
Spittle, A., et al. (2009). Early developmental intervention programs post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairments in preterm infants [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, 3.
Center, D. A. (2007). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—Part C National Trend Data. Table C2 number and percent of population served, by age group (0–1, 1–2, 2–3): 1998 through 2007. IDEA 618 Data Tables. Retrieved from http://www.ideadata.org/PartCData.asp.
Dunst, C. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2002). Valued outcomes of service coordination, early intervention, and natural environments. Exceptional Children, 68(3), 368–375.
Mott, D., & Dunst, C. J. (2006). Use of presumptive eligibility for enrolling children in Part C Early Intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 29(1), 22–31.
Rosenberg, S. A., Zhang, D., & Robinson, C. C. (2008). Prevalence of developmental delays and participation in early intervention services for young children. Pediatrics, 121(6), e1503–e1509.
Wang, C. J., et al. (2009). Factors influencing the enrollment of eligible extremely-low-birth-weight children in the Part C Early Intervention program. Academic Pediatrics, 9(4), 283–287.
Tang, B. G., et al. (2012). Missed opportunities in the referral of high-risk infants to early intervention. Pediatrics, 129(6), 1027–1034.
Feldman, R., Rosenthal, Z., & Eidelman, A. I. (2014). Maternal-preterm skin-to-skin contact enhances child physiologic organization and cognitive control across the first 10 years of life. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 56–64.
OSEP. (2013). 2012 Part C child count and services data. Retrieved from https://explore.data.gov/Education/2012-IDEA-Part-C-Child-Count-and-Settings/dg4k-psxe.
KIDS COUNT Data Set. (2014). A.E.C. Foundation (Eds.). Retrieved from http://datacenter.kidscount.org.
Hintz, S. R., et al. (2008). Community supports after surviving extremely low birth weight, extremely preterm birth: Special outpatient services in early childhood. Archives of Pediatrics, 162(8), 748–755.
Fuller, M. R. (2015). Factors associated with high risk infant follow-up attendance, in digital USD citation. San Diego: UCSD.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Attachment A
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
DeBattista, A. (2018). HRIF Clinic Organization: A Statewide Approach. In: Needelman, H., Jackson, B. (eds) Follow-Up for NICU Graduates. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73275-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73275-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73274-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73275-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)