Megan Scull Williams1, Rachel Peragallo Urrutia1, Scott A Davis2, Daniel Frayne3, Arthur Ollendorff3, Melinda Ramage3, Sarah Verbiest1, Amina White1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Asheville, North Carolina, USA. 2. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mountain Area Health and Education Center, Asheville, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
Background: One key strategy to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality involves optimizing prepregnancy health. Although nine core indicators of preconception wellness (PCW) have been proposed by clinical experts, few studies have attempted to assess the preconception health status of a population using these indicators. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review study of patients who received prenatal or primary care, identified by pregnancy-related ICD-10 codes, at either of two health systems in geographically and socioeconomically different areas of North Carolina between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. Our primary study aim was to determine the feasibility of measuring the proposed PCW indicators through retrospective review of prenatal electronic health records at these two institutions. Results: Data were collected from 15,384 patients at Site 1 and 6,983 patients at Site 2. The indicators most likely to be documented and to meet the preconception health goal at each site were avoidance of teratogenic medications (98.8% and 98.3% at Sites 1 and 2, respectively) and entry to care in the first trimester (64.5% and 73.5% at Sites 1 and 2, respectively), whereas our measures of folic acid use, depression screening, and discussion of family planning were documented less than 20% of the time at both sites. Conclusions: Differences in measuring and documenting PCW indicators across the two health systems in our study presented barriers to monitoring and optimizing PCW. Efforts to address health and wellness before pregnancy will likely require health systems and payors to standardize, incorporate, and promote preconception health indicators that can be consistently measured and analyzed across health systems.
Background: One key strategy to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality involves optimizing prepregnancy health. Although nine core indicators of preconception wellness (PCW) have been proposed by clinical experts, few studies have attempted to assess the preconception health status of a population using these indicators. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review study of patients who received prenatal or primary care, identified by pregnancy-related ICD-10 codes, at either of two health systems in geographically and socioeconomically different areas of North Carolina between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. Our primary study aim was to determine the feasibility of measuring the proposed PCW indicators through retrospective review of prenatal electronic health records at these two institutions. Results: Data were collected from 15,384 patients at Site 1 and 6,983 patients at Site 2. The indicators most likely to be documented and to meet the preconception health goal at each site were avoidance of teratogenic medications (98.8% and 98.3% at Sites 1 and 2, respectively) and entry to care in the first trimester (64.5% and 73.5% at Sites 1 and 2, respectively), whereas our measures of folic acid use, depression screening, and discussion of family planning were documented less than 20% of the time at both sites. Conclusions: Differences in measuring and documenting PCW indicators across the two health systems in our study presented barriers to monitoring and optimizing PCW. Efforts to address health and wellness before pregnancy will likely require health systems and payors to standardize, incorporate, and promote preconception health indicators that can be consistently measured and analyzed across health systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
electronic health data; preconception health; preconception health indicators; prenatal care; women's health
Authors: Deirdre A Quinn; Maria K Mor; Florentina E Sileanu; Xinhua Zhao; Lisa S Callegari; Laurie C Zephyrin; Daniel J Frayne; Sonya Borrero Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Cheryl L Robbins; Lauren B Zapata; Sherry L Farr; Charlan D Kroelinger; Brian Morrow; Indu Ahluwalia; Denise V D'Angelo; Danielle Barradas; Shanna Cox; David Goodman; Letitia Williams; Violanda Grigorescu; Wanda D Barfield Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2014-04-25
Authors: Kay Johnson; Samuel F Posner; Janis Biermann; José F Cordero; Hani K Atrash; Christopher S Parker; Sheree Boulet; Michele G Curtis Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-04-21
Authors: Katherine H Campbell; David Savitz; Erika F Werner; Christian M Pettker; Dena Goffman; Cynthia Chazotte; Heather S Lipkind Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Christine Dehlendorf; Aletha Y Akers; Sonya Borrero; Lisa S Callegari; Denicia Cadena; Anu Manchikanti Gomez; Jamie Hart; Laura Jimenez; Miriam Kuppermann; Barbara Levy; Michael C Lu; Kiko Malin; Monica Simpson; Sarah Verbiest; Miriam Yeung; Joia Crear-Perry Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 7.661