Group Prenatal Care and Emergency Room Utilization

Non-emergency department (ED) interventions to reduce ED utilization: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) crowding is a global burden. Interventions to reduce ED utilization have been widely discussed in the literature, but previous reviews have mainly focused on specific interventions or patient groups within the EDs. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify, summarize, and categorize the various types of non-ED-based interventions designed to reduce unnecessary visits to EDs.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA-SCR checklist. A comprehensive structured literature search was performed in the databases MEDLINE and Embase from 2008 to March 2024. The inclusion criteria covered studies reporting on interventions outside the ED that aimed to reduce ED visits. Two reviewers independently screened the records and categorized the included articles by intervention type, location, and population.

RESULTS

Among the 15,324 screened records, we included 210 studies, comprising 183 intervention studies and 27 systematic reviews. In the primary studies, care coordination/case management or other care programs were the most commonly examined out of 15 different intervention categories. The majority of interventions took place in clinics or medical centers, in patients' homes, followed by hospitals and primary care settings - and targeted patients with specific medical conditions.

CONCLUSION

A large number of studies have been published investigating interventions to mitigate the influx of patients to EDs. Many of these targeted patients with specific medical conditions, frequent users and high-risk patients. Further research is needed to address other high prevalent groups in the ED - including older adults and mental health patients (who are ill but may not need the ED). There is also room for further research on new interventions to reduce ED utilization in low-acuity patients and in the general patient population.

Group prenatal care successes, challenges, and frameworks for scaling up: a case study in adopting health care innovations

BACKGROUND

Group prenatal care enhances quality of care, improves outcomes, and lowers costs. However, this healthcare innovation is not widely available. Using a case-study approach, our objectives were to (1) examine organizational characteristics that support implementation of Expect With Me group prenatal care and (2) identify key factors influencing adoption and sustainability.

METHODS

We studied five clinical sites implementing group prenatal care, collecting qualitative data including focus group discussions with clinicians (n = 4 focus groups, 41 clinicians), key informant interviews (n = 9), and administrative data. We utilized a comparative qualitative case-study approach to characterize clinical sites and explain organizational traits that fostered implementation success. We characterized adopting and non-adopting (unable to sustain group prenatal care) sites in terms of fit for five criteria specified in the Framework for Transformational Change: (1) impetus to transform, (2) leadership commitment to quality, (3) improvement initiatives that engage staff, (4) alignment to achieve organization-wide goals, and (5) integration.

RESULTS

Two sites were classified as adopters and three as non-adopters based on duration, frequency, and consistency of group prenatal care implementation. Adopters had better fit with the five criteria for transformational change. Adopting organizations were more successful implementing group prenatal care due to alignment between organizational goals and resources, dedicated healthcare providers coordinating group care, space for group prenatal care sessions, and strong commitment from organization leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting sites were more likely to integrate group prenatal care when stakeholders achieved alignment across staff on organizational change goals, leadership buy-in, and committed institutional support and dedicated resources to sustain it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Expect With Me intervention's design and hypotheses were preregistered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02169024 . Date: June 19, 2014.

Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Psychosocial Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of group prenatal care (GPNC) compared with individual prenatal care (IPNC) on psychosocial outcomes in late pregnancy, including potential differences in outcomes by subgroups.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

An academic medical center in the southeastern United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2,348 women with low-risk pregnancies who entered prenatal care before 20 6/7 weeks gestation were randomized to GPNC (n = 1,175) or IPNC (n = 1,173) and stratified by self-reported race and ethnicity.

METHODS

We surveyed participants during enrollment (M = 12.21 weeks gestation) and in late pregnancy (M = 32.51 weeks gestation). We used standard measures related to stress, anxiety, coping strategies, empowerment, depression symptoms, and stress management practices in an intent-to-treat regression analysis. To account for nonadherence to GPNC treatment, we used an instrumental variable approach.

RESULTS

The response rates were high, with 78.69% of participants in the GPNC group and 83.89% of participants in the IPNC group completing the surveys. We found similar patterns for both groups, including decrease in distress and increase in anxiety between surveys and comparable levels of pregnancy empowerment and stress management at the second survey. We identified greater use of coping strategies for participants in the GPNC group, particularly those who identified as Black or had low levels of partner support.

