Re-evaluating the role of the MFM specialist: Lead, follow, or get out of the way

Robert D. Eden, Ann Penka, David W. Britt, Ellen J. Landsberger, Mark I. Evans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To assess the effect of sub-specialty prenatal care provided to high-risk obstetrical patients in a community perinatal center as a function of whether consultation and referral to a Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) sub-specialist was at the discretion of the generalist, required by the insurance carrier, or by patient choice. Methods. Demographics, management, and perinatal outcomes for high-risk patients managed exclusively by MFM were compared with those managed by generalists who were later referred to MFM after problems arose. Results. Despite similar demographics, high-risk patients managed exclusively by a single MFM had less prematurity, lower cesarean section rates, fewer low 5-minute Apgar scores (1.3% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), and lower perinatal mortality rates (8.0/ 1000 vs. 47.6/1000, p < 0.001) than those referred at a later date. Conclusions. In this setting, earlier MFM care resulted in better outcomes. These data suggest that the 'gatekeeper' model of generalist to MFM might be better the other way around.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)253-258
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2005

Fingerprint

Mothers
Medicine
Demography
Insurance Carriers
Prenatal Care
Apgar Score
Perinatal Mortality
Cesarean Section
Lead
Referral and Consultation
Mortality

Keywords

  • Gatekeeper
  • Managed care
  • Maternal - fetal medicine
  • Perinatal mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Re-evaluating the role of the MFM specialist : Lead, follow, or get out of the way. / Eden, Robert D.; Penka, Ann; Britt, David W.; Landsberger, Ellen J.; Evans, Mark I.

In: Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 4, 10.2005, p. 253-258.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Eden, Robert D. ; Penka, Ann ; Britt, David W. ; Landsberger, Ellen J. ; Evans, Mark I. / Re-evaluating the role of the MFM specialist : Lead, follow, or get out of the way. In: Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 18, No. 4. pp. 253-258.
@article{712179b1a98945bb969e5b3b67b1dc5c,
title = "Re-evaluating the role of the MFM specialist: Lead, follow, or get out of the way",
abstract = "Objective. To assess the effect of sub-specialty prenatal care provided to high-risk obstetrical patients in a community perinatal center as a function of whether consultation and referral to a Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) sub-specialist was at the discretion of the generalist, required by the insurance carrier, or by patient choice. Methods. Demographics, management, and perinatal outcomes for high-risk patients managed exclusively by MFM were compared with those managed by generalists who were later referred to MFM after problems arose. Results. Despite similar demographics, high-risk patients managed exclusively by a single MFM had less prematurity, lower cesarean section rates, fewer low 5-minute Apgar scores (1.3{\%} vs. 5.5{\%}, p < 0.001), and lower perinatal mortality rates (8.0/ 1000 vs. 47.6/1000, p < 0.001) than those referred at a later date. Conclusions. In this setting, earlier MFM care resulted in better outcomes. These data suggest that the 'gatekeeper' model of generalist to MFM might be better the other way around.",
keywords = "Gatekeeper, Managed care, Maternal - fetal medicine, Perinatal mortality",
author = "Eden, {Robert D.} and Ann Penka and Britt, {David W.} and Landsberger, {Ellen J.} and Evans, {Mark I.}",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1080/14767050500246292",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "253--258",
journal = "Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine",
issn = "1476-7058",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-evaluating the role of the MFM specialist

T2 - Lead, follow, or get out of the way

AU - Eden, Robert D.

AU - Penka, Ann

AU - Britt, David W.

AU - Landsberger, Ellen J.

AU - Evans, Mark I.

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - Objective. To assess the effect of sub-specialty prenatal care provided to high-risk obstetrical patients in a community perinatal center as a function of whether consultation and referral to a Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) sub-specialist was at the discretion of the generalist, required by the insurance carrier, or by patient choice. Methods. Demographics, management, and perinatal outcomes for high-risk patients managed exclusively by MFM were compared with those managed by generalists who were later referred to MFM after problems arose. Results. Despite similar demographics, high-risk patients managed exclusively by a single MFM had less prematurity, lower cesarean section rates, fewer low 5-minute Apgar scores (1.3% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), and lower perinatal mortality rates (8.0/ 1000 vs. 47.6/1000, p < 0.001) than those referred at a later date. Conclusions. In this setting, earlier MFM care resulted in better outcomes. These data suggest that the 'gatekeeper' model of generalist to MFM might be better the other way around.

AB - Objective. To assess the effect of sub-specialty prenatal care provided to high-risk obstetrical patients in a community perinatal center as a function of whether consultation and referral to a Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) sub-specialist was at the discretion of the generalist, required by the insurance carrier, or by patient choice. Methods. Demographics, management, and perinatal outcomes for high-risk patients managed exclusively by MFM were compared with those managed by generalists who were later referred to MFM after problems arose. Results. Despite similar demographics, high-risk patients managed exclusively by a single MFM had less prematurity, lower cesarean section rates, fewer low 5-minute Apgar scores (1.3% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), and lower perinatal mortality rates (8.0/ 1000 vs. 47.6/1000, p < 0.001) than those referred at a later date. Conclusions. In this setting, earlier MFM care resulted in better outcomes. These data suggest that the 'gatekeeper' model of generalist to MFM might be better the other way around.

KW - Gatekeeper

KW - Managed care

KW - Maternal - fetal medicine

KW - Perinatal mortality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28844508914&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=28844508914&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/14767050500246292

DO - 10.1080/14767050500246292

M3 - Article

C2 - 16318976

AN - SCOPUS:28844508914

VL - 18

SP - 253

EP - 258

JO - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

JF - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

SN - 1476-7058

IS - 4

ER -