CONCLUSION

Group prenatal care did not affect stress and anxiety in late pregnancy; however, the increased use of coping strategies may suggest a benefit of GPNC for some participants.

Group vs Individual Prenatal Care and Gestational Diabetes Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The impact of group-based prenatal care (GPNC) model in the US on the risk of gestational diabetes (GD) and related adverse obstetric outcomes is unknown.

Objective

To determine the effects of the GPNC model on risk of GD, its progression, and related adverse obstetric outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a single-site, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted between February 2016 and March 2020 at a large health care system in Greenville, South Carolina. Participants were individuals aged 14 to 45 years with pregnancies earlier than 21 weeks' gestational age; follow-up continued to 8 weeks post partum. This study used an intention-to-treat analysis, and data were analyzed from March 2021 to July 2022.

Interventions

Eligible participants were randomized to receive either CenteringPregnancy, a widely used GPNC model, with 10 group-based sessions or traditional individual prenatal care (IPNC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the incidence of GD diagnosed between 24 and 30 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes included progression to A2 GD (ie, GD treated with medications) and GD-related adverse obstetric outcomes (ie, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, and large for gestational age). Log binomial models were performed to estimate risk differences (RDs), 95% CIs, and P values between GPNC and IPNC groups, adjusting for all baseline covariates.

Results

Of all 2348 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.1 [5.4] years; 952 Black participants [40.5%]; 502 Hispanic participants [21.4%]; 863 White participants [36.8%]), 1176 participants were randomized to the GPNC group and 1174 were randomized to the IPNC group. Among all participants, 2144 (91.3%) completed a GD screening (1072 participants [91.3%] in GPNC vs 1071 [91.2%] in IPNC). Overall, 157 participants (6.7%) developed GD, and there was no difference in GD incidence between the GPNC (83 participants [7.1%]) and IPNC (74 participants [6.3%]) groups, with an adjusted RD of 0.7% (95% CI, -1.2% to 2.7%). Among participants with GD, GPNC did not reduce the risk of progression to A2 GD (adjusted RD, -6.1%; 95% CI, -21.3% to 9.1%), preeclampsia (adjusted RD, -7.9%; 95% CI, -17.8% to 1.9%), cesarean delivery (adjusted RD, -8.2%; 95% CI, -12.2% to 13.9%), and large for gestational age (adjusted RD, -1.2%; 95% CI, -6.1% to 3.8%) compared with IPNC.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial among medically low-risk pregnant individuals, the risk of GD was similar between participants who received GPNC intervention and traditional IPNC, indicating that GPNC may be a feasible treatment option for some patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02640638.

Impact of Group vs. Individual Prenatal Care Provision on Women’s Knowledge of Pregnancy-Related Topics: An Open, Controlled, Semi-Randomized Community Trial

The importance of acquiring knowledge of pregnant women on prenatal care lies in its leading to confidence and ability in decision-making. There is a growing need for a model of prenatal care that will allow nurses to provide the most efficient pregnancy-related guidance with minimum need for additional staff. This study compares the level of knowledge on subjects pertaining to pregnancy and birth in low-risk pregnancies when delivered in group versus individual settings. The study is an open, controlled, semi-randomized community trial. The intervention arm received prenatal care services in a group setting led by a nurse. The control arm received prenatal care services in routine individual meetings with a nurse. Knowledge of prenatal subjects was evaluated by questionnaires. The level of knowledge of the women in the group setting for the pre-service questionnaire was lower than that of the women in the individual group, but higher for the final questionnaire. After accounting for a starting point difference (the women in the individual care arm started with a higher knowledge score), the women in the group setting had a three-fold improvement in score compared to the women in the individual setting (p = 0.043). Prenatal care provided in a group setting may lead to better knowledge acquisition, leading to better awareness of pregnancy-related medical conditions and to enhanced adherence to recommended pregnancy tests and healthy lifestyle